a GD miracrel.....!!

Oh, and we 'conspiracy theorists', as you derisively label us, happen to have a big problem with lies and obfuscation. And that is precisely what NIST's 'miracle' is all about. NIST, acting as on organ of the Bush administration is simply trying to clean up a bit of 'untidiness'. Facilitated by the thoroughly compliant (complicit) MSM. Too bad all those 'conspiracy theorist'-professionals over at ae911truth.org beg to differ. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 8:26:30 PM

  (0+)

I wasn't ridiculing anybody in the article. In fact, I was explaining how it is reasonable for people to theorize that a conspiracy took place and how many of the arguments put forward in that hypothesis have been proven correct by NIST.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:47:21 PM

  (0+)

I happened to listen to an interview today, either on No-Lies Radio, KPFA Berkley, with a NIST spokes-person by someone I believe from We Are Change and ti would of been funny if the subject matter wasn't so serious.

Every time the NIST jack-ass would finish with some rambling response that wouldn't come near answering the question asked the interviewer would give a long drawn-out, "Ooookay,' as though he were talking to a madman he didn't want to upset.

I don't know if you caught the bit about Barbara Honegger that came out this week also. This was a bad week for the bad-guys. But Honegger's Scarlet A, as she's calling it is also huge with the evidence she says she has against some of the principles in executing the cover-up of 9/11 and the Anthrax case.

Anyway, here's hoping we're reaching that tipping point.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:03:46 PM

  (0+)

Just wondering. 

The report carries the words "draft for public comment" on the cover. That could be taken as an invitation to anyone with intelligent comments. 

You don't fit my stereotype of a crank. But you still might be mistaken. Intelligent people are frequently mistaken about many things. 

If you have REASONS for thinking an inside job more likely than an outside one, I'd like to hear them.

I'd give you a fair hearing and spend the time reading what you took the time to write.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:09:19 AM

  (0+)

Any sentient being not living in a closet can see that 911 was an inside job. Apparently that leaves you out.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:19:50 AM

  (0+)

My best guess is that YOU feel insulted that you aren't SO respected.

Richard has earned a degree of respect (from me) by other things of his I have read that he has written. I don't say that that was ever his intention, it probably wasn't.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:59:40 AM

  (0+)

The compelling evidence that 911 was an inside job is all around you, and has been discussed here at OEN ad nauseum. For an OEN "regular" such as yourself to make the comment:

"If you have REASONS for thinking an inside job more likely than an outside one, I'd like to hear them."

Well, you don't really expect to be taken seriously, do you?

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:55:23 AM

  (0+)

nearly 7 years after 9/11, many people have not yet been exposed to serious research into alternative theories about 9/11. While probably just about everyone has heard about alternative theories, given the mainstream media's treatment, likely many associate people who believe controlled demolition destroyed the WTC with pentagon missile, holograms and directed energy weapons theories and the kooks that Fox News chooses to interview instead of serious researchers, as that has been the consistent association, which is doubtless the intent, as the MSM talking heads rarely address the many other problems with the official story, even while reporting many of the facts that contradict the official conspiracy theory.

In addition to consistently pretending it's reasonable to believe that plane damage, fires and 15-30 stories of building mass can pulverize 95-80 stories of steel-frame and concrete (and gypsum, for albury) into dust clouds and small piles of rubble, they ignore the years of warning signs the FBI/CIA had received, the warnings received from other nations, that the FBI, CIA and NSA were monitoring the alleged hijackers (at least 6 reported alive after 9/11, FBI says no cases of mistaken ID), the no-brainer VISA violations, the repeated failures of standard FAA/NORAD procedures, the strange behavior of Bush administration principals and the secret service on 9/11, obstructed FBI investigations before and after the attacks, the insider trading and money trail, and many other details that should have been thoroughly investigated but were whitewashed by the commission made of insiders with conflicts of interest, who were controlled by Bush insider Philip Zelikow. 

Insults prove nothing, and may turn people off to investigating 9/11 for themselves. This article seems to be, as the author says, a summary of the new NIST report and confirmation of some things that have been pointed out by those who theorize there was a conspiracy to intentionally demolish WTC 7. It's column 79, not 76, btw. 

The article doesn't point out the absurdity of NIST's theory; that failure of a single column led to the collapse, within seconds, of the entire redundantly reinforced structure, symmetrically, at near free-fall speed. Controlled demolition can easily accomplish this, and WTC 7 shared many features of known controlled demolitions; kink at the top of the building, rapid onset of collapse, free fall speed, symmetrical and straight-down collapse, massive dust clouds, squibs, witnesses to sounds of explosions. In addition, molten metal was seen by credible witnesses in the wreckage of WTC 1 & 2; i'm not sure about 7, but the hot spots seen on satellite photos are in the area of 1, 2 & 7, so it seems likely there was molten metal the wreckage of 7 as well. In addition, there was foreknowledge of the unprecedented event; BBC and CNN both reported it before it happened, and there's at least a few different videos of people being told to clear out cuz the building would be coming down, in addition to the testimony of PTech whistleblower Indira Singh. Watch 7 coming down, see/hear eyewitnesses to foreknowledge/explosions

YouTube - WTC7 - The Smoking Gun of 9/11 by Arie - Part 1 of 2 

 Arabesque has provided a round up of some good alternative coverage of the NIST report and related info:

NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower 

 See here for more info on the timeline and people who were involved in 9/11 related events

Complete 911 Timeline  

Excellent research resource:

9-11 Research: An Independent Investigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:30:44 AM

  (0+)

Thanks for pointing out that error. 79, not 76, right. Good post otherwise, as well.

I particularly agree with you about the insults. Facts should be enough to persuade people. Trying to intimidate them into changing their views is counterproductive.

I never personally have been satisfied with the official explanation on the collapse of the towers, particularly building 7. It seems physically impossible for a building to fall that way. But then, I'm not an engineer. Someone I am very close to, however, is an engineer who actually inspects buildings and other structures and has examined collapses and such. He finds the official explanation perfectly credible, at least more so than that explosives were planted in the building.

I try not to take anything on faith. I'm interested in the facts. I wrote this article objectively, not taking one side or the other, despite the fact that I'm certainly among the "conspiracy theorists" I write about (again, despite one commenter's assertion to the contrary, there's nothing "derisive" about the article and I don't use the term "conspiracy theory" the way I suppose it usually is. I mean just that--a theory that there was a conspiracy on 9/11--and don't intend to imply in any way that such theories are kooky or nutty or whatever).

I also give other experts the benefit of the doubt. Is everyone at NIST involved in a conspiracy to cover up what happened? I mean, to say that there are elements within our government who knew about and banked on (or, going a step further, actually orchestrated) the events of 9/11 is one thing, but to implicate everyone in the government or whole government agencies is just implausible to me. I'm sure there are decent people in the CIA, in the FBI, in NIST, etc, and I don't like implicating people as being complicit in crimes unless there is really solid evidence to do so.

If professional engineers say WTC 7 collapsed due to fires, I am simply not in a position to argue otherwise. I have common sense and consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person. That's why I've always been more inclined to believe a controlled demolition took place. But WTF do I know?

The FEMA report was a joke, and I've always pointed that out. NIST actually confirms that, as I write about in this article. But at the same time they provide the first real explanation as to how the collapse might have occurred, and I think people should take it seriously before dismissing it and implicitly accusing everyone involved in it of being complicit in a cover-up.

I just spoke with Danny Jowenko, the controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands who was interviewed on Dutch TV and after being shown the collapse said it was a controlled demolition. I asked if he could comment on NIST's conclusions. He said he hasn't read the report, was very busy and probably wouldn't be able to for several months, and that he had no comment.

I'm going to continue to seek expert opinion on this rather than speculating for myself or taking anything--one way or the other--on faith.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM

  (0+)

"nearly 7 years after 9/11, many people have not yet been exposed to serious research into alternative theories about 9/11."

Well we're not talking about "many people" in general here; rather, we're talking about a specific person who's been here for at least about two years and has made about 900 comments. If he hasn't been "exposed" to "alternative theories about 9/11" by now there's something wrong, don't you think?

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:17:37 AM

  (0+)

The point in fact remains that insults don't constitute an argument. Present your facts and let them speak for themselves.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:17:38 PM

  (0+)

Implying he lives in a closet is "insulting"?

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:34:55 AM

  (0+)

Well, if telling someone they aren't a sentient being or that they are "living in a closet" because they don't happen to agree with you isn't something you consider insulting of other peoples' intelligence, then I don't know what else to say.

We just have different opinions on what constitutes an "insult" I suppose.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:29:03 AM

  (0+)

First of all, "Jeremy" (to the extent it's your business in the first place), "Brett" obviously started the ad hominem in this discussion by implying that Richard was a "crank".

Well, if telling someone they aren't a sentient being or that they are "living in a closet" because they don't happen to agree with you isn't something you consider insulting of other peoples' intelligence, then I don't know what else to say.

LOL! It's not simply a matter of "agreeing with me or not". That 9/11 was an "inside job" is now so utterly obvious, it's simply no longer open to debate between reasonable people. Thus it's clear that anyone who refuses to acknowledge that fact is either a shill and/or a fool.

Do people who apparently refuse to acknowledge self-evident facts, or fail to draw the only reasonable conclusions from those facts, deserve to be taken seriously? Of course not.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:27:51 AM

  (0+)

Harold Smith,

You imply I've somehow butted into something that's not my business.

I guess I need to remind you that YOU ASKED ME what insults I could possibly be referring to when I agreed with Better World Order that insulting people is counterproductive, and YOU YOURSELF SUGGESTED YOUR OWN INSULT.

Seeing that the example YOU PRESENTED was as good as any, I simply noted that if you don't see what you said as insulting, then you and I just "have different opinions on what constitutes an 'insult' I suppose."

You then procede to simply cast more insults.

Harold, you can huff and puff all you want, but insulting people doesn't make you look any more intelligent. Quite the opposite.

Present your argument with facts and logic if you want to convince anyone. And if you can't do that, don't waste my time with more of this kind of nonsense.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:29:26 AM

  (0+)

Harold Smith,

You imply I've somehow butted into something that's not my business.

I guess I need to remind you that YOU ASKED ME what insults I could possibly be referring to when I agreed with Better World Order that insulting people is counterproductive, and YOU YOURSELF SUGGESTED YOUR OWN INSULT.

What the hell are you talking about? Please reread the thread. You're the one who first offered your unsolicited opinion that I had "insulted" Brett. It was IN RESPONSE TO YOUR UNSOLICITED OPINION that I asked you what "insults" you were referring to.

Seeing that the example YOU PRESENTED was as good as any, I simply noted that if you don't see what you said as insulting, then you and I just "have different opinions on what constitutes an 'insult' I suppose."

You then procede to simply cast more insults.

ROTFL! So, you first say that we have "different opinions on what constitutes an insult", then you again accuse me of "casting more insults". Well if it's a matter of opinnion, and I don't see it as an "insult" and you do, who the hell are you to decide?

You go to see your Doctor for pulmonary problems. He tells you that if you don't stop smoking three packs of cigarettes daily, you're a fool. Did he just "insult" you?

(BTW, please point out specifically where I've "cast more insults", in your humble opinion).

Harold, you can huff and puff all you want, but insulting people doesn't make you look any more intelligent. Quite the opposite.

Well frankly, coming from you, "Jeremy", I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.

Present your argument with facts and logic if you want to convince anyone.

What "argument" would that be? That Brett apparently lives in a closet?

 And if you can't do that, don't waste my time with more of this kind of nonsense.

Apparently one of your fundamental problems is that you take yourself far too seriously.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:03:37 AM

  (0+)

See below. Gotta bring it back left.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:38:05 AM

  (0+)

The compelling evidence that 911 was an inside job is all around you, and has been discussed here at OEN ad nauseum. For an OEN "regular" such as yourself to make the comment:

"If you have REASONS for thinking an inside job more likely than an outside one, I'd like to hear them."

Well, you don't really expect to be taken seriously, do you?

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:56:07 AM

  (0+)

and yes I expect my offer to read what Richard writes on 9-11 will be taken seriously by Richard.  I don't know whether he will bother to put his thoughts on paper but I think he'll take the fact of my offer to read them if he does seriously. 

I also think its possible Richard might change his mind about 9-11 being an inside job if he currently is inclined to think it was by the process of ordering his thoughts and presenting them. 

If I thought 9-11 was an inside job - and I was a practicing pyschiatrist I'd have very good reasons for asserting that it was, because I'd understand how difficult it would be to make the case against prevailing prejudices. I'd understand the sort of evidence that would need to be presented. I'd also know how important it would be that the truth come out if it was true that 9-11 was an inside job.

And that this report that the author of this article links to contains the words "draft for comment" and makes this issue timely at this time would not escape me.

Yes, I expect Richard to take my offer seriously, and to ask himself if he wanted to sort his thoughts and to put them down, because he could see that the potential audience would be wider than me. But will he write anything? I don't know. People always have conflicting demands on their finite resources (including their time) and that makes their personal priorities and specific actions unpredictable. Also, people frequently don't say anything when, upon private reflection, they change their minds. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:38:14 PM

  (0+)

Because it's the appropriate response to your inanity.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:40:11 PM

  (0+)

I expect more from the readers here. Guess I gotta dumb down my expectations.

Buildings collapsing virtually into their own footprints are the consummate diagnostic indicator of controlled demolition.

To adduce a point of logic, the alternative conspiracy theorist (as opposed to adherents of the official conspiracy theory) does not have the burden of presenting scenarios that would explain what happened -- we don't have to tell a story that hangs together, but rather our job is to point out how the official story does NOT hold together. This is one of the ways: The only three structural steel skyscrapers EVER to have collapsed due to fire (whether or not induced by collision with an aircraft) are WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Now go back to your little games, haggling over what is and is not an insult. (By the way, if you feel insulted, then I'll cop to having just insulted you. How's that?)

by editnetwork (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 73 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:26:46 PM

  (0+)

To adduce a point of logic, the alternative conspiracy theorist (as opposed to adherents of the official conspiracy theory) does not have the burden of presenting scenarios that would explain what happened -- we don't have to tell a story that hangs together, but rather our job is to point out how the official story does NOT hold together.

You've failed in that regard, and since you insist, without any supporting evidence, that the NIST findings should have pointed to a controlled demolition, you do have the burden of explaining why the steel in the WTC debris was only mechanically severed, mostly at connections, and none of it showed signs of being cut, melted, or burned by explosives or incendiaries. Go for it, Skippy.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:19:44 AM

  (0+)

My best guess is that YOU feel insulted that you aren't SO respected.

Richard has earned a degree of respect (from me) by other things of his I have read that he has written. I don't say that that was ever his intention, it probably wasn't.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:50:35 AM

  (0+)

You've never tried to reason with a conspiracy "theorist" before, have you, Brett?

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:44:52 AM

  (0+)

"First time?

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:32:53 AM

  (0+)

Since you mentioned facts, would you please try to come up with one real, provable fact that supports even one of your conspiracy "theories"?

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:12:52 PM

  (0+)

It would seem to me that a trait of one being intelligent would be able to quickly find inconsistencies in what would be presented before them. And it has been my experience with regard to events of 9/11 that even someone that doesn't have the brain-power to roll stones down a steep hill with instructions could easily find hundreds, if not thousands, of such inconsistencies by just simply typing in a search engine "9/11 truth" and have a field day reading enough creditable evidence to suggest that near everything we've been told about 9/11 is a lie.

Yet, we have you, and people of your ilk, making assertions that Truthers are the ones somehow lacking in intelligence because we do not swallow hook, line and sinker everything an administration tells us about 9/11 when this same administration has lied to us about every thing else one can mention.

Makes one wonder whom the dumb one is on this bus.

Do you need instructions? Let me give them to you  r e e e a l  s l o w ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:12:09 AM

  (0+)

And it has been my experience with regard to events of 9/11 that even someone that doesn't have the brain-power to roll stones down a steep hill with instructions could easily find hundreds, if not thousands, of such inconsistencies by just simply typing in a search engine "9/11 truth" and have a field day reading enough creditable evidence to suggest that near everything we've been told about 9/11 is a lie.

Mr M. That above is YOUR sentence. It is NOT an intelligent sentence.

In YOUR sentence you describe YOUR experience. ("It has been my experience...")

In the same sentence, still talking about YOUR EXPERIENCE and therefore YOURSELF, you say, "even someone that doesn't have the brain-power to roll stones down a steep hill with instructions".  You are insulting yourself!

I have a science degree. My IQ has been measured. I am NOT insecure. I know that I can learn pretty much anything if I take the time to do it but I don't have an infinite amount of time.  Insults just BORE me or annoy me because they are counterproductive.

I tell you this out of compassion for you. You are a trier. You expend a lot of energy and emotion in what you do, even here in this forum. But you don't take the trouble to make sense. According to your own bio at opednews you are not an expert in engineering or science you are a cartoonist. 

That means that you have to make your case on the strenght of your arguments using reason. And thats okay, because smart people like me, and yes I am smart, will only accept a case that is based on reason and that is relevant and specifically on the point even if you were a well credentialled expert. Because even well credentialled experts can be, and frequently are, wrong. Isaac Newton's model of the universe was wrong. The modern standard model of physics is incomplete. Neither you nor I have Newton's credentials.  

Yet, we have you, and people of your ilk, making assertions that Truthers are the ones somehow lacking in intelligence because we do not swallow hook, line and sinker everything an administration tells us about 9/11 when this same administration has lied to us about every thing else one can mention.

I made NO SUCH assertion. And everthing I have written, just like everything you have written remains here in this thread for others to see for themselves. You have drawn an erroneous inference. 

Makes one wonder whom the dumb one is on this bus.

Do you need instructions? Let me give them to you  r e e e a l  s l o w ...

If you want to convince people of things that you think are important (without using force) then yes you'd better take things slow. And I mean no insult to you to say that.  To persuade others one needs to respect that they learn relative to what they already know. And they learn only when they are ready to learn because they can bring their mind to the problem. 

I face the same sort of frustrations in trying to convince people that impeachment should occur as you seem to experience trying to persuade them that what you think is true is true with respect to 9-11.  I know, how hard it is. I know how easy it is to get frustrated. But my frustration, or yours, will never, of itself, persuade anyone of anything.

The only thing that persuades people intellectually is an intellectual argument. And a person is only open to an intellectual argument that challenges their existing worldview some of the time.

Please consider carefully whether you want to respond to me with insults. I won't be insulted if you do, but I won't reply to you again if you do, because I will be managing my time which I value.  

I respect that you called Conyers Judiciary Committee. I respect the humanity in you - I'm not surprised though that you were told that you weren't credible.  I know that foolish people sometimes accuse people who aren't foolish of being fools. I also know that sometimes intelligent people do act like fools. 

If one's arguments are well put together they stand regardless of who one is. But the arguments have to be read and considered to be persuasive. Obnoxiousness reduces the chances of the arguments getting read.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:37:08 PM

  (0+)

I'm not surprised though that you were told that you weren't credible.

You'd said you were told you weren't creditable, rather than credible. There may be a difference. 

In Watergate, Felt was credible to Woodward, but he wasn't creditable in Woodwood's articles, for practical reasons - (Felt's safety and security). Woodward described his source as Deep Throat.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:12:14 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:33:42 PM

  (0+)

Here's why I think this is as huge a study to come out yet.

Engineers are not normal people, and thank God for them, they're the most analytical and reserved people alive and they live in numbers and hard cold facts. Many of them shun anything that smacks of wild, or even mild, conspiracy. So many of them were holding back judgement until their Holy-Grail, NIST came out with their long awaited study, and what this study is not going to tell them is going to have an effect.

Maybe, I'm just hoping, but if the nuts & bolts people start tearing this report apart they'll realize the implications and a good many of them will stop greasing the wheels of war. Because without engineers, war, or anything else, comes to a screeching halt.

Not to mention a large portion of professionals, the ones that are most effective in creating ground-swell change would mushroom.

As I've said, I hope I'm right. It might take a little while, they'll analyze the crap out of this, but after a while only the dimmest will be able to defend the NIST report findings, hopefully sooner than later, because time is getting real short before these cretins may pull-off another "false-flag", and we can't move quick enough, because I'm afraid the next one will dwarf 9/11.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:48:53 PM

  (0+)

Our favorite 911 disinfo troll should be along any time now...

 BTW please provide a linky poo for the scarlet letter lady

by erik mouse (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:14:11 AM

  (0+)

Barbara Honegger - The Scarlet A

http://www.radiodujour.com/people/honegger_barbara/

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:51:43 AM

  (0+)

While NIST's general conclusions came at no surprise (after all, they HAD to support the official “theory”, imagine what had happened if not...), it struck me how boldly Mr. Sunder and his crew this time present the bunch of lies, daring to call it the result of an “investigation”, most likely really expecting us “stupid” folks to buy it: Look, people, we found the suspect – column 76! WOW!! Good job, Mr. Sunder! ONE column failed, and the whole building collapsed in 6 seconds! If it wouldn't be so sad, I'd laugh all day long...

Had they stuck to general assumptions, like “a number of core columns were weakened by fire”, “failed to support the floors”, etc., blah blah, blah blah, it would have been sort of more difficult to qualify their findings as right-out lies. The fact that they named one particular column as the “guilty” one, adding similar specific determinations like “a girder on Floor 13”, and “the girder between Columns 44 and 79”, obviously and doubtlessly proves the real nature of the “investigation”, which clearly is nothing more than a fairy-tale, designed to support the official cover-up of 9/11. We know that all column remains (except a few bits) of the WTC buildings have been destroyed, so the NIST geniuses had no way to analyze all of the column material – how could they POSSIBLY find ONE SPECIFIC column, and a SPECIFIC girder, as the “responsible” for causing the collapse of the whole building, describing exactly what happened to this column and this girder?!??

Besides the column-76-b.s., the NIST “findings” lack any credibility in the light of the videos that show Building 7 collapsing. As NIST argues, the collapse began on the east side of the building, “progressing from east to west across WTC 7” - had this been the case, the building had collapsed asymmetrically, not as we see on the videos, coming straight down symmetrically, and not at the pace it actually happened.

O.K., switch of logic and live happily ever after...

by Dave Hunter (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 64 comments [90 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:00:56 AM

  (0+)

Though I am more known as an activist writer these days, my original career was as a full professor of metallurgical engineering, after receiving a Ph.D.  During that period I performed many forensic or failure analsis investigations.  I have spent major amounts of time analyzing vast sums of information about 9/11, focusing on the WTC.  The latest NIST report on Building 7 is a complete scientific farce.  This is not the place to get into enromous detail, but let me emphasize that NIST has not used hard physical evidence to support its conclusions.  More to the point, there really is a lot of objective physical evidence that NIST ignored and cannot possibly explain with their computer-based analysis.  Please understand that the nature of the office fires and their duration do not in any way, consistent with the considerable history of tall building fires, possibly explain a major weakening of the steel infrastructure of building 7.  The whole NIST "theory" is a bunch of crap masquerading as science.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:50:10 AM

  (0+)

You're just angry because you weren't the one who discovered the newly elucidated principle that kids playing with matches, for example, could easily bring down a modern skyscraper by way of a highly symmetrical collapse.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:36:01 AM

  (0+)

I don't get that.

by Intelitary Milligence (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:53:55 PM

  (0+)

You can't tell I'm being facetious? Lighten up a little.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:40:46 AM

  (0+)

I know you didn't ask for my opinion on this, Harold, and I certainly don't mean to butt in, but it seemed perfectly self-evident that you were being facetious to me.

Hope that helps.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:06:48 PM

  (0+)

Let's just say that there is a slight possibility that what creditable people are saying, that 9/11 is indeed an inside job, not some kook theory, but just creditable enough that one should take some measures to vet whatever information there is available, and upon researching keep finding more unanswered questions. (I can't imagine they wouldn't) Would it not be prudent than to excelerate one's actions considering the enormity of the situation?  After all, we're not talking about our government committing an accounting error, or simply lying to us, we're talking about premeditated mass murder.

Yet, after 7 years there are still people who would rather rock on their feet outside the hall, waiting for some one to come outside and ask them to dance, or shot at their feet forcing them to, instead of dancing the dance.

Does anyone think that if indeed we do have mass murders in office that these murders aren't doing everything in their power to keep those who don't have the ability to assimilate the obvious to remain oblivious?

Look at what our government has done as a case point. After 9/11 they went as far to, for the first time ever, use a preemptive military strike on a sovereign Nation and went immediately into stripping our rights because of a perceived threat. We should only act as decisively for a crime we have every reason to believe they may have committed. We should be taking every action to find out if indeed these accusations are true with every once of energy we have.

What else could possible be more important than to hold those accountable for this crime as quickly as possible? How much time is one willing to spend wasting nuance on something that screams for immediate action?

One only has to ask: who benefits? Who had the most to gain from 9/11? It certainly wasn't Muslim Nations. But if one were to take a look at the MIC, oil, big government and international bankers, one could certainly say they, and only they, have been big beneficiaries of this crime.

To those who are still in doubt as to weather governments can do this I would say, please, go to your library and read some history on governments because every government since the dawn of time has committed crimes against it's own people, and why one would think that this one, after all the evidence and their past actions, is any different is beyond comprehension.

To you I say, to hell with you. I don't care if it offends anyone. The offence is their inability to be able to do their own research and come to their own conclusions instead of asking others to spoon feed them, as though they deserved this effort. They're an affront to those of us who are putting everything we have on the line to save their sorry asses, and I for one have no patience with them.

But the point is we don't have any more time. We can't wait on the dim ones to finally 'get it", it's time we leave the dim-ones behind, if they haven't gotten it by now I fear that they never will, or if by the time they do, it will be too late - it may already be, because of them.

And when I'm referring to the "dim-ones", I don't mean the mass of people that for the most part don't have time to research, not that it takes that much, a computer will do, or have been taken in because they still desperately and wrongly believe in ideals that no longer are there, I'm talking to those that are politically aware enough to visit sites such as this, who are interested enough to go beyond MSM, you're the ones that I direct my wrath - you're the dim-ones. 

There's no more time to waste on those that are demanding we convince them. They're either too stupid, or are in denial so deep it can't be cracked. Of course there is one other possibility, but I don't even want to go there.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:16:52 PM

  (0+)

I appreciate your point of view in this comment. And find I am pretty much in concord with it. Your comments above and those of others accurately point out that there are many very good overviews of 9/11 available as well as more detailed/in depth analyses of specific areas of concern. Zwicker, Griffin, PD Scott, Arabesque, Chossudovsky, Nimmo, Tarpley and others provide the details and the grand pictures that pretty well put 'paid' to the official government conspiracy theory. 

I suppose I should be flattered that one poster wanted me to write some tome on it all. But I confess, sometimes I write sensible comments and sometimes I don't. Plus, I have a backlog of reports to write in my practice ... I am a forensic neuropsychologist...not a psychiatrist, and much of my writing is done after seeing patients; i.e., at home. It leaves very little time for writing about 9/11 and in any case, as noted by others, it would be impossible to compete with very good articles already out there. And like you said, I think, if they haven't got a clue by now, they ain't gonna be persuaded by anything I could pen. Plus, I just smashed my hand in hapkido and typing is no pleasure....  ;-)

Lastly, I owe an apology to the author of the article regarding 'conspiracy theorists'.... perhaps he did not mean it derisively. But he sure didn't call NIST on the glaring bullcrap they spewed out this time. It appears that some of these folks just don't get it that NIST (the directors and spokespersons etc.) are very much working for the 'owners' and will carefully follow the scripts and agendas of those folks. Doesn't matter what some lower-down engineers do or think. Remember that in the previous NIST output, the empirical data obtained by some of the real research staff was simply ignored in the final report.... all that ever mattered before and now in the recent nonsense was and is to preserve the coverup. After all, with the great Wurlitzer pumping the theme, that's all the majority of the American public ever hear. Just like 'Russia invaded Georgia'..... never a word about the ethnic cleansing Georgia committed against South Ossetia and the murder and betrayal of Russian peacekeepers when Georgia first invaded. No, the media only plays, repetitively plays, the songs our owners want us to hear.....

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:35:05 PM

  (0+)

No problem. And as I said, I too have theorized that there was a conspiracy involving the controlled demolition of WTC 7. I know the term "conspiracy theorist" is commonly used derisively, but I did not use it so.

As for challenging NIST on their conclusions, I didn't do so because I'm not qualified to do so. I'm not an engineer.

As I said, someone close to me is a professional engineer and he tells me fire brought down the building. Is he in on this conspiracy? Is he dim-witted? If find the use of insults to try to intimidate people into changing their mind, rather than the use of arguments based on fact and logic to persuade them, to be less than civil.

If anyone here feels qualified to be able to explain how NIST erred in their conclusions, please, by all means, enlighten us. But simply dismissing their scientific findings and insulting people who believe fire brought it down (or haven't drawn any conclusions one way or the other, for that matter) is hardly productive.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:28:22 PM

  (0+)

50% of all engineers graduated in the lower half of their class. And I'm not suggesting that he did, I have no idea, but there could very well be other reasons for this, whatever they are has me stumped.

I have a friend that is good friends with Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent that was one the cover of TIME sharing Person of the Year for whistle-blowers and Rowley doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job, but she will go so far to want another investigation.

And bottom line that's the least anyone should ask for considering we haven't had a professional criminal investigation of 9/11 to date. That alone should convince your engineering friend. Or does he want the murder of 3,000 people to remain a mystery?

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:46:46 PM

  (0+)

Moot point. A professional engineer who graduated in the bottom half of his class is more qualified to critique NIST's report than you (and you, and you, and you) and I are.

As for the rest, I'm strictly speaking here about WTC 7. One may recognize we've not had a real investigation into the attacks, that there has been a cover up of 9/11, and yet still conclude that fire brought down WTC 7.

When you speak of convincing the engineer I speak of, it seems to me you mean convincing him that an investigation of 9/11 is needed. Okay. But we're talking about WTC 7 here. I don't know why you presume that because a person who is a trained professional engineer (who happened to always be at the top of his class) who studies building failures and has concluded that fire brought down WTC 7 doesn't believe 9/11 requires further investigation. That's a leap of logic.

We're discussing WTC 7 here. If we want to talk about an inside job, there's plenty of other things we could discuss, for for our purposes here, it's tangential.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:00:01 AM

  (0+)

Moot point. A professional engineer who graduated in the bottom half of his class is more qualified to critique NIST's report than you (and you, and you, and you) and I are.

Do you need a Doctor to tell you that you have a cold, or a weatherman to tell you that it's raining outside? Sorry, but to the extent that your statement is true in this case in the first place, it's rather meaningless. If a highly regarded engineer wrote a paper entitled "How Elephants Fly", would you be able to critique it? I would hope so.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:03:03 AM

  (0+)

My response is below.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:10:20 AM

  (0+)

it is not our job to spoon feed you what is wrong with the NIST report - as I made reference to in an earlier post, I listened to an interview with the NIST spokes-person earlier that had my jaw dropping the man was so damn obviously stupid, not only could he not answer questions, he wouldn't ans couldn't give a valid reason why.

And I'm sorry if you're feelings are hurt if you think someone is referring to your intelligence, or lack thereof, there have been times in my past that I'm not ashamed to admit I was called stupid and indeed I was, I learned, so can you - deal with it.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:59:07 PM

  (0+)

I haven't heard the interview with the head of NIST you speak of, so can't comment on that.

"...spoon feed..." "I learned, so can you -- deal with it." This is not an argument, so I can't respond to it. You won't convince me by insulting my intelligence (whether that is your intention or not). I appreciate that you include yourself amongst the people who need to learn, and I share that sentiment. But in this case you seem to have concluded that I'm the ignorant one and you're position is infallable.

I personally haven't drawn any conclusions. I don't have all my questions answered yet. But I will say that NIST's report went a long way towards answering how such a collapse could have resulted due to fire. And that's coming from someone who was absolutely convinced for 7 years that WTC 7's collapse must have been a controlled demolition.

I wonder how many people here dismissing it's findings have actually read the report?

And I wonder how many more of those who have actually read it are qualified to present counter-arguments based on scientific fact?

You should be able to make it with facts and logic, rather than with red herrings or ad hominems. If you think NIST's findings are bullshit, explain why. Why don't we start with the thermal expansion of floor beams and go from there?

I'm perfectly willing to hear you out. But you'll have to actually present an argument.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:07:48 AM

  (0+)

The columns in WTC#7 where solid steel beams as thick as a man's body, I'm no engineer either, but just plain commonsense will tell me there is no way on this planet open fires made them fail, all at the same time in free fall speed as symmetrical as they did.

It's like telling me you can flip a coin and make it land on it's edge, oh, it's possible, but so highly unlikely that I'd be damn sure to bet everything I had you couldn't do it.

It's not like this was the first steel building ever built. There have been tens-of-thousands of them built, thousands of fires, far worse, and this one building, built using steel far beyond what was needed, the command center had glass that could stop a Howitzer from two-blocks away, it housed every major intelligence agency, it's fortifications were such it was to survive a nuclear attack, and they want us to believe that a few sporadic fires made it collapse in free-fall speed?

Any one that buys that tripe, I want to talk to, I have a Timeshare in beautiful Downtown Baghdad I'd like to sell them.

If this were the only inconsistency it might, and I say "might" with a lot of scepticism, put me off, but when you add on the hundreds, if not thousands of other questions, one would have to be daft to continue to believe the official story.

Would you like me to go through a few hundred for you? Put-options, NORAD standing down, Marvin Bush owning the security companies, testimony from 118 first responders, video of bombs going off, seismicgraph evidence of explosions, pools of molten steel, Rodriguez, where's the plain at Pentagon, FEMA setting-up the night before, warnings of CoS & Mayor of SF not to fly, Silverstein admitting it was "pulled", Bush signing orders on 10th to invade Afghanistan, allowing members of binLaden family to fly freely out, Chief of ISI wiring $100,000 to terrorists then meeting with WH officials that morning, magic cell-phones calling from 30,000 feet, Bush sitting in that damn classroom, the fact that they fought tooth and nail not to have an investigation, Cheney snapping "the orders still stand", the Brit newscast claiming WTC7 fell 20 minutes before it collapsed when you can see it in the back-ground! ... ah, what's the damn use, if you're too stupid to put all this together, there is no hope for you and I don't give a damn if you and your friend are "offended". 

Have you watched Terror Storm, Press for Truth 9/11, Mysteries 9/11, Hidden in Plain Sight, or any of the dozens of documentaries that can put it all together for you far better than I can? If, "no", then quit wasting our time and go watch them, if "yes" and you still feel the way you do - than God help us, you weren't worth the effort to type these words, and I would suggest you get sterilized.

Again, I'm not sorry if you're offended, I've wasted too much time on stupid in my life to be doing anymore of it now.

Please, we haven't got time to waste leading the slow by the hand - it was an inside job - get use to it and do something about it!

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:29:05 AM

  (0+)

Sunder has a doctorate in structural engineering from MIT, and just because he didn't say what you wanted to hear, he's certainly not stupid by any means. If he were, he'd have been jabbering about a controlled demolition in 7 with no evidence for one whatsoever. That's the essence of stupidity.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:32:45 PM

  (0+)

if there is such a thing ...

I'm just feed-up with stupid. Not that I ever wasn't. But when it comes to the murder of 3,000 innocent people it takes on an edge.

I can understand when people who are perhaps naive first learn or hear of the possibility that 9/11 may be an inside job being put-off, but after a while even the dimmest bulb on the porch has to take notice that something isn't right.

Reminds me of that Rolling Stones song, Mr. Jones, "... you know somethings happening, but you don't know what it is ...", well, the Mr. Jones in this case, you better get on board or be swept out of the way, because to use another old favorite, " ... the times are a-changing ..." - big time ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:33:45 PM

  (0+)

When you are given a personal invitation you don't have to compete. Nor do you have to take it up.

I was inviting you to show what material specifically had caused you personally to hold the view that 9-11 was an inside job. I don't want to read lots of stuff that won't be to the point. Or are you suggesting I need to google on every name you mention and read everything around those names?

It seems to me that you are, at least for now, declining the invation. That's your right, but I probably won't make the offer again because I think that if you had very good reasons for thinking 9-11 was an inside job (as opposed to just a general sense of distrust of the official story) then you would probably think it important enough to show your line of reasoning.

As an citizen you'd probably care about some of your fellow citizens, family members etc, even if you didn't care about someone like me.

You say your comments aren't always sensible. I accept the honest humility of that statement. Should you ever put together a personal line of argument perhaps when your hand is less sore or for someone that you care about  then perhaps you'll share it with me and with those of us in this forum who were willing to listen to you.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:25:05 AM

  (0+)

Mr M,

"The columns in WTC#7 where solid steel beams as thick as a man's body, I'm no engineer either, but just plain commonsense will tell me there is no way on this planet open fires made them fail, all at the same time in free fall speed as symmetrical as they did."

Words that could have been taken out of my own mouth. I've said the same thing many times. I've been absolutely convinced for 7 years that a controlled demolition brought down WTC 7.

But now we've been presented for the first time with an investigative scientific explanation for how what appeared to be a controlled demolition could have been caused by fires. Engineering professionals -- and not just from NIST -- are telling us that what seems to laymen like you and I as against common sense is simply incorrect.

And the NIST report goes a long ways towards explaining how what seems so obvious to us and so much common sense is actually incorrect, and how fire really could have brought the building down in just such a manner. And, again, this is coming from someone who has been adamantly convinced since I first saw the collapse on video that it must have been a controlled demolition.

Also, to be precise, it wasn't free fall speed. It was 40% slower than free fall speed. That's still a very rapid collapse which I still very much question.

We've been 7 years without any credible explanation for this collapse. Now we have one. I just don't think it should be dismissed without critical analysis. As I said, I'm not personally qualified to critique the report or point out any deficiencies in their explanation.

Anyone who feels qualified to counter-point specifics in their explanation, I would love to hear your arguments. So far, I haven't been presented with any counter-arguments to the NIST report.

People seem to think that insulting others constitutes an argument. I hate to actually have to point this out, but it does not.

You don't need to convince me of the evidence of complicity and a cover up with regard to 9/11. I'm in your corner on that count. But nothing you cited (insider trading, stand-down, ISI involvement, etc., ad infinitum) is a counter-argument to the scientific evidence and explanation of collapse presented by professionals in their field.

Have you read the report, sir? If so, and if you want to convince me it's bunk, please demonstrate their error(s) to me, specifically. The thermal expansion would be a good place to start.

So far, you've resorted to simply insulting my intelligence. If you think you can intimidate people into accepting your opinion as the correct one, rather than persuading them with facts and logic, then I must question which one of us is really more "stupid".

You may have found this to be effective with others, sir, but you will find that it will not get you very far with me.

I should be an easy case to convince. I'm just awaiting a factual and logical explanation to counter-point the NIST conclusions. I welcome anyone to present me with one.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:59:47 AM

  (0+)

Okay, let's take WTC#7 out of the picture entirely, it doesn't even exist. Even without it there are so many inconsistencies, errors, out-right lies, fabrications and hard evidence to warrant a full criminal investigation into events of 9/11 that we don't even need WTC#7 in the equation.

But it does exist, and even if we are to take the NIST report seriously how does one discount all the eye-witness accounts of bombs going off, video evidence of explosions and seismograph evidence of explosions?

And how are we to take anyone that discounts all this evidence, as NIST has, seriously? NIST formed their conclusions using no physical evidence from WTC#7, it was all done on computer. Whereas, Dr. Griffin has used scientific methods examining dust from that sight that shows conclusive existence of explosive material and residue that can only have come from demolition.

But, hey, don't let all this evidence that NIST never even took in account, but discarded out of hand as being too fantastical, their words, and you and your friend keep those blinders on.

If one were to just take the NIST report, with the absents of all this other evidence, there might be a slight probability factor, but again it goes back to the odds of flipping a coin on its edge. When one adds in all the other evidence the coin falls as flat as the NIST report.

One also has to account for the time it took for NIST to reach their conclusions, 7 firkin years! Certainly enough time to fine-tune a cover story.

But their mistakes were many and they didn't figure that dedicated, astute people did indeed gather hard physical evidence from the site and do, although limited, yet proper, examination of it. Or maybe they did factor it in and figured that their massive propaganda machine that serves them so well would be enough to quell any opposing views and corral marginal minds from considering them.

Because that certainly seems to have worked on some people.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:53:35 AM

  (0+)

I spoke with Danny Jowenko seeking his comment on the NIST report. He said he hasn't read it and probably won't be able to for several months, and that he had no comment. I explained the basic findings and asked him if he could at least comment on that, without actually having read the report, but he politely declined. Fair enough.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:07:01 AM

  (0+)

you keep referring to the NIST report as a "investigative scientific explanation", when in fact it is filled with leap of faith assertions that have as much grounding in the scientific method as Alice does to Wonderland. 

Using no pysical evidence whatsoever, generated strictly from computer models, never even considering the hard evidence, and witness testitmony NIST graphed together their "scientific explanation".

Maybe in Alice's world - but not in this one.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:11:29 AM

  (0+)

Harold Smith,

The NIST report presents a scientific argument. It isn't "How Elephants Fly".

The fact is that there are people qualified to make judgments about such things as the structural collapse of buildings and there are people who are not.

Not myself having any knowledge or training in engineering, I have to trust the trained professionals. And the trained professionals who KNOW about structures and collapses are saying fire did this, and they have presented their case for HOW fire did this.

So why don't you quote the report where you think it's in error and explain to us why this is so.

After all, if it's "How Elephants Fly", that should be the simplest thing for you to do.

On my statement you say is not "grammatically meaningful", let me reiterate the point in a way I hope is easier for you to comprehend:

Because a person doesn't agree that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition doesn't mean they don't think there should be an investigation into 9/11, and it's a logical fallacy to draw this conclusion based on that premise.

Moreover, it's equally fallacious to say that since 9/11 was an inside job (assuming this is true), therefore WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. WTC 7 may have been a controlled demolition, but this is not an argument.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:14:20 AM

  (0+)

The NIST report presents a scientific argument. It isn't "How Elephants Fly".

Ok then, please define precisely what you mean by "scientific". And explain how a report entitled "How Elephants Fly" would necessarily not be "scientific", regardless of content.

The fact is that there are people qualified to make judgments about such things as the structural collapse of buildings and there are people who are not.

And you are, or at least, you claim to be general arbiter of who is and isn't qualified?

Not myself having any knowledge or training in engineering,

Well that's painfully obvious.

I have to trust the trained professionals.

LOL! Yeah, that degree makes all the difference! Wouldn't think a "trained professional" would ever try to deceive anyone!

 And the trained professionals who KNOW about structures and collapses are saying fire did this, and they have presented their case for HOW fire did this.

LOL! And the "trained professionals" in the FBI said Bruce Ivins was the "anthrax terrorist"; and the "trained professionals" in the U.S. State Dept. and the "Intelligense Community" said Saddam Hussein had a massive WMD program.  Sorry to rain on your parade, but you really need to pull your head out of your ass and get some air.

So why don't you quote the report where you think it's in error and explain to us why this is so.

Frankly I haven't even studied it. (I looked at their earlier "productions", and that was enough). There's really no point to it. We know from abundant empirical evidence that Elephants don't fly and that steel-framed steel-cored buildings simply don't collapse in the manner witnessed, from fires. 

After all, if it's "How Elephants Fly", that should be the simplest thing for you to do.

Well of course it would be. I know that they don't; even if a coterie of liars with degrees says otherwise.

On my statement you say is not "grammatically meaningful", let me reiterate the point in a way I hope is easier for you to comprehend:

LOL! Well if you were familiar with proper grammar and had written it correctly the first time, you wouldn't have had to trouble yourself to make it "easier for [me] to comprehend". 

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:55:45 AM

  (0+)

Ok then, please define precisely what you mean by "scientific".

Sure. By "scientific" I mean "of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science". By "science", I mean " knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".

And you are, or at least, you claim to be general arbiter of who is and isn't qualified?

No, not at all. I don't know that you aren't qualified, for instance, to be able to present a counter-argument to NIST's case. But, then, you haven't demonstrated that you are qualified, either, and you certainly haven't presented any such counter-arguments.

I admit to not having trained knowledge in engineering, to which you mockingly reply, "Well that's painfully obvious." Again, however, I must point out that you choose to insult my intelligence rather than actually presenting any scientific arguments (see above for my usage of "scientific" here).

"Wouldn't think a "trained professional" would ever try to deceive anyone!"

I don't believe the professional engineer whom I have spoken of above is trying to deceive anyone, no. I know positively that he is not. Nor do I assume that the professionals at NIST have done so, either. I don't dismiss the possibility that this may be the case, but I don't assume it. And if you believe this is so, again, you are welcome to demonstrate it.

"LOL! And the "trained professionals" in the FBI said Bruce Ivins was the "anthrax terrorist"; and the "trained professionals" in the U.S. State Dept. and the "Intelligense Community" said Saddam Hussein had a massive WMD program.  Sorry to rain on your parade, but you really need to pull your head out of your ass and get some air."

And we may examine the evidence the FBI has presented us and critique it rationally and logically. It's tangential, but I would be more than happy to cite for you what the FBI has stated is it's "evidence" that Ivins was the "lone" culprit in the anthrax attacks, and I could go through point by point and demonstrate how their case is a load of bull$h!t, entirely circumstantial at best.

Similarly, I could take what the State Department and Intelligence Community and White House were saying about WMD in Iraq and DEMONSTRATE, using facts and logic, that they were lying -- months in advance of the invasion of Iraq.

And that's all I'm asking you to do here. Simply demonstrate, using facts and logic, that the NIST report is what you say it is.

I mean, Harold, when I was telling people months before the war in Iraq that their government was lying to them, I didn't do it by saying, "Your government is lying, and if you don't agree with me, you're a stupid idiot who needs to pull your head out of your ass!"

I did it by saying, "Look, the government has said that these aluminum tubes are intended to build uranium enrichment centrifuges to build a nuclear bomb, but the IAEA totally dismantled Iraq's nuclear program by 1992; Iraq's stockpile of uranium is under guard of the IAEA and any attempt to enrich it would be detected; the evidence the government has claimed shows that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from abroad was proven to be a fabrication; and the IAEA and the US's own top nuclear experts don't believe they could be used without significant alteration in centrifuges, but are more likely to be used in a conventional rocket program that in the past has used tubes of precisely the same specifications."

Surely, Harold, you can see a difference between the two styles of argumentation? Surely you could understand how one would be productive and the other not?

"Frankly I haven't even studied it."

Well, to borrow your own quote, "that is painfully obvious."

"Well of course it would be."

So you agree with me that it would be the simplest of things, assuming you are correct, to point out the specific errors in fact or logic or scientific evidence in the NIST report -- and yet you decline to do so, acknowledging you "haven't even studied it" and see "no point" in doing so. And instead of doing so, you simply insult those who don't share your opinion.

That speaks for itself, and quite loudly.

"LOL! Well if you were familiar with proper grammar and had written it correctly the first time, you wouldn't have had to trouble yourself to make it "easier for [me] to comprehend"."

There was no problem with my grammar. Of course, if you disagree, you're welcome to point out where there was. Or you could just insult my intelligence. Whichever. I'll only say that one tactic works with me and the other just forces me to conclude that you're you like to talk without actually being capable of backing up anything you ever say.

I'm more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but so far you aren't making it easy on me, my friend.

BTW, "Harold", out of curiosity, why do you keep putting my name in "quotes". That's rather unusual. Jeremy is my name.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:59:45 PM

  (0+)

Did anyone see the news conference with Sham Sunder? BTW, I know his name is not Sham but it does seem appropriate. When asked if alternative theories had been investigated, he literally SQUIRMED and STUTTERED for what seemed like an eternity. Anybody who can read body language KNEW he was lying. NO lie detector needed. Not only was he unsure of what he was saying, he was DELIBERATELY LYING. Watch the video and judge for yourself.

What a ridiculous farce. I need to go sell my BBQ now because it may collapse from "thermal expansion".  

by Roger Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 131 comments [10 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:27:14 AM

  (0+)

No, I didn't see that, but would like to. Is there a link to where I could watch it?

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:19:13 AM

  (0+)

Dude, what's with this revisionist history on this whole "insult" thing? Here's what was said. And I've even cross-referenced everything for your convenience so this nonsense won't continue. Anyone can go back and see for themselves, but I'll save you (and anyone else who might care) the trouble:

Better World Order: "Insults prove nothing, and may turn people off to investigating 9/11 for themselves."

Jeremy (responding to Better World Order): "I particularly agree with you about the insults. Facts should be enough to persuade people. Trying to intimidate them into changing their views is counterproductive."[A]

Harold Smith (responding to Jeremy): "Well we're not talking about "many people" in general here; rather, we're talking about a specific person who's been here for at least about two years and has made about 900 comments. If he hasn't been "exposed" to "alternative theories about 9/11" by now there's something wrong, don't you think?"

Jeremy (responding to Harold Smith): "The point in fact remains that insults don't constitute an argument. Present your facts and let them speak for themselves."

Harold (responding to Jeremy): "What "insults" are you talking about? Implying he lives in a closet is "insulting"?"" [B]

Jeremy (responding to Harold): "Well, if telling someone they aren't a sentient being or that they are "living in a closet" because they don't happen to agree with you isn't something you consider insulting of other peoples' intelligence, then I don't know what else to say. We just have different opinions on what constitutes an "insult" I suppose." [C]

Harold (responding to Jeremy): "First of all, "Jeremy" (to the extent it's your business in the first place), "Brett" obviously started the ad hominem in this discussion by implying that Richard was a "crank"." [D]

Jeremy (responding to Harold): "You imply I've somehow butted into something that's not my business. I guess I need to remind you that YOU ASKED ME [B] what insults I could possibly be referring to when I agreed with Better World Order that insulting people is counterproductive, and YOU YOURSELF SUGGESTED YOUR OWN INSULT. [B] Seeing that the example YOU PRESENTED was as good as any, I simply noted that if you don't see what you said as insulting, then you and I just "have different opinions on what constitutes an 'insult' I suppose." [C]

Harold (responding to Jeremy): What the hell are you talking about? Please reread the thread. You're the one who first offered your unsolicited opinion that I had "insulted" Brett. It was IN RESPONSE TO YOUR UNSOLICITED OPINION that I asked you what "insults" you were referring to.

So, as anybody can see for themselves, I did not offer any "unsolicited opinion" that you had insulted Brett. I didn't mention you or Brett whatsoever. I simply agreed with Better World Order that insults are counterproductive.[A] You then offered up your own insult and asked me whether it applied within the context of my statement [B], to which I answered in the affirmative, in my opinion [C]. You then told me I was butting in, despite the fact that my butting in was simply providing an answer to a question you directed at me. [D]

So my question to you is: WTF?

Now, moving on. You asked me another question: "Well if it's a matter of opinnion, and I don't see it as an "insult" and you do, who the hell are you to decide?"

As I said, we are of different opinions, so I don't understand the question. Who the hell am I to state my own opinion? I'm Jeremy R. Hammond. And I declare my right to state my own opinion. Does that answer suffice?

You next asked, "What "argument" would that be?"

That the NIST report's conclusions are in error. I thought that was clear enough.

Again, if you believe this is so, and that the report is the equivalent of arguing that elephant's fly, then it should be the simplest thing for you to be able to quote from the report and demonstrate the errors in the fact or the fallacies in their logic in specific instances.

That would be far more productive than engaging in debates about who said what when and/or insulting peoples' intelligences.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:47:04 AM

  (0+)

 You begin by saying the beams in WTC 7 were solid steel "as thick as a man's body".

That is simply not an accurate description of the I beams in the building.

As for your opinion on the collapse, people more qualified and knowledable in that area than you are telling me that you are wrong. I don't know what else to say. You still aren't addressing any actual findings of the report. If you are so convinced that you are right, and feel qualified and knowledgable enough to make a judgment on it, then it should be the simplest thing for you to pinpoint specifically examples from the report wherein its authors made errors in fact or logic.

"Okay, let's take WTC#7 out of the picture entirely, it doesn't even exist. Even without it there are so many inconsistencies, errors, out-right lies, fabrications and hard evidence to warrant a full criminal investigation into events of 9/11 that we don't even need WTC#7 in the equation."

Sir, you are preaching to the choir, so to speak. Perhaps you didn't read my earlier response to you on that point, but, again, (I repeat) "You don't need to convince me of the evidence of complicity and a cover up with regard to 9/11. I'm in your corner on that count."

"But it does exist, and even if we are to take the NIST report seriously how does one discount all the eye-witness accounts of bombs going off, video evidence of explosions and seismograph evidence of explosions?"

I don't know of any eye-witness accounts stating there were explosions in WTC 7 that couldn't be explained as the sound of the collapse itself. If I'm missing something, please share it with me.

I also don't know of any video evidence of explosions in WTC 7, unless you mean the "squibs", as they're commonly called, coming out of one the side of the building. But in the video that shows these supposed "squibs" that I've seen it isn't apparent to me that it's squibs as opposed to, say, the result of the compression of air as floors collapse in on each other.

I've also never seen convincing evidence that seismographs picked up explosions before the collapses began. I've certainly heard that claim, but never seen it supported.Again, if I'm missing something, please share it with me.

"NIST formed their conclusions using no physical evidence from WTC#7, it was all done on computer."

A very valid point. The destruction and removal of evidence was a crime itself.

But, as for their computer simulations, I'm simply not qualified in any field whatsoever (engineering, physics, computer programming, architecture, etc, etc, etc) to be able to critique them reasonably. I just don't have the educational background to be able to say they are a farce, or in error in any way whatsoever, for that matter.

"One also has to account for the time it took for NIST to reach their conclusions, 7 firkin years! Certainly enough time to fine-tune a cover story."

Agreed. It's actually only been 6 years, because they didn't actually start investigating until later in 2002. That says something, too.

"you keep referring to the NIST report as a "investigative scientific explanation", when in fact it is filled with leap of faith assertions that have as much grounding in the scientific method as Alice does to Wonderland."

Such as? Could you please be specific and give me examples from the report?

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM

  (0+)

Divide and conquer. That is what the events of 9/11 have achieved. One need not look to the evidence as to whether building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition (anyone with a few working neurons can see that it was) just look at where we are now as a country. Take a good look around and what do you see? It isn't pretty. Increased and very serious bellicosity now between the US and Russia, trillions of money wasted on these illegal and horrid wars in Iraq, which still doesn't have quality drinking water or working electricity. We've ruined that country! It is a dam mess as is Afghanistan while our own country, "AMERICA" is going bankrupt. 9/11 was the mother of all catalyst's, used as a tool by a maniacal and tyrannical regime to instill the fear needed to launch these wars of aggression. Might I add that this pernicious plan was drawn up even before 9/11. That is fact! Middle East hegemony and establishing permanent military bases to protect the energy interests in the region, that is why 9/11 occurred.
It is time to wake up people, your country is going down the dam crapper. Enough of this NIST bullshit already! They don't give a rat's ass about America! They are there merely to deflect Truth. Anyone who cannot see this is only fooling themselves. WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:20:43 AM

  (0+)

I mostly agree with this post. I won't get into where I disagree because I would rather reiterate what I think is a very good point, that this whole discussion of how the towers collapsed is really a red herring, considering the enormous body of other evidence out there demonstrating the criminal nature of our government.

That's why I've never really focused much on the towers. I like Michael Ruppert's approach in "Truth and Lies of 9/11"

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:13:36 PM

  (0+)

Munich you are right to speak of divide and conquer. You only have to look at this thread to see how normally sensible and caring people will get at one anothers throats.

Here is something which I hope will re-unite them. This is specially for Jeremy R Hammond.

Jeremy you say: "Also, to be precise, it wasn't free fall speed. It was 40% slower than free fall speed. That's still a very rapid collapse which I still very much question."

Let us use that to illustrate a few points.

My first comment is to point out that you appear to accept that statement without question - you merely hedge by saying you think that the fall is suspiciously fast.

It is a very simple matter to work out that it is false statement. You have the videos and can time it yourself. To save you the trouble I draw your attention to a paper in which it has been worked out scientifically that the roof fell with constant acceleration of 9.1 m/s/s. This would give a total fall time of 6.2 seconds if maintained. Free fall would have taken 6.0 seconds. My calculator says that this is 3% slower than free fall, not 40%

So there you have it. NIST lied again and it is easily proved.

When you think about it NIST's explanation that expansion of a horizontal beam caused the collapse is just a way to avoid having to answer the unanswerable question of how a few small fires which did not last very long could have heated the steel in the whole building to red heat without breaking the windows.

So they invented this idea of horizontal expansion causing great pressure which broke connections.

But don't you see it is still an explanation based on fire and fire has never brought down a high rise steel framed building in the past or since. Why haven't all the other burning buildings heated by intense fires for many hours suffered this expansion and pressure and connection failure?

The answer is simple. If a horizontal beam expands it will push against a column of course, but what then? The column will move a little and there will be no build up of pressure. For pressure to build up there would have to be a buttress outside pushing back, and there was no such thing. The building would get a few cm wider then shrink again as it cooled down.  

Recently a new group has come out with expert knowledge about fires and the law. Very well worth a visit. If you have any doubts about 9/11 and need a quick source of information this would be an excellent choice. 

For in depth scientific study see the peer reviewed papers here. 

Study of authoritative articles can clear the mind and the decks and lead to some real progress, and will in the end save much time and perhaps the world. Give it a go.  

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM

  (0+)

Jeremy you say: "Also, to be precise, it wasn't free fall speed. It was 40% slower than free fall speed. That's still a very rapid collapse which I still very much question."

Let us use that to illustrate a few points.

My first comment is to point out that you appear to accept that statement without question - you merely hedge by saying you think that the fall is suspiciously fast.

You are incorrect in your assumption. I accept that conclusion because it is explained in great detail in the report. No videos show the collapse of the building all the way to the ground because other buildings in the foreground obscure the lower floors of WTC 7. So we are left to calculate the speed of the collapse based on its initial failure to the point where it disappears behind foreground buildings. We know how high the building was, and we know how high the lowest point is we can see based on the height of each floor as measurable by the windows. By measuring the time it took for the building to go from the apparent beginning of the collapse to the point where it disappears behind other buildings, one is able to calculate the speed at which the building is actually falling. And up until that point -- and anyone may read the report and see the calculations for themselves -- it fell at 40% greater (that is, slower) than free fall speed.

WTC 7 fell 18 stories in 5.4 seconds. Free fall speed for the same distance is 3.9 seconds. Thus, WTC 7 fell at 40% greater than free fall speed, and it's likely it met with even greater resistance the farther it fell.

I draw your attention to a paper in which it has been worked out scientifically that the roof fell with constant acceleration of 9.1 m/s/s.

I draw your attention to the fact that this "scientifically" worked out paper states plainly that this is not the calculated, but the "assumed" constant acceleration rate. In other words, it's a meaningless figure.

When you think about it NIST's explanation that expansion of a horizontal beam caused the collapse is just a way to avoid having to answer the unanswerable question of how a few small fires which did not last very long could have heated the steel in the whole building to red heat without breaking the windows.

Well, it's an absolute fact that steel expands when heated, and given the length of the beams, that expansion would have been even more exaggerated. I don't know about this "red heat" statement. Steel needn't be "red hot" to expand.

So they invented this idea of horizontal expansion causing great pressure which broke connections.

This isn't "invented" at all. Thermal expansion is hardly controversial. When steel beams get heated, they expand. That's just science.

The answer is simple. If a horizontal beam expands it will push against a column of course, but what then? The column will move a little and there will be no build up of pressure.

You apparently haven't actually read the report. The beams that expanded due to heat didn't push against the column. They pushed against another cross-beam. That beam's connections were designed to bear vertical, not horizontal, load, so it's perfectly understandable that they would fail under those circumstances.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:46:40 PM

  (0+)

     Different perspective...kinda.

     Mr. Hammond, Insults are not my bag. I have my own take as do we all, an ongoing morphing digestion of so much info, my head spins.

     I simply do not agree with you on this NIST thing. I think this is much larger. I beg forgiveness. I am not an engineer. I am a musician. That disqualifies me from consideration in the above comments battle. So I waited til the volume died a bit to jot my thoughts. I find you to be respectful and commend you your steadyness getting to 50+ comments and still remaining sober enough to respond.

     For your engineer to conclude that NIST's conclusion that WTC7 was brought down by fire may be true. I do not know. I'm not qualified. But I can offer you a thought or three.

     From my perspective such as it is, there are many things I am not qualified to expound on. My purpose is not to convince you to see it my way. My way up to this point has been as yours has been, ongoing and filled with what I hope is good personal reasoning, for in this arena, that is the best I can do since I have not the letters behind my name to warrant an audience.

     Therein lies the rub. For me there is a larger common sense matter that is somehow overlooked in all this mess (NIST's latest modeled scientific 'proof' being just a smidgen in a huge arena of changes). The bigger picture is often made fuzzy by focusing only on a corner or tiny part. We do not usually define how we did as parents based on our son or daughters twelveth year only. We step back and see how over the whole 18 years we may or may not have succeeded. The mountains of info in support of the official findings do not IMHO change what this 'bigger picture' looks like to me. A concerted, long planned out, not in stone mind you, but an adaptive and coersive trail of manuvers as needed to implement control over the many. I'm lousy sometimes at wording accurately my points.

     I do not think it a closet conspiracy. Parts of it are conspiratorial. Not a master plan from a smokey room with 6 guys on Federal Reserve I.V.'s. However, greed in my mind is so imbeded in how we as a whole live day to day. Lies, lack of human empathy, outright legal distortions, creation of mandated morality and a firm and deep disconnect between honesty and fairness is among us. I would offer the possibility that thousands upon thousands upon thousands are on this get some bandwagon until now, it has gotten to the place where we do not use common sense much anymore but rely on an unorder masqurading as order. I think closer to the truth is that what we are experiencing is a human power struggle none of us know truly how to deal with. 

     I have only my answers such as they are and can claim not as fact but as a resonable opinion that we are responsible for what has in fact occured. We are deluded if we continue to give up our ability to know in good conscious what we know. The comments above are who we are. Is it surprising that this is such a mess?

     Not to me.

     peace 

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:35:25 PM

  (0+)

Hi Paul, and thanks for your comments.

On the implementation of plans to control the masses, I certainly agree with you.

I'm just not sure that the collapse of WTC 7 was really one of the means by which they have done so.

Until now, I've believed just that, lacking any real explanation as to how a building could fall that way without it being a controlled demolition. But the NIST report's conclusions make sense. I'm not 100% convinced, but the report goes a long ways towards providing an explanation. I'm still evaluating all the facts and evidence, and seeking critique and comment from those more qualified than I to be able to do so reasonably in the area of engineering and structural collapses.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:04:12 PM

  (0+)

NCSTAR 1A is lengthy and technical, but to be 100% convinced that explosives or incendiaries weren't planted in 7 doesn't require a complete understanding of the cause of the collapse. Shaped charges leave an unmistakable signature on column ends, and thermate makes steel bubble and run before solidifying again as it cools and it won't go sideways through an in-place column without a ceramic or other fireproof contraption to hold it in place. Even an inexperienced cleanup worker would have noticed these signs of a C/D on the steel, and there simply weren't any. The report also explains that explosives large enough to sever even one column in the building would have created a 130-140 decibel sound a half mile away. The loud noises and explosions heard during the day while 7 was burning and slowly degrading structurally didn't even come close to that level, and they weren't heard immediately before it came down, as is always the case in real C/Ds. Truther nuts just simply ignore these obvious facts and insist on a theory for which no evidence exists. Without lying, they can't even come up with a plausible reason for the lessee or some government agency to have wanted to destroy a modern, 14 year-old, nearly fully-occupied building worth over $1 billion including contents.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM

  (0+)

 " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security ".

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:16:30 PM

  (0+)

doesn't say HOW.

Nor, does it claim, that the duties to throw off such government are uniquely American.

If human beings have a right to throw off very bad government in one place and time, then I see no reason why they would not have a right to throw of very bad government in other places and other times.

I've been reading Tom Paine's Rights of Man (written in 1791), and I see that he agrees with what I just said. He defended the principles of the American revolution also to the circumstances of the French.

The United States of America was founded, violently. The United States Constitution would have had no basis had there not been a violent revolution to clear the space to lay it down.  Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, could not, with non-violence have made the space to found the United States Constitution. 

Perhaps there will need to be a violent revolution to lay down good global government. Perhaps 5% of the population of the planet (300million Americans of 6.7 billion people), residing in the middle part of the north American continent simply cannot be trusted to see the human interest as the same as their national interest or to favor the human interest over their national interests. Perhaps the system of checks and balances worked out by the founding fathers in the eighteen century is insufficiently broad for the problems faced by human beings in the twenty first century.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:40:36 AM

  (0+)

I love that I've been told to "go get sterilized" because I don't agree with someone else's opinion.

I think the fact that people feel it necessary to insult peoples' intelligence in order to intimidate them into agreement rather than convincing them with facts and logic is instructive.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:33:52 AM

  (0+)

9/11 wasn not an inside job, Eugenics doesn't exist, the Georgia Guidestones are a mirage, groups such as Bilderberg, Bohemia Grove, Tri-Lateral Commission, Consul of Foreign Relations, Consul of 300, Skull & Bones are benign, Chem-trails aren't real, mass species extinction isn't happening, diseases and cancer rates aren't sky-rocketing, our water and food isn't poisoned, our government is here to help us, war is peace, ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom  ... I've been mistaken, everything that has been obvious to me is nothing more than a paranoid delusion, what a fool I've been

Can someone please tell me where I can line-up for the Kool-Aid and join the slap-happy masses because I'm tired of trying to warn people that their world is rapidly coming to an end and would seriously like spend my remaining days in "happy-land".

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:16:09 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:41:54 PM

  (0+)

Whoa. We're discussing WTC 7 here. That's the only thing I've discussed with you here. And nobody else has discussed any of these things here.

This is totally incoherent.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:22:43 PM

  (0+)

Trying to have a rational discussion with a conspiracy "theorist" is a new experience for you, isn't it, Jeremy? 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:30:01 AM

  (0+)

Well, in a sense. I'm usually the "conspiracy theorist" myself. But having read the NIST report, I've been forced to reconsider my belief that WTC 7 collapsed in a controlled demolition.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM

  (0+)

Its okay to be a conspiracy theorist sometimes (there are such things as conspiracies after all, though I'm not sure its so good to usually be one), but its definately a healthy thing to be the sort of person who changes their mind in light of changing evidence.

I like your attitude, and I respect your interest in the WTC 7 report. I never went so far as to believer either the official report or to disbelieve it, but those that disbelieve the official 9-11 story did succeed in getting me to think WTC 7 coming down without being hit by a plane was (and is) worthy of some investigation.  False flag operations do happen - they just don't happen all that often, and complicated ones would be hard to pull off. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:46:04 PM

  (0+)

The "truth" movement seems to think that making reference to everything from Pearl Harbor to Katrina somehow helps their case, but of course they wouldn't need to if they had anything resembling a valid and proper engineering based argument.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:52:49 AM

  (0+)

 Patassium liquid heaters are designed for a fluid outlet temperature of 2050 degrees  http://www.babcockpower.com/pdf/teisw-05.pdf

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:48:42 AM

  (0+)

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this post. Would you care to explain further?

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:09:10 PM

  (0+)

 Why is it, that Refinery Coker Heaters don't collapse because of fire? http://www.heatflux.com/images/heatandburn.png  These Heaters operate 24 hours a day for weeks at a time. How hot are blue flames? http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/JamesDanyluk.shtml

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:23:25 AM

  (0+)

I would suspect, although I admittedly don't have the technical expertise to really know, that the "coker" heater scenario you point out is simply not comparable to structural steel in buildings.  Either the exact material in the heater actually exposed to high temperature is far more heat tolerant than that commonly used for building beams/columns, or it is sufficiently insultated from the heat to preclude distortion, incidentally as are beams/posts in buildings per building code requirements via spray-on insulation.  Not to mention the differences in load and scale.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM

  (0+)

 According to the NIST report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings. WTC 7 used a structual system design in widespread use. The coefficient of thermal expansion for structual steel is 12, compared to that of aluminium being 23. http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/expansion/

Aluminium is one of the most widely used metals in modern aircraft construction, http://www.tpub.com/air/1-24.htm

Aluminium Trusses and Beams are  likewise used in building construction http://www.metalsalesusa.com/beams.htm

If the NIST report is correct, use of aluminium as a load bearing material in construction should be highly questioned, and the possible safety issues addressed. 

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:25:45 AM

  (0+)

Now you're catching on.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM

  (0+)

 There are many examples which have been in use for a long time that funtion just fine. One would think the issue off thermal expansion of metal inside a hot/cold enviroment should've been addressed by now.  What about Aliminium Engine Blocks http://www.cnblocks.com/ 

And if we apply the laws of thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 31, 2008 at 4:15:31 AM

  (0+)