Patterico's Pontifications

7/22/2007

Rosa Brooks: Al Qaeda Got “Lucky” on 9/11

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Morons,Terrorism — Patterico @ 12:02 am



We all knew that, with the passage of time, 9/11 would merit nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders from our leftist intellectual elite.

We’ve arrived at that point. The L.A. Times‘s Rosa Brooks tells us that Al Qaeda was really no big deal in 2001. They just got lucky:

In 2001, administration stalwarts suggested that Osama bin Laden rivaled Hitler in the danger he posed to U.S. security and insisted that Al Qaeda’s power was so great that nothing short of a “global war on terror” was required.

At that time, most experts say, this description of Al Qaeda simply wasn’t true. It was little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs, well financed and intermittently lethal but relatively limited in their global and regional political pull. On 9/11, they got lucky — but despite the unexpected success of their attack on the U.S., they did not pose an imminent mortal threat to the nation.

Badger 6 begs to differ:

Al Qaeda is a highly organized and discipline military organization, four large commercial aircraft are not commandeered in mid-flight, three of which are then redirected into buildings, due to luck. For the events of that day to be successful, a high degree of coordination and security was required. To dismiss that as pure luck is pure folly and naive.

Folly? Naivete? From the L.A. Times??

Say it ain’t so!

254 Responses to “Rosa Brooks: Al Qaeda Got “Lucky” on 9/11”

  1. Dateline: April 1945:

    On December 7th, 1941 Japan got lucky — but despite the unexpected success of their attack on Pearl Harbor, they did not pose an imminent mortal threat to the nation.

    Thanks to U.S. policies, Japan has become the vast Pacific threat the administration imagined it to be. Our ham-handed detention and interrogation tactics and our ill-advised invasion of Guadalcanal have alienated vast swathes of the Asiatic world, fueling extremism and anti-Americanism. Today, thousands of Japanese fanatics are willing to fly airplanes into American ships and tens of thousands will fight to death to defend worthless islands like Tarawa and Iwo Jima.

    Today, thanks to the administration’s actions, Japan has become a prime training and recruiting ground for suicide bombers, where millions of women and children train to kill Americans with bamboo sticks and the NIE has declared Japan one of the greatest threats to U.S. peace and security.

    Welcome to Rosa Brooks’ 1945 reality.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  2. badger 6: “If we can deal with it in Iraq, then so much the better.”

    Better for whom?

    The Iraqis?

    I think they’d prefer it if we took our war elsewhere.

    alphie (015011)

  3. “On 9/11, they got lucky — but despite the unexpected success of their attack on the U.S., they did not pose an imminent mortal threat to the nation.”

    This woman is clueless. Does she any idea how contradictory and insane that statement is? I guess not.

    If the 9/11 attacks did not constitute an imminent mortal threat, then what does? A nuclear, biological or chemical attack that kills tens or hundreds of thousands? I suppose the Anthrax attacks were a nifty piece of luck as well?

    I guess Al Qaeda will never be an imminent mortal threat to Ms. Parks until the LA or NY Times offices go up in smoke, but that will never happen. Why would Al Qaeda destroy the best propaganda machines for their cause this side of jihadi videos?

    Useful idiot doesn’t begin to describe her.

    JohnnyT (3992c6)

  4. ‘little more than an obscure group of extremists thugs’

    Perhaps Rosa was too busy giving a heads-up on Bill Clinton to notice Bin Laden had declared war against America?

    susan (7faf4d)

  5. Yeah, Al-Phie, and we’d rather you took yourself elsewhere (Tehran’s nice), but it’s an imperfect universe.

    SDN (b41081)

  6. Patterico;

    Is she saying ‘luck’ was the only factor?

    Some measure of luck was necessary for the
    well-planned attack to be successful.

    This post seems to be filler. Cut your teeth on something with meat, say, the new Executive Order on Torture. What say you?

    http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/the-new-rules-o.html#more

    Semanticleo (4741c2)

  7. Would the nullification of Miranda take us back
    to interrogations which invariably result in
    ‘confessions’?

    Semanticleo (4741c2)

  8. Semanticleo, if you’ve got a blog post you feel needs writing, why don’t you go set up a blog and do it?

    Pablo (99243e)

  9. In a sense they did get some luck in pulling off the attack but that doesn’t mean that they won’t get lucky enough to do it again because it involved a lot MORE than luck.

    Hundreds of members of Saddam’s regime have been caught working for al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes.Baath to al Qaeda

    Mark Eichenlaub (efa0b7)

  10. LAT, the hardest working denialists in shown business.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  11. Comparing an operation that took a few dozen people from an organization of a few thousand to one of the most violent and expansionist and technologically sophisticated military regimes in the history of the world, with a military and industrial budget of billions, hundreds of thousands of well armed uniformed soldiers and an entire population primed for conquest.

    That’s a fucking joke.
    You want fear. You want to promote fear. You run off it.
    It’s cowards like you that make these comparisons.
    it’s silly.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  12. “Semanticleo, if you’ve got a blog post you feel needs writing, why don’t you go set up a blog and do it?”

    Because its so fucking obvious its not worth expanding on.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  13. Respecting Al Qaeda command and control does not make its branch office in Iraq more vital to our safety than the sanctuary beyond reach of American forces in Pakistan. Iraqi Al Qaedas are and have been totally focused on attacks inside Iraq and nowhere else. Period. They only came into being late in 2003 in response to our occupation of Iraq long after 9/11. Attacking the main enemy where he is not is not job one.

    steve (1c66cc)

  14. Because its so fucking obvious its not worth expanding on.

    So she should probably just shut up, then? Good point.

    Pablo (99243e)

  15. That’s a fucking joke.
    You want fear. You want to promote fear. You run off it.
    It’s cowards like you that make these comparisons.
    it’s silly.

    You sound afraid, AF. Paranoid even.

    *speaking into shirt sleeve*

    We got him, Mr. Rove!

    Pablo (99243e)

  16. Pablo; Go Phish.

    Semanticleo (4741c2)

  17. “It’s cowards like you that make these comparisons.”

    That’s it, demonstrate your superior argumentative skills.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  18. I don’t disagree that the issue with Islam involves more than a small group who got lucky, but I’m less concerned with Islamic extremists as a threat to us than I am with the rise of China. Sure, extremists can attack us here and there, but what effect has 9/11 had on our way of life and economy 5 years later? None that I can see other than more security at the airport. Same with the attacks in Spain or England. Not a threat to the existence of either of those countries (How long did the IRA try terrorist attacks in England?). Even the constant terrorist attacks on Israel are not a threat to its existence. Even setting off a dirty bomb in Los Angeles (God forbid) would not be.

    Islamic extremists can be contained by our strategy to deny them training bases, as we did in Afghanistan, need to do in Pakistan, and need to finish in Iraq, and by reducing our dependence on Middle East oil and working to solve the problem of Israel and Palestine.

    China, however, is shaping up to be the Soviet Union of the 21st Century. In competition with us for resources, growing and modernizing its economy (about to be the 3rd largest), entering space, modernizing and growing its military. China is well on a way to becoming a power that could challenge us throughout the world and threaten us in a conventional war involving military forces. I could never imagine any Islamic country or group putting together the logistics to invade the US, as we did Europe, but China could do it if they put their mind to it.

    JayHub (8ba390)

  19. China competes with us for resources because we do not use the resources we have at our disposal.

    Davod (5bdbd3)

  20. It was after all Rosa Brooks who arrogantly informed us,

    “Americans? We’re fat, decadent and getting dumber all the time.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks29jun29,1,4333680.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=6&cset=true

    “On 9/11, they got lucky — but despite the unexpected success of their attack on the U.S., they did not pose an imminent mortal threat to the nation.”

    This is the statement of a self-blinded do-gooder who is too afraid to name the enemy let alone look it dead in the eye. No, she has to chalk it up to luck and make them less than evil – of course we weren’t in imminent danger…they’re not those kind of killers.

    Right.

    Dana (8da8ef)

  21. al Qaida did not pose an imminent mortal threat to our nation, and does not do so even today.

    “Imminent” means right away

    “Mortal” means the whole nation would be destroyed

    No, al Qaida represented a lesser threat: an imminent threat to murder thousands of people at a time and wreak havoc on our economy, and to dismantle America piece by piece, attack by attack, until they did destroy us, even if it took them decades.

    Why don’t leftists take that lesser threat seriously?

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  22. Comment by alphie — 7/22/2007 @ 3:36 am

    Comment by Semanticleo — 7/22/2007 @ 8:27 am

    Patterico, have you always been a landing spot for Goldstein’s trolls?

    marcus (8e46bb)

  23. They were lucky. If a woman named Theresa LePore hadn’t bungled the design of the Palm Beach County ballot, the CIA would have delivered a warning to President Al Gore that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. And President Gore wouldn’t have said thank you and then gone out to clear some brush in Faux Macho Mode, an operation that doesn’t impress anyone beyond the mainstream media and Joe Lieberman.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (fde8d2)

  24. So

    What this guy is saying is that 3200 people were unlucky on 9/11?

    Explain the flight 93? Is this person saying we were lucky there or Al Qaeda was lucky?

    Personally I thought it was bravery myself

    EricPWJohnson (92aae0)

  25. say it ain’t so!

    it ain’t so, patterico. daryl herbert started off ok in comment #21 defining “imminent” and “mortal” before he diverged with a non sequitur containing an implied falsehood. even if new york city had been totally annihilated in a nuclear blast, the nation would still exist a day later, a year later, ten years later. the same people who started and are losing iraqwar are now engaging us in languagewar in an effort to conceal their responsibility for this debacle. there is a certain amount of luck inherent in all successful human activity; considering my tech skills, i’m lucky whenever i boot up my box and look at blogs that i don’t infect myself with spyware and turn into a zombie. rosa brooks was technically accurate, if somewhat heedless in exposing her flank to a languagewar offensive. hitler had infantry, armor, a navy complete with u-boats, an air force and the most effective rockets of the time; al qaeda is just 1000 guys in turbans with nothing, nothing at all to hurt us except what they steal from us first. yes they’re still a significant threat, they could steal a nuke from somewhere and set it off, but those others who intentionally conflate different threat levels to sow fear among americans are also terrorists.

    assistant devil's advocate (72f3b9)

  26. Yes, 9/11 was a horrible tragedy requiring decisive action. No, al Qaeda is not to be trifled with.

    However, treating al Qaeda as some sort of existential threat seems over the top. In WWII, Russia (for a time) lost the greater part of its industrial and agricultural capacity, several of its greatest cities, and 23.5 million people. That an existential crisis, and 3000 dead Americans doesn’t come close.

    Russell (084691)

  27. Andrew, as long as we’re writing fanfic, what would President Al Gore have done that didn’t happen when he was VPOTUS?

    Pablo (99243e)

  28. yes they’re still a significant threat, they could steal a nuke from somewhere and set it off, but those others who intentionally conflate different threat levels to sow fear among americans are also terrorists.

    Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  29. Check out what these guys have to say:

    former CIA,

    former FBI director,

    former military intelligence people,

    many physicists,

    and pilots,

    and firefighters,

    and structural engineers,

    and architects,

    and a former member of GWB’s administration,

    and former presidential administration officials,

    and NORAD people,

    and the many documentaries at the bottom of the screen also.

    Click around to the many different categories within the site, including professors, and 911 survivors, and media, and soooo many others, you’ll just have to look for yourself.

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  30. I guess it’s time (again) to dig out those quotes from the 1990s from Clinton and Gore and Albright and Cohen et al. about the threat posed to us from terrorists (al-Qaeda et al.) and terrorist sponsors – like Iraq – with WMDs.

    Remember the nineties?

    As others have noted, until we get a Democratic Administration and probably have to endure another attack, most on the left just will not – can not – acknowledge the danger – granted not an existential one – posed to the civilized world by radical Islamists.

    The fact that militarily – one on one – the Islamists cannot defeat the US military on the battlefield does not mean, of course, that they cannot do great damage.

    Some folks get it and some folks don’t – or can’t.

    EricH (23c061)

  31. Oh, good lord blubonnet, spare us the nutty stuff. These loony conspiracy theories are have ago been debunked.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  32. So, if on September 12 or so, George Bush had come out and said that the 9/11 attack was “pure luck” and that the threat from al-Qaeda was largely non-existent and could easily be dealt with using law enforcement tools, Rosa Brooks and the other lefties posting here would have supported him?

    Who believes this?

    SteveMG (23c061)

  33. Robin, why don’t you give the professionals some credit who have valuable input on the subject? Also, the 911 truth movement is only getting more massive, because the facts are getting to be mainstream.

    Incidentally, the official story is being debunked by many physicists.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  34. I’ve never fully understood the odd needs that belief in ludicrous conspiracy theories fills.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  35. Al Gore?? Does anyone really believe that Al Gore w/ the same intel that Bush had would have somehow prevented 9/11? The guy who thinks global warming is the greatest danger the world is facing?

    chas (3385c2)

  36. Curiosity, being a characteristic of intelligence, is obviously not something you have, but fear, of wearing the dreaded tin foil hat, is, as well as considering things that don’t feel comfortable.

    YOU, Robin are dismissing government intelligence people, people whose lives were studying the threat of terrorism, that being their occupation. So, basically, you are saying that you know more than these professionals. There is no logic to your perspective, only fear.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  37. blubonnet, appeals to authority is a fairly well known logical fallacy.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  38. Explain the flight 93? Is this person saying we were lucky there or Al Qaeda was lucky?

    By the standards of this discussion we’re forced to call it a tie.

    Personally I thought it was bravery myself

    Fortune favors the bold.

    Fortune favors the prepared too, and more reliably. I’m just glad that AQ or anyone else hasn’t tried any of the simple tactics that one man willing to kill and die for his god can employ. Not in the USA anyway, it looks like all of their people up for that are doing it in Iraq.

    AQ could be fighting an insurgency here with only a few hundred people and meager resources. They could have people absolutely terrified and rack up a very large bodycount. Someone actually did have the clever idea of holding that fight somewhere were you can deploy divisions of troops and massed air power without the citizenry being upset. Or threatened. Sadly, this point didn’t come across well. It’s being picked back up now that the surge is working out.

    I still believe we got sold a bill of goods about the war in Iraq. Frankly, pulling the Taliban down in Afghanistan was popular enough that an operation based on pulling down a dictator could have been sold to the public. Relying on a WMD story that they couldn’t back up was a mistake. As a supporting argument it would have been impossible to deny that Saddam has had and used chemical weapons and wants nukes. Nobody denies that (for reasonable values of nobody). As a casus belli it failed. And the voting public is rightly pissed off about it.

    As long as I’m making suggestions, I’d have sent a colonel on a local morning news program to announce that we expected AQ et al to exploit every factional dispute and recruit all the disaffected, but that we hoped to engage and destroy those forces in a protracted, confusing and frustrating struggle. Do that somewhere where you’ll get a “go get ’em !” response and point to it later when the media starts whining.

    Michael Llaneza (3bc1c4)

  39. There were, of course, elements of luck involved, but to boil it down to “they got lucky” is a bit moronic. I’m not sure the team that crashed and burned in Pennsylvania considered themselves especially lucky, either. I believe there is a possibility that the government has covered up negligence on their part, that al Qaeda was possibly able to infiltrate the USG so that they knew what day they should carry out the attack. Perhaps they got some help from their good buddies in Saudi Arabia, parts of the 9/11 investigation that has been very hush-hush for fear of angering our oil lords. Lucky? Not so much.

    George (baa852)

  40. Leaving aside for now blu’s “9/11 truthiness” appeals..with all the credibility of the Heaven’s Gate cult … Cleo, AF and Brooks herself is operating under the assumption that jihadists are nothing but a force of nature and should be given the same consideration. High winds knock down a few fences? Just rebuild and go on, nothing to see, move on. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados? Oh well, what’s a few hundred, or a few thousand, dead? It’s not like Brooks, et al, have more sympathy or empathy for dead Americans than does the water buffalo who watches his/her fellow get caught in the crocodile’s jaws. It wasn’t *me* this time ….

    So surrender in Iraq, bring the troops home, pickup where Clinton left off in dismantaling US military forces. Start making appeasements diplomatic concessions to Islamists offended foreign institutions. More bribes foreign aid to Islamists, feed Israel to the Islamists (who cares about the Jews anyway? It’s not like there’s that many of them anyway). Start reworking American culture to submit to accomodate Islam in ways we’d never do for any other religion.

    No, America won’t fall … it’ll just change.

    Just keep feeding the crocodile so AF, Brooks, Cleo, et al, aren’t bothered by the messiness of defending one’s values and ideals.

    I mean, God doesn’t exist, we have no more intrinsic value than a Lodgepole Pine, so what does it matter WHAT kind of government/society/culture eventually rules?

    Nihilism rules!

    Darleen (187edc)

  41. “Nihilism rules!”

    Such projection!!

    Enjoy the Ruling Class, while it lasts.

    Semanticleo (4741c2)

  42. Al Gore and Terrorism …
    Perhaps we can do a piggy-back channelling on Bob Woodward and find out what counsel Al Gore gave in the inner-circles of the WH after the Cole attack? Or his thoughts on the Khobar Towers bombing? Say, wasn’t he somewhere around DC when our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were car-bombed? Has Al Gore said anything of substance re AQ Terrorism, or is his brain fried by Global Warming?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  43. Darleen…
    Lodgepole pines ARE of more worth than people, since they provide nesting area for other species. That, of course, is impossible with people, with the exception of AlGore of course, who seems to have developed a bad case of bats-in-the-belfrey.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  44. Darleen #40, well said. Sort of where I was attempting to head but was so disgusted by the obvious REFUSAL of some to admit who the enemy is, but learn about their enemy’s true nature in order to defeat them. It is us or them, and no amount of diplomacy, appeasement, rolling over and showing our belly is gonna change the fact that we are not much else but targets.

    I’ll repeat mysef: This is the statement of a self-blinded do-gooder who is too afraid to name the enemy let alone look it dead in the eye. No, she has to chalk it up to luck and make them LESS THAN EVIL – oh no, of course we weren’t in imminent danger…they’re not those kind of killers.

    Dana (8da8ef)

  45. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados? Oh well, what’s a few hundred, or a few thousand, dead? It’s not like Brooks, et al, have more sympathy or empathy for dead Americans than does the water buffalo who watches his/her fellow get caught in the crocodile’s jaws.

    Well, yeah, except for Katrina, which only happened because George Bush wanted to kill several hundred million of our pet black people.

    Root causes, Darleen!

    Pablo (99243e)

  46. Strike doesn’t work? Eh. Meant to strikethrough hundred.

    Pablo (99243e)

  47. Darleen,

    When given the choice between actions that make things worse and inaction…most people will choose inaction.

    Particularly when the actions that make things worse cost American taxpayers $300,000,000,000 a year.

    It’s not nihilism, it’s business.

    alphie (015011)

  48. To the extent that the terrorists were learning to fly aircraft without having any interest in being able to land them and the proper authorities were not alerted about that (or were alerted but failed to respond), they were lucky.

    Psyberian (9a155b)

  49. “On 9/11, they got lucky — but despite the unexpected success of their attack on the U.S., they did not pose an imminent mortal threat to the nation.”

    Literally, of course, she is correct. Any number of things could’ve gone wrong with their operation that would have destroyed it. But, they were lucky and all their planning and preparations paid off.

    An no, Al Qaeda is not a mortal threat to our nation. Nor is 1, 3 or 5 dirty or nuclear bombs. But that’s not the point. The fact that they have vowed to kill tens-of-thousands if not millions makes them a literal and moral threat that must be vanquished with extreme prejudice.

    David (c5e4eb)

  50. “Incidentally, the official story is being debunked by many physicists.”

    Other than Rosie O’Donnell, could you name a few ? The Truther movement is growing because, in the 1970s the ACLU made it quite difficult to commit someone unless they constituted an immediate threat to themselves or others. As a result, most state mental institutions were closed.

    Pablo, perhaps you confused Kathleen Blanco for George Bush. They do look a bit alike although Bush is thinner. I was in New Orleans the year before Katrina a day after Hurricane Ivan missed the city by about 60 miles and devastated Pensacola. I saw no preparations in place even though the hurricane was nearly as powerful as Katrina. New Orleans and the entire state of Louisiana have been run by crooks since Napoleon sold us the place. The money for levee maintenance was spent on casino parking lots and Swiss bank accounts. The MRGO project aimed an arrow at NO’s heart and Katrina came along. Bush had nothing to do with it or with the lying news media that spread ridiculous rumors on national TV.

    I suspect you know this and are cooperating in the lying contest about Katrina that is still going on.

    WordPress is acting like Haloscan.

    MIke K (66a34c)

  51. Darleen, there’s plenty of Republican atheists, and Democratic Christians. Generalizing doesn’t work.

    Darleen, I guess you don’t know this yet, but among astute PROFESSIONAL observers, the official government story has been shown to be impossible, pathetically full of holes. A professional firefighters’ magazine actually said, that, the “911 Commission is a half baked farce.”

    As far as my “truthiness” goes, why don’t you listen to what over 100 Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials have to say http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

    Or over 50 Pilots and Aviation professionals have to say:www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

    Or over 170 Engineers(many structural engineers) and Architects have to say.
    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

    Or over 140 Professors, Physicists plentifully included. http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  52. ooops, the pilots site
    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  53. Blu

    When you don the black Nikes and the really nice black and purple attire, let me know.

    I’ll light a candle at your passing.

    I find those “experts” as convincing as the “experts” in Holocaust denial

    Darleen (187edc)

  54. Gee, Darleen, I’ll look to you instead of the government intelligence officials (like former FBI director Louis Freeh, and former CIA, and former terrorism researchers for the government) that say differently than you, if you’re smarter.

    The science? I suppose you’ve got it over them too, huh? Did you look at the numbers of the professionals(physicists, etc) , fast growing, (see post #50) of those stating the absurdity of the government story? Oh, you’re smarter than all of them, though. Okay.

    There are those like yourself, that no amount of logic or credibility will alter their perspective, so I’ll accept that you are in that category, Darleen, but, hopefully others that havin’t given up their objectivity, I will touch their curiosity, which is a sign of intelligence on their part, and look, seeing the factual and the obvious, the documentaries, the ample scientific analysis, far surpassing the government “reports” in research.

    Actually, the amount of the public now that sees it is about half, that the government is not coming clean on all they know. There is an undeniable cover-up, and it looks more and more like an involvement on their part. Unthinkable, huh? Well, anyone that trusts anything the GWB gang does anymore has their head deep up their kazoo. Their true colors are showing more and more, and they are a dark shade of blood red.

    I know I’m doing what I can do to spread awareness, and the masses are growing, in recognizing the gaping holes in the government story. The 911 truth movement is only expanding, gradually taking over the population in realization of what the hell we have running this nation, and yes, it is frightening. But you’re a blithering fool not to see what has occured. Check out the many documentaries on the site’s link, at the end of that screen.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  55. Blubonnet:

    Do you write for the Comedy Hour or Saturday Night Live?

    The public reacts to badly phrased polling questions and a glut of crockumentaries.

    Davod (5bdbd3)

  56. Blubonnet

    Troofers are inverted Birchers, either way both are lunatics.

    susan (7faf4d)

  57. Blu

    You’re continuing on the faux line that you somehow have “science” on your side

    sorry, no you don’t.

    I realize that none of the science I cite that has irrefutably shown how the jets hit the WTC and the Pentagon and caused the damage we witnessed will convince you. You have your faith in your scenario and any tidbits that reinforce your faith you’ll accept while out-of-hand rejecting anything contradictory.

    You’re of the “flying DNA” that “proved” 20-30 cops all conspired to Frame OJ conspiracists.

    It’s just too scary for you “truthers” to even allow the tiniest bit of reality that makes The Other the culprit … runs smack dab into the inculcation of multi-cultural feel-good white man’s burden guilt. So it has to be a double-super-secret conspiracy BY evil white men.

    Gads, will you please just shed your earthly container and leave the rest of us alone.

    Darleen (187edc)

  58. We already know what Fearless Leader George Bush did after the bin Laden memo.

    Nothing.

    Well, that’s not quite true. He told the briefer that he’d covered his ass. Then this great, prescient, omniscient president whose every decision drips with brilliance went and cleared brush or some other tough-guy nonsense. A few weeks later: kaboom!

    Obviously no one knows for certain what President Gore would have done, but it’s a good guess that it would have been more than nothing. Had the FBI search for suspicious flight school information as a start? At least we wouldn’t have been treated to the bin Laden family as the first flight out of the US post-9/11.

    One of the facts lost in the adulation of Bush Devotion Syndrome is that his Administration is one big FEMA: GSA, DoJ, FBI, ICE, you name it. No agency is expected or is competent in the administration of its official duties. Now, the new duties as extensions of the GOP campaign apparatus, that’s a different question.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (6ee7c5)

  59. What should have been done, Andrew? How was the “Bin Laden memo” actionable, or any different than any other memo in regards to AQ since they declared war on the US?

    Why would it be a “good guess” that Gore would have acted any differently? They were in office for 8 years, and other than a prosecution (reactive), what did they have to show for their proactive tactics against AQ?

    JD (a04d17)

  60. Obviously, President Gore would have declared war on the combustion engine and Anthropogenic Global Warming after 9/11, after empaneling a symposium to discuss the cultural perspectives of the root causes of the attacks.

    JD (a04d17)

  61. in re: the 9/11 Truth Movement:

    Tee
    hee…

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  62. What is on film, not anything anyone can say, is what does the talking on those documentaries.

    Darleen, tell me how, when never in history, a steel frame building came down by fire, when the jet fuel burned almost immediately up? Also, WTC 7 which was not even hit by a plane, went down in a uniform, and smooth imposion style?

    Then, it didn’t just burn steel, the whole thing was pulverized. But, I’m sure your fear of the dreaded tin foil hat, and your fear of your daddy/the government being anything less than a benevolent force that will take care of you, over-rides your capacity of objective accessment, but you don’t even have the guts to see any of the documentaries, with obvious explosions going off in the buildings, and the many running out of the buildings, having witnessed dozens of explosions, before the obvious, implosion style collapse of the buildings.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  63. Now THAT is funny…

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  64. I am so tempted to feed the troll, but I’m going to ignore blubonnet.

    Nah, the temptation is too great….

    tell me how, when never in history, a steel frame building came down by fire, when the jet fuel burned almost immediately up?

    There was plenty of combustible material in the buildings, aside from the jet fuel. Think of the jet fuel as charcoal lighter fluid on your barbecue: the coals don’t go out just because the fluid has all burned up.

    Also, WTC 7 which was not even hit by a plane, went down in a uniform, and smooth imposion style?

    No, it was hit by a chunk of WTC 2 falling onto it. And it was burning for several hours before it collapsed. And it fell down in a straight line because of inertia, NOT because of controlled demolition.

    Then, it didn’t just burn steel, the whole thing was pulverized.

    Yeah, that happens when 110 stories of concrete, glass, and steel all collapse onto each other: things get pulverized from the massiveness of it all.

    implosion style collapse of the buildings.

    The only thing “implosion style” about it was coming down in a more-or-less straight line. But that’s just physics: something that massive would need a HUGE amount of force to make it go sideways.

    Steverino (577e47)

  65. Blu, you never cease to make me laugh.

    Move to central Illinois, and entertain me professionally…

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  66. Also steverino, the way the building was designed made it more likely to go straight up and down. Instead of the usual structure to carry the weight, the massive weight of the building was carried by the outside skin. Instead on one (more or less) central stucture, it had 4 equal ones on all sides. Kept it more or less true to the world as it fell…

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  67. Well, JD, Clinton barely missed Osama once. His transition team made a special point of warning the incoming Administration about him. And the Bushies ignored that. There isn’t any question that Al Qaeda got less (even less, if that’s easier for you) attention under Bush than Clinton.

    It’s funny how Bush is never held accountable for his failures. Mind control?

    Andrew J. Lazarus (6ee7c5)

  68. “Barely missed” ? If only Osama was planning an assault on the US with bombs full of aspirin.

    They so aggressively went after him that they declined to take him into custody when given the opportunity.

    What did the transition team say? AQ is planning to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC sometime in late summer, just thought you should know. Or was it along the lines of, AQ sure does hate us, and they will likely attack us again at some point.

    Less attention, certainly. Because the scope of an entire Presidency is outlined in the first 9 months.

    JD (a04d17)

  69. AQ determined to strike in US.

    Pray tell, Andrew, what is new about that information, and what action should have been taken?

    As far as luck goes, to a certain extent, they were lucky. The terrorists only have to get lucky once. We have to be right every time.

    JD (0e88a0)

  70. The government story has been proven by physics to be impossible, dozens and dozens of physicists are saying this).

    You can rest on your delusions, but you are in a fast dwindling number of Americans. The evidence is being recognized by a huge and growing number of the population now. It is not going away, but gains strength daily.

    The numbers of professionals, in the hundreds, are getting on board. In the above links (#51), you will see and hear the government people that are exposing what they can.

    Of course, the delusional, like yourselves, will giggle and do your derision tactics, but cower. You cower from criticism, and you cower from reality. From evidence, which takes some serious machinations within your head to insulate you from that which you cannot face.

    Who has seen any documentaries? There is one made by a Conservative Republican called, “911 Mysteries” for anyone who has a healthy curiosity.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  71. Can you please take this show on the road?! The comedy scene in Indianapolis has been lacking lately, and you would give it the shot in the arm that it so desperately needs.

    JD (0e88a0)

  72. Dozens and dozens? Wow…

    So those other 3,000 or so can just go home? Those 24-26 guys have this covered?

    Show me the actual math, blu, and I’ll show you a host of topics you don’t actually understand.

    These goverment people exposing what they can…

    Explain to me how it is that they can attempt to out this plot, and not die of a heart attack or failed break-lines…

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  73. blubonnet, any one with any experience in fires will tell you that there is a long history of steel buildings collapsing due to fire weakening the structure. Its been in every fire science text book since I studied fire science in the ’70’s.

    The buildings collapsed straight down because there was no energy being applied sideways to make them topple. A real physicist would know that.

    The bottom line is that the “truthers” do not have a coherent alternative explanation – so they rely upon misrepresentations to seed doubts but never offer a single coherent alternative.

    WTC 7 is a prime example. Why would the building be intentionally destroyed at all? And if it was pre-wired for demolition, why wait all day before blowing it up? How did the explosives survive the fires that burned in it in the meantime? None of that story makes sense at all.

    This is the tool of conspiracy nuts from JFK’s assassination to the Holocaust denial.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  74. No they missed him at Tarnak farms in 1998, at the other camp with the UAE prince on the Falconing trip; just right off the top of my head. The Aug. 2001 PDB was not as specific asthe previous one, in December 1998; which named no particular figure except Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.the inspiration behind the Sadat assassination and the first WTC plot. It didn’t mention Al Midhar and Al Hamzi; the California Saudi muscle flagged by the CIA, Ziad Jarrah, Atta’s Hamburg roomate, also flagged, Marwan Al Shehhi; also identified by German BND. Whether that was because of The previous briefing mentioned Mohammed Atef (dead Dec. 2001) and Col. Seif al Adel; aka Mohammed Mokkawi; the last currently living inLavizan, Iran) Those two planned the battle of the Black Sea Operation in Mogadishu; the latter was the first to divise to airplane as ‘guided missile, according to Lawrence Wright.

    As to Rosa Brook’s it’s scary to think she’s a law professor at GeorgeTown; for her columns are
    blithely ignorant of the law. Among her most recent offerings was a commentary on the fate of poor Khalid Sheik Mohammed; and his tragic travails in Pakistan, Thailand, Constaninescu AFB in Romania, and now Guantanamo, Mind you, this was the
    man who severed Daniel Pearl’s head, directed the Bojinka plot, planned 9/11 and a dozen other plots. But since he doesn’t get a regular criminal hearing; because he is by definition not
    subject to the Geneva Conventions; because of his
    enemy combatant status; (ex parte Milligan, Qurin, Eisentrager et al)Article 3; demands the subject fly under the flag and in the uniform of a recognized power. I know the hagiographers for Lt. Commdr. Swift, and by extension Osama Hamdan, & Omar Khan at Vanity Fair, Esquire and now G.Q. Magazine have missed this ; they certainly avoided the Pentagon’s background report on ElSharbi and Al Quahtani; the 20th hijacker capture at Faisalabad in 2002. An interesting side note, had United 93’s flight not been interrupted by Todd Beamer’s efforts; her own Georgetown neighborhood would likely have suffered a good deal of the impact. But that’s neither here nor there. Another column gave the media’s modest approval for it’s attacks on the administration for Gitmo, the NSA intercepts of terrorist communications, and wire
    transfers. Then comes this last column. By the way we know about Constaninescu AFB because Dana Priest and Brian Ross; revealed this information to the media; compromising long foughtcooperation agreements in E. Europe; and making them likelier Al Queda targets. All in a days work for the Pulitzer.

    narciso (34e21d)

  75. Robin, you forgot the Moon Landing Hoax squad.

    blu, you keep telling us that lots of physicists are on board, but you never show any facts. That’s the very definition of “appeal to authority”, which another poster has already called you on.

    I’ve seen the documentaries, and I’m not impressed. They make points in 20 seconds that take an hour to refute…but their points are still baloney.

    steverino (577e47)

  76. Levi,
    Thanks for those links. I’m saving those for a more deserving truther in future.
    c

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  77. No problem… Spread the Wealth, as they say.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  78. Robin, back up your statements. You can’t. A steel frame building has never collapsed from fire. It was perfect implosion style on WTC 7 that was not even hit by a plane. The others were pulverized. They became basically powder. Numerous reports of people running out of the building state the multiple explosions heard. Firefighters that were there explain it as well. You have to look at the numerous videos and you’ll hear it over and over, the explosions that don’t have an explanation.

    The physicists are plentiful on my side.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  79. blubonnet, then rewrite the fire science textbook since you are such an expert on steel frame structures.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  80. Go to the link, and there are numerous links of statements by the professionals within it. Hear them.

    Steel cannot melt at the temperatures of burning jet fuel. There were plenty of globs of melted steel.

    There were cases of pieces of steel beams that were actually projected sideways, lodging themselves into other buildings. It is on the video. Only explosives could do that.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  81. bluebonnet didn’t link the best page on that site – The Entertainers!!!

    9/11 truth is embraced by heavyweight thinkers:
    – Charlie Sheen (!)
    – Woody Harrelson (not because the pot makes him paranoid, though!)
    – Rosie O’Donnell (the first time in history that fire melted steel!)
    – Eminem
    – Richie Havens (again, with the pot smoking)

    Seriously, blubonnet has the lead singer of Slipknot on his side, man! And David Lynch! And Mike Malloy!

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  82. There is a site among hundreds, that is just physicists, a different one than the aforementioned ones. Here is that link. http://www.physics911.net

    An interesting observation by one having seen the results of burning fuel in a steel vessel is here: http://www.physics.net/mitchell (The steel does not melt)

    Or just crack jokes and giggle at your own jokes, ignoring the facts.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  83. As usual, I hurriedly typed in the link, and mis-typed it, the second link. Here is the correct one.

    http://www.physics911.net/mitchell

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  84. blubonnet, you really don’t know what you are talking about.

    Steel frame buildings fail during fires not because the steel melts but because at temperatures attainable in fires, the steel loses much of strength. This has been widely discussed in truther debunking. Your ignorance of this fact is a good example of what I said when I said that you were doing yourself no favors following this nonsense.

    Just because Rosie O’Donnell can’t understand that, does not mean that you can’t.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  85. For some reason, blubonnet has not linked the best page on that site – the celebrity endorsements. Perhaps appeals to authority are undermined when your “authority” includes big thinkers like Charlie Sheen, Eminem, Rosie O’Donnell and the guitarist from Blink 182.

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  86. my comments need a wordpress truth movement.

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  87. I think that the comment filter is blocking the ‘truth’ website blubonnet is linking. That’s funny.

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  88. Robin,

    The fact that “professionals” hold blu’s view suggests they aren’t actually professionals.

    At least not in the proper field.

    And “gobs” of molten steel? I can only wonder if they could tell the difference between “melted in the furnace that was the rubble pile” and “heated and massively deformed by impact/pressure”.

    Blu’s just funny.

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  89. All right, that’s enough.

    You knuckle-dragging idiots think that the towers came down by controlled demolition?

    Let’s grant the premise and visualize the consequences. That’s what Bill Whittle did:

    Have you ever seen a controlled demolition? Shows like this are all over The Discovery Channel. Do these people realize how all of the insulation and paneling must be stripped away from the support beams? Do they not understand how these beams must be cut open and the explosives placed with great care? Have they not any idea of the amount of time this takes — months — and the forest of wires that runs through the structure to the detonating mechanism? Have they given no thought — none? — to what an enormous job this is, and how much work goes into getting these explosives exactly where they need to be?

    Apparently not. They just figure someone leaves a suitcase somewhere, I guess.

    Anyone who has ever — ever — seen what is required to bring down a building of that size knows that the site is a disaster area of det cord, pulled paneling, and huge bundles of explosives taped to the structural columns across many floors. Has no one considered that this all had to be started after everyone went home on Monday night and before people reported for work the next day? On multiple floors of two of the busiest public spaces in the world?

    No one noticed this on Tuesday morning? Hey Jim, what do you suppose that huge bundle of plastic explosives is doing there where the water cooler used to be? And where do those wires go? Well, must be some logical explanation. Let’s get some coffee and bagels.

    Now you’re talking!

    Of all the people in those buildings that morning, no one — no one — saw any wires anywhere? No one asked why the drywall was torn down and replaced with grey stuff duct-taped into place? None of the firemen rushing into those burning towers, checking all those floors for survivors — none of them noticed the building was rigged to explode? That it might possibly be worth a small call on the radio?

    As Bill Whittle said, magical thinking (superstition, wishful thinking, pseudoscience, unsubstantiated claims, assertion, mysticism and anti-science) are very susceptible to facts and logic. Simply granting the premise and looking at the consequences is a silver-tipped, hardened oak stake dipped in garlic paste made from holy water when it comes to demolishing these bizzare controlled demolition ideas spewed forth by Dylan Avery, Rosie O’Donnell and the rest of the Troofers.

    Paul (0544fc)

  90. Scott, these kinds of conspiracy jobs use a lot of forms of misrepresentation. For example, your typical physicist is not a materials engineer and does not necessarily have any idea about the actual failure modes of steel frames. Their opinions could also be based on misrepresentations of material facts, for instance it was not really well understood how much damage WTC 7 took during the collapse of the towers until later studies found a few photos that were the basis of the NIST study. Or outright lies such as accusing an F16 pilot of shooting down Flt 93 when the pilot was half a continent away at the time.

    Lastly, these conspiracy nut websites are accumulations of little disputes that don’t add up to anything. So one “intelligence professional” thinks that the claim that the hijackers could not have been prevented is false – they add him to their list even though he disputes nothing about who did it, how the buildings failed, how the hijacking occurred etc. He’s added to the list of “professionals” who say that the government story is “fake”. Another thinks that WTC 7 collapse isn’t fully explained ( and in part that may be a valid point since we don’t have a lot of surviving evidence – how much was structural damage and how much fire? ) but still does not dispute anything else about the narrative. He’s added to.

    And when they are done, they have a million “disputes” but no one of them is necessarily consistent with any other. And most of their “experts” don’t hold the more ludicrous ideas about what happened.

    The bottom line however, is that they do not have a coherent alternative narrative about what happened. They can’t explain the events with any substantive evidence.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  91. Exactly, Paul, their hypotheses don’t pass a laugh test.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  92. I can’t believe that you are questioning Charlie Sheen, Eminem AND the guitarist from Blink 182. Not to mention David Lynch. There are dozens more at the site blu linked. DOZENS!

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  93. BLU is really bringing teh krazy today.

    JD (26b504)

  94. Interesting, carlitos, that you should bring up the ones that I didn’t mention, on the site that are merely, media people. Check the credentials and the statements of the Senior military people, the former FrDIRECTOR of the FBI-Louis Freeh, and former CIA, and counter terrorism experts within the government. Also, someone that used to be in George W. Bush’s administration, You’re fools if you disregard their statements. Of course you are probably too frightened to look.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  95. Louis Freeh points out some problems with disbanding Able Danger. What does that have to do with 9/11 “truth?” Like the government has never screwed up and closed one program when it should have closed another? Most of the ‘proof’ on that site are one-off comments or complaints about the investigation. Nothing smoking-gun worthy, other than loony non-expert scientists who don’t know the area on which they are commenting.

    carlitos (cc6c0f)

  96. And a perfect example of what I said about this kind of conspiracy nut misrepresentations.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  97. Robin, I’m afraid you are either lying or talking out of your behind.

    It is true that the many intelligence officials, after having gotten the multiple warnings before the attacks, were told adamantly NOT to do an investigative follow up to prevent it. And, as you stated, Robin, don’t have a viable explanation for this, and are angry. No, they don’t have answers.

    NORAD people are on the site, with a sense of incredulousness. Stating that several failures in a row of NORAD, intervening makes no sense at all.

    Curt Weldon, a United States Congressman is on the site, on a video clip, having a meltdown, as to why these anomolies won’t be investigated.

    These are just the tip of the iceberg. There

    While I expected the derision, but, I hope I opened the minds of some, and piqued curiosity, because, for anyone that holds onto their own objectivity, sees the documentaries, the bizzarre collapses, defying physics, there really is no argument, just within your own self, the willingness to accept what you saw and then know. It’s obvious the government story is pathetic and absolutely lacking under scrutiny.

    Another thing, the government storytellers, have been challenged by the 911 truth group of scholars, and they have declined a debate
    that would be open to the public.

    The many other ano

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  98. Nope, blubonnet, you’ve only made yourself look like a loon.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  99. Hey, what about this guy? His name is Morgan Reynolds. He was the chief economist for GWB up til 2001. Here is a lengthy clip, so you might just want to listen to some of it.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  100. Robin, I’m waiting for something tangible in your arguments. Nada so far.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  101. Idiot. He’s given three. READ!!!

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  102. Robin, I’m waiting for something tangible in your arguments. Nada so far.

    I’m waiting for the same thing in yours, blu. Just because you say something is physically impossible doesn’t make it so. Just because you say the buildings were demolished using controlled demolition doesn’t mean you’re right.

    You’ve yet to counter any of the points I’ve made, you just state over and over that many people are coming on board to the “truth” movement.

    Steverino (577e47)

  103. The hundreds of statements made by senior government officials, various intelligence individuals from CIA FBI, NSA, in print and on video within the http://www.patriotsquestion911.com far surpasses his worthless words. They have credence. Robin does not.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  104. Repetitive spamming of the same garbage is inappropriate.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  105. New source of evidence:

    http://www.911eyewitness.com

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  106. Have you ever seen a building wired for a controlled demolition, blubonnet?

    How do you suppose that you set charges and wire them together in two enormous, open for business skyscrapers without the people who work in them noticing?

    Pablo (99243e)

  107. MAGIC!!!

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  108. Those answers are in the documentaries at the bottom of the screen at the http://www.patriotsquestion911.com site. There are answers, but I’m not going to spend a huge amount of time explaining them. Here are a handful of very short clips with scientific data in them.

    http://www.911eyewitness.com/samples/google_victim.php

    http://www.eyewitness.com/samples/google_pilots.php

    http://www.eyewitness.com/samples/google_demo_30floors.php

    http://www.eyewitness.com/samples/google_pyro_flow.php

    http://www.911eyewitness.com/samples/google_nuke_evidence.php

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  109. Bringing teh krazy to you, raw and unfiltered. Don’t you know that moron McChimpyBu$HitlerBurton is forming the new Nazi party, and this was his opening salvo in his quest for world domination? It will take decades to undo the damage that was done when the Dark Lord Stith was allowed to take the reins of power while Shrub had a camera jammed up his rectum. W’s aw-shucks chickenhawk attitude only serves to lull the wingnuts into a false sense of security, while ginning up some moral outrage against TEH OTHRE, who always happen to be brown people. Killing people at home, killing people abroad. Cowboy foreign policy. W is the dummest person ever to hold that office, and has convince 38% of the country that he is acting in their best interest. Lemmings.

    blubonnet is trying to educate you, but you are content to sit back and let the new Third Reich take over. Pity.

    Truth (26b504)

  110. Uh… it’s very very clear that someone should 5150 blu

    blu? sweety? where do you live? You need serious psychiatric help before you hurt yourself or others.

    Darleen (187edc)

  111. Truth,

    nice parody! you almost have the American Left patter down

    Darleen (187edc)

  112. Truth

    to make the Left meme complete.. you forgot to add a soupcon of Zionist conspiracy.. you know, Mossad and AIPAC running the White House all channeled through traitor Joe Lieberman.

    Darleen (187edc)

  113. Darleen – Thanks 😉

    JD (26b504)

  114. They were prepared and trained and focused enough to be 75% successful in terms of running planes into targets, if four planes was indeed the plan. You don’t get as much done as they did by just getting lucky.

    With a little luck, they would have flown #4 into the White House or the Capitol Bldg.

    With a little luck, plane #5 (and #6 ? and … ) would have been commandeered too before everyone was grounded, and with a little more luck, they would have found their targets too.

    But luck doesn’t kill 3000 people.

    dj (47b75c)

  115. “There are answers, but I’m not going to spend a huge amount of time explaining them.”

    Of course not. Let the ambiguity speak for itself.

    dj (47b75c)

  116. There’s 40-50 pieces of evidence, dj. Look for yourself.

    Why did the administration work so hard stonewalling, to prevent an investigation into 911?

    Why did NORAD which works smoothly all year, suddenly fail several times in a row? It generally takes them a few minutes to respond with jets interceding, and sending the planes back on course, or shooting it down.

    When by a physicist, Steven Jones with metallurgy being his specialty, recognizing that metal only melts at a certain very high temperature, of which burning jet fuel does not reach, makes the government story impossible. Many other physicists have joined him on that.

    Why was it that numerous intelligence personnel, in every departmet of government intelligence, having also gotten the info of the looming attacks, were told adamantly NOT to pursue it further or their jobs would be jeapordized?

    Why is it that never in history has a fire collapsed a building, the three WTC buildings were pulverized, WTC 7 going down in such obviously smooth perfect symetrical implosion style?

    How is that all three buildings collapsed at the same speed as gravity? As if a ball were dropping? Since there would be resistance with each floor underneath it, yet the whole collapse on all three buildings were evenly moving in almost free fall speed. 10 seconds max.

    There were records of bomb level vibrations at a local NY University recorded aon their seismograph, that were greater than the recordings of the plane having gone into the building.

    How is it that a particular Senior military intelligence fellow by the name of Stubblebine, whose job it is to study photographs of downed aircraft, looking at the situation at the Pentagon, and the building, states unequivically that it was impossible, looking at the Pentagon, after the hit, and the very small amount of debris afterwards, that the government story was impossible. Incidentally, Rumsfield accidentally used the word missle in describing the Pentagon hit, in a Press conference.

    Why is it that within hours of the hit after the Pentagon hit, a gas/convenience store business with outside cameras, (as many business have) came by and siezed the film?

    All of these points I’ve mentioned can be proven. There are many more pieces of evidence which inter-connect to the many pieces, I’ve mentioned already. All you have to do is look.

    Why won’t the ones claiming that the government is being honest come to squelch the growing 911 truth movement, and put them to shame, with their supposedly superior defense of the government story by way of an open to the public debate? They’ve been asked. They decline.

    Why is it that now, hundreds of
    government officials,
    physicists,
    military intelligence,
    former administration officials,
    investigative journalists,
    firefighters,
    professional pilots,
    air traffic controllers,
    NORAD people,
    structural engineers,
    architects,
    and many more are coming over to the side of the 911 truth movement, I’m sure they would like very much to be heard, as this is an urgent message we all need to realize.

    Why does this 911 truth movement only become more massive, with about half of the US population now seeing that things don’t add up with the official government explanations? Why won’t this truth movement die down? Because people who have the objectivity, intelligence, and curiosity, that are willing to bypass their own fears, are getting it, after all, it is obvious, if you dare use your own powers of observation and objectivity.

    The neo-cons operate under a philosphy of Leo Strauss. Wolfowitz, and Kristol, for one, who put together the PNAC think tank and document, funded by among others, the Bradley Corporation, Kristol, and Wolfowitz, were mentored under the predecessor of Strauss (I can’t remember Strausses predecessor’s name at the moment). If you think that the neo-cons are benevolent, look at the philosphy of Leo Strauss, the basis of his work, to achieve political power, at any cost. All you have to do, is look. Google away.

    Incidentally, PNAC documents state, that in order to obtain control over the middle-east, war will be required, but to get the public to go along with these wars, a “New Pearl Harbor” will be required, or it will be a long wait to accomplish this task of overtaking the middle east.

    There are now at least a dozen or more books out with this massive body of information, of which I’ve only touched on. I suggest you go to the Patriots Question 911 site, and click around. There are hundreds of other links within it.

    The only thing preventing full awareness to all, is the failure of imagination, of those that won’t dare think or look into that direction.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  117. Why did NORAD which works smoothly all year, suddenly fail several times in a row? It generally takes them a few minutes to respond with jets interceding, and sending the planes back on course, or shooting it down.

    NORAD would have had little to do with 9/11. NORAD’s radars look outside the country for threats, not inside.

    When by a physicist, Steven Jones with metallurgy being his specialty, recognizing that metal only melts at a certain very high temperature, of which burning jet fuel does not reach, makes the government story impossible. Many other physicists have joined him on that.

    As has been pointed out many time, steel doesn’t have to be heated to its melting point to weaken. Heat will cause the girders to expand and weaken, and the weight upond the girders will cause them to twist and warp, and pull away from what they are supposed to support.

    After the towers fell, fires burned in those pits for days. The pressure from 110 stories of debris piled on top of the girders and the heat from the remaining fires were sufficient to cause melting. Remember, the melting point stated is for standard pressure (1 atmosphere); any higher pressure lowers the melting point.

    Why is it that never in history has a fire collapsed a building, the three WTC buildings were pulverized, WTC 7 going down in such obviously smooth perfect symetrical implosion style?

    First, you’re dead wrong: fires will cause a building to collapse. Most building fires in this country are put out before the building collapses. That’s why we have fire departments. But if you just let a burning building blaze away, eventually the structure will collapes.

    WTC 7 had a huge chunk of its first 20 floors taken out by debris falling from WTC 2. The weakened structure, combined with uncontrollable fires, caused the collapse.

    Just because something “looks” like controlled demolition doesn’t mean it is controlled demolition. I could paint a picture of the moon…my picture looks just like the moon, but it’s isn’t the moon.

    How is that all three buildings collapsed at the same speed as gravity? As if a ball were dropping? Since there would be resistance with each floor underneath it, yet the whole collapse on all three buildings were evenly moving in almost free fall speed. 10 seconds max.

    Here you’re just plain wrong. The buildings collapsed in about twice the time free-fall would have taken. And this is easily proven by the following picture (taken from a conspiracy site, so you can’t argue any bias)

    WTC 1 collapse

    Note the huge mass of debris on the right, which is falling faster than the rest of the building. If the building were falling at free-fall speeds, as you assert, then that debris would be falling faster than free-fall. You must admit, that’s quite impossible. Therefore, the buildings did NOT descend at free-fall speeds.

    There were records of bomb level vibrations at a local NY University recorded aon their seismograph, that were greater than the recordings of the plane having gone into the building.

    Don’t you think 110 stories of concrete and steel hitting the ground would look like a bomb on a seismograph? Don’t you think that would be a MUCH greater shock than a plane hitting the building?

    There, I’ve debunked but a few of your theories. Try to poke holes in anything I’ve written.

    Steverino (cbc220)

  118. As has been pointed out many time, steel doesn’t have to be heated to its melting point to weaken. Heat will cause the girders to expand and weaken, and the weight upond the girders will cause them to twist and warp, and pull away from what they are supposed to support.

    At between 400 and 600 degrees, steel loses more than 40% of it’s strength. At least 40%

    That’s more than enough to cause structural failure, and well withing the temps possible in an inferno of building and jet fuel…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  119. I apologize for continuing this ridiculous discussion on Patterico’s bandwidth. Patterico, if you take my suggestion of deleting all of blubonnet’s silly comments, feel free to delet this one as well.

    Actually, Steverino, the NIST report discusses the speed of collapse and asserts that the floors of the WTC towers presented little resistance once the collapse began because the loads were so high.

    For those interested in non-looney explanations, the NIST report is available at here, and it includes specific, detailed refutations of the looney conspiracy claims – refutations built on the actual evidence, not intentional misrepresentations of the evidence as the truthers employ. Note that while there is some preliminary discussion of WTC7, the NIST has not yet completed its investigation.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  120. I forgot to add, Steverino, that the NIST report contains a detailed discussion of the seismic records and that blubonnet’s representations of their contents is false. There are no bomb signatures in the seismic record at all.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  121. Good grief, are there STILL people who think 9/11 was an inside job? Haven’t they moved onto something about aliens from Mars shooting mindbeams at them or something?

    steve miller (be6a74)

  122. Steve Miller,
    Marvin the Martian is a good friend of mine, and more than 90 physicists will absolutely swear on a stack of Fahrenheit 911 videos that his device will cause an Earth shattering kaboom.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  123. Actually, Steverino, the NIST report discusses the speed of collapse and asserts that the floors of the WTC towers presented little resistance once the collapse began because the loads were so high.

    I understand that, Robin, and could have spent a few more paragraphs on just why the resistance of the lower floors didn’t make much of a difference. But it was very easy to demonstrate visually just why the collapse wasn’t as blubonnet stated. (Some people need a picture.)

    Steverino (40460a)

  124. Robin, Steverino, Pablo:

    Did you notice how blubonnet simply tap danced his way around my quoting Bill Whittle granting the premise? How he simply started quoting people reporting anomalies and didn’t answer to how much goes into a controlled demolition?

    There’s no helping a mind this far gone.

    Paul (0544fc)

  125. Paul, I mentioned before that I do not understand the emotional need that is fulfilled by adopting these very strange, convoluted and baseless conspiracy theories.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  126. Robin, I understand it. At least, I think I do. I don’t agree with it, but the emotional need that gets filled is as follows:

    Small people can’t do big things. Some people cannot accept that nobodies like Lee Harvey Oswald or the 9/11 hijackers are capable of taking down something so mighty, or changing the course of the world so dramatically.

    So, rather than try to come to grips with the reality that some insignificant punk has scored an incredible coup, they force themselves to believe that it must have been a huge conspiracy….akin to legions of fairies working magic behind the scenes.

    In a sense, it’s a defense mechanism. Because if they admit to themselves that miniscule street debris can do something so great once, then it can happen again at any time. Under the conspiracy theory, it will happen only when the conspirators deem it necessary.

    Steverino (629f25)

  127. I’ve heard that one, Steverino, but for some reason, it does not satisfy me as an explanation for the conspiracy nuts.

    I’m leaning more toward the idea that the conspiracy nuts have an emotional need to feel that they possess secret knowledge that the rest of us don’t possess. And that they are more important because of that, and that they are so obnoxious because of their need to convince us of their importance from that possession.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  128. You guys are wrong on physics, on NORAD, and the whole shabang. Hundreds of professionals in the appropriate fields addressing each and every point will refute it over on the Patriots site Question 911 site.

    Incidentally there are structural engineers, that recognize how bogus the weakened steel by fire theory is, especially when NEVER IN HISTORY HAS STEEL FRAME BUILDING COLLAPSED BY FIRE. If there was, certainly you could have googled it, and brought it here, since this is such a hot subject (no pun intended) all over the web, the 911 questions. Have you forgotten that steel is what contains fires, in the structure of barbecues, and furnaces for starters? Cement contains fire as well.

    And why is it that the buildings were pulverized, not just down, but became many many thousands of tons of dust? In the documentaries, can’t remember which one, but there is a picture of what a pancaked building looks like. There are also examples of steel and cement buildings that have burned for 24 or more hours that did not come down, but merely became charred and emptied of all that could burn.

    Also, the contractor that built the WTC even stated that these building were made to withstand a hit from an airplane. Oddly, he was on video, having said it long ago. He was one that happened to be in one of the building when they went down, as a matter of fact, and was was killed, but you can see his video testimony on at least one of the documentaries.

    And why is your opinion of whether this subject is relevant decided by you, Robin? It’s obviously relevant enough to be continuing as vigorously as it is, and making people think. Isn’t that what any thread is meant to to do?

    Go to the bottom of the screen, at http://www.patriotsquestion911.com and click onto one of the many documentaries. Every point you think you made can be thoroughly disputed. Just dare to look. Maybe you don’t have the emotional fortitude to confront these things, they make you too uncomfortable.

    Also, on the site are the Popular Mechanics reports, and the NIST reports. They also are on the bottom of the screen. It is obvious that the data they have is minimal and lacking substance. And why dont’ they want to be part of a public debate the PM, and NIST people against the many scholars that challenge them?

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  129. blueballs – It is not hundreds of experts, it is thousands, scratch that, millions. Damn, it is all experts.

    NEVER IN HISTORY HAS STEEL FRAME BUILDING COLLAPSED BY FIRE

    Putting Rosie’s quote in all caps does not make it any more believable.

    Why would any credible party be willing to debate a bunch of kooks like you and your fellow travelers. That would just give your baseless paranoia some type of perceived legitimacy that it does not deserve. Now, back to Mommy’s basement for you.

    JD (26b504)

  130. Why? Because this 911 truth movement is becoming more and more massive. It is hurting their agenda, and it obviously threatens them in everyway, as more and more people are getting it. The government side would easily put to shame the 911 truth movement if it could. Not to mention, that more individuals with impeccable reputations, and credentials, are seeing the obvious, which those weaker, or too frightened simply won’t. The attempts to pump out the lame reports, have been shown for what they are, insufficient at best. Why won’t they try and bring it front and center. About half, of the US population now, yes really, are recognizing this mind blowing truth.

    Oh, did I mention that the former director of NASA Bob Bowman, is now speaking out against these criminals?

    You apparently cannot fathom that the men running our country are criminals, and I say that literally, not just metaphorically, meaning the usual low life politician, but genuine criminals.

    The neo-cons fashion themselves after Leo Strauss. PNAC (stands for Project for the New Amcerican Century) as I’ve mentioned is done in accordance to Straussian principles. If you want to understand it, here is a link. You of course can google and find much more on it, and the neo-con operations. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  131. You may think that our government would not ever do such a thing, well, think again. It has happened in US history, more than once, although not on such a large scale slaughter. In fact the documents that used to be classified, have been open for all to see, from decades back.

    Look up Operation Northwoods, and the document you can see online, as well. Gulf of Tonkin is another. It is called a false flag operation, used to initiate wars. Other countries have done it as well.

    An excellent film, you can watch, with much history in it, discussing false flag operations will further your understanding. It is called TERROR STORM. The link, I’m bringing you, if you would like to be rivetted. Also, I encourage you to look up the points made and see if you can find other historical articles to corraborate with them, and you will. The film:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  132. Blubonnet,

    Find one expert–just one–that refutes the point made by Bill Whittle I quoted in #88.

    I want a link and a quotation.

    Now.

    Before you post anything else.

    Paul (8077b1)

  133. blubonnet’s claim that the NIST has “minimal” data is just a brazen lie of course, as their reports to date contain thousands of pages of data and quite a bit of imagery. Much of it refutes blubonnets false statements made above.

    The NIST even discusses the claim about the WTC being “designed” to withstand an airliner impact. I would myself point out that the WTC towers each did in fact withstand an airliner impact and stood long enough for them to be evacuated. What they did not withstand was the subsequent fire.

    It does not matter that no one with even a shred of common sense knows that blubonnet’s conspiracy theories are impossible. It does not matter to blubonnet that he really can’t explain the events coherently with any alternative theory that accounts for the actual evidence. What matters to blubonnet is that he is in possession of secret knowledge and is therefore finally important because of that. Since this cult of secret knowledge gives that feeling of importance to blubonnet, he will be unshakable in his faith regardless of fact or logic.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  134. Ummm…

    I’m sorry. As the child of a Vietnam Vet, I can’t help but point out that the Gulf of Tonkin not only happened asit was reported, but was an unprovoked attack on a US ship.

    Dispite what you’d like to believe.

    Blu, you’re just acting the fool. We’ve refuted your claims and statements with logic and fact. If you can’t play at the same level, just shut up.

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  135. I went to the Bill Whittle site, and like you all, he is brilliant in his ability to be insulting, and condascending. That was what impressed me, not any substantial, or tangible knowledge of evidence, or logic.

    He says Rosie’s statement was that fire cannot melt steel. Any idiot knows it can, of course. However, she said, and no one can refute this (Please do if you can, I’d prefer to be wrong on all of this frankly.) she said, that a steel frame building, has never before collapsed from fire.

    Incidentally I don’t believe the moon landing was a fraud, nor do I believe that there is a Loch Ness monster, nor do I believe in Bigfoot.

    Whittle, also claims that 911 truth folks are in the category of “museum grade idiots” Again, clever in the art of insults. However, within the group of “museum grade idiots” he is including people within our government, that have worked much of their career lives in counter terorism, military intelligence, CIA, FBI, as well as structural engineers, and physicist, one of whom happens to specialize in metallurgy (the study of metal and its characteristics). This number grows consistently adding its scholars, relevant to the necesssary fields to analyze the material. If you frequent the site of Patriots question 911, periodically, you will see that.

    Of course you’ve heard all this before, and you are unphased. So, while I hope that some out there that may come along with a curious, objective, and analytical mind and will realize these otherwise unfathomable things, I’m not expecting that those of you, whom I’m interacting with, will dare.

    I will admit that it is a revolting premise to feel hatred towards our administration branch (by the way, did you hate Clinton, or think he was involved in murder, rape, etc.?) I wouldn’t have come to feel this way, except that the body of evidence is so substantial, I can’t ignore it. Also, I thought so many things odd, that I could not put my finger on, then, with tremendous scrutiny, and study, it all came together. It is indisputable. The child’s remarks from this brief clip, expresses my reaction to the events of 911. Obviously not evidence of anything, but I’m appealing to your sense of intuition, if you have any. But, the evidence does not require intuition, but, this is merely one more aspect of perception of the entire subject. http://www.911eyewitness.com/samples/google_nuke_evidence.php

    Also, if you bothered to look at the aforementioned philosophy of Kristol and Wolfowitz’s mentor Leo Strauss (post #141), you will realize that these people are not men of benevolence. Political power is their objective, and being unrelenting in their pursuit of it, is not only part of the philosphy, but very evident in their actions.

    If you look at the multitude of lies, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, while Iraq was proven by weapons inspectors, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association) and others around the globe, in fact although not on the MSM (main-stream-media), cities all around the world had enormous protests against the US invasion on Iraq, the impoverished, long having been sanctioned country. Of course, Wilson tried to warn America, as well, only to be disparaged, incidentally, he WAS a Republican (obviously no longer) and voted for Bush in 2000, foolishly, he’ll admit. And of course there’s dozens of pieces of evidence (look up Downing Street Memo)of the BS that Bush and gang pumped to rev up the enthusiasm for the wars. Hell, I even believed it, and was for it. Then, as no WMDs appeared, I felt sickened, knowing it was a false premise for this war, as thousands of people died horribly, through the bombing of shock and awe, and the rest.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  136. My post with the movie link, on post #132 will hold your attention. Fast paced, and historical.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  137. Do you have exactly one minute? This clip takes just one minute to watch. It is WTC 7 falling, the last one the little clip will show you.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  138. blubonnet, your comments have become quite dishonest. The risks of a steel building collapsing under fire are well documented, well known and not the impossibility you claim. Fire science texts have referred to this as long as I can remember, having studied fire science in the ’70’s myself. There are standards for the construction of steel frames and ratings for how long they are expected to survive fires – so the engineering community contemplates that steel frames can and will fail under fire.

    But more importantly, it is simply and flatly impossible that the buildings were wired for demolition.

    So it is amusing that you whine about purported lies, given the garbage you traffic in.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  139. blubonnet, are you going to actually refute the impossibility of WTC7 being brought down by a controlled demolition? Or perhaps provide an answer to how the other buildings were brought down ‘for the first time in history’ yada yada. Of course it was the first time in history, as it never happened before.

    A friend of mine saw the Castaways Casinoimploded. It was wired with several miles of det cord, which was pretty hard not to notice, and impossible to install in a few hours while working in secret.

    blubonnet is an idiot, and no we shouldn’t waste Patterico’s bandwidth, but hey, it’s only text and God forbid we just convince one person to think logically.

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  140. Patterico patrons,

    Please accept the fact that ALL ZOOS HAVE MONKEYS.

    AND STOP FEEDING BLU

    Rovin (7f64b8)

  141. So Blu, you read the post at Eject! Eject! Eject!.

    So what?

    You have still offered nothing to refute Whittle’s granting the premise of a controlled demolition. I asked you to find one–just one–expert that you can quote and link to that refutes his analysis.

    Considering the quantity of material you traffic in, link to and quote, answering this request should have been child’s play.

    You have failed to do so. After two days, and recycling multiple comments.

    That tells me you can’t refute it.

    Care to prove me wrong?

    Paul (8077b1)

  142. blu, do a Google search on “McCormick Place Exhibition Center”. It was a steel-framed and concrete building in Chicago that collapsed due to fire in 1967.

    So there goes your biggest talking point.

    Steverino (ebd704)

  143. However, she said, and no one can refute this (Please do if you can, I’d prefer to be wrong on all of this frankly.) she said, that a steel frame building, has never before collapsed from fire.

    Did Rosie say it or not?

    You make the call.

    Paul (8077b1)

  144. Oh, one thing I missed in #117:

    Why was it that numerous intelligence personnel, in every departmet of government intelligence, having also gotten the info of the looming attacks, were told adamantly NOT to pursue it further or their jobs would be jeapordized?

    Ask Jamie Gorelick.

    The fact that she was sitting on the 9/11 Commission made it a farce. She should have been sitting in front of it, especially after John Ashcroft’s testimony shed considerable light on the environment she created among federal law enforcement during her time Assistant US Attorney General during the Clinton Administration.

    Paul (8077b1)

  145. No, Paul, Rosie said a steel frame building has never before been destroyed by fire. Whittle, said, that Rosie said (sigh) “steel has never been melted by fire”. You didn’t understand what I said. We all know that steel can be melted by fire if the temperature is hot enough. Burning jet fuel does NOT reach that temperature.

    I have been completely honest. You are choosing to disregard the information, without actually looking at the case, that professionals pertinent to the subject matter explain. What have you clicked onto, of the links that I’ve left? None? Oh, but you’ve got all the answers, huh?

    Well, I understand your fears. Especially, when realizing I’m right, along with the scholars on http://www.patriotsquestion911.com if and when you do, you’ll be faced with keeping it to yourself, and being dishonest, because you are afraid to be in the category you’ve put me into. Facts be damned.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  146. Facts be damned.

    And you still dance around the main issue: that you cannot refute granting the controlled demolition premise.

    Either prove it wrong, or admit you can’t.

    Paul (8077b1)

  147. blubonnet, it is completely irrelevant that the fire did or did not reach the temperature to melt steel. It did reach the temperature to weaken it.

    Your point is just a brazen misrepresentation of the type the websites you continually spam are filled with.

    You really need to figure out a healthier way to satisfy the emotional needs that these looney conspiracy theories are filling for you.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  148. Stephen Jones the physicist from BYU whose specialty is metallurgy, has stated the impossibility of the collapse. Obviously it can be weakened. There were molten puddles of iron though, that were found. Most of the metal was hauled off very early on. That in and of itself is illegal, because it was a crime scene, and the investigation hadn’t even been initiated yet.

    There has been sulfidated iron found.

    I have been looking at various articles of the Mc Cormick Place fire, and found a photo which I will bring here. However, in the picture, only the roof collapsed due to fire. Not the whole building. Also, the trusses having heated, apparently weakened them, thus collapsing the roof. I have a hard time accepting that the same strength of support standards existed to merely support a roof, versus the necessity of strength to support an 110 story building. Also, despite the fact that the asbestos fire proofing on the many steel frames, was loosened, the liklihood of all of it, seems unlikely. That is my take on that, but, I wouldn’t take my word for it, if I was you, why should you? Go to hear what professional structural engineers and architects have to say.

    Also, I hadn’t mentioned it, but there is at least one demolitions expert over on that Patriots Question 911 site. I can’t remember which category he (or is it they?) is in. Thermite is used in demolitions, and there in the videos I’ve suggested you see, is evidence, while the fires were burning of thermite. Thermite can get extremely hot, and can, along with fire, actually melt steel with ease, like a knife through butter. Thermite is often used in military operations.

    Did I metnion that in a firefighters publication, it was stated that the 911 Comission report “was a half baked farce”. I guess, I’ll have to find it.

    Are my efforts wasted when I go to the troubble of proving my points by way of research, and bringing you links that show what I’m saying?

    I certainly can bring you credible reports refuting your and the government’s position, but, are you going to bother reading it? After you answer me, I’ll get back to you guys. If you are willing to see video, or read, providing it isn’t too terribly lengthy (I understand your not wanting to be stuck reading a long article, you already doubt). So, are you willing to see what I bring? Have you seen any of what I have brought thus far?

    I’ll bring you the link of a picture of the Mc Cormick Place burnt building and collapse though in a moment.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  149. Your efforts are wasted because they are dishonest. For example, your statement: “Did I metnion that in a firefighters publication, it was stated that the 911 Comission report “was a half baked farce”. ”

    So what? This is exactly what I already pointed out above, that your pattern and the pattern of the looney websites you link to, is to quote these comments out of context. We don’t know that this alleged publication didn’t call the Commission report a farce because it didn’t address some small issue important to firefighters but having absolutely no relationship to whether or not your whacky “inside job” claims are true.

    Its dishonest and we’ve called you on it but you continue to do so.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  150. You are being dishonest with yourself. You are afraid. The picture of the Mc Cormick Place fire collapse is here.

    http://www.chipublib.org/images/disasters/mccormick_fire.jpg

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  151. Bill Manning, the editor of Fire Engineering magazine, the article, along with the feelings of fellow fire fighters’ article is below, if you have the emotional fortitude to look.

    My bet is that as I continue to bring credible evidence, your anger level will rise, and you will continue to speak scathingly to me, insult, and refuse to look at the evidence.

    http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  152. Perfect example, blubonnet of exactly what I have been saying. You bring us a link to article, and does that article support any of your claims? Nope. Not at all. The article, that you cite as evidence instead tells us that the oped writer is upset at what he thinks is a poor investigation. What is it that he thinks is poor about the investigation? That it won’t adequately investigate his theory of the collapse, that the fireproofing of the structure was inadequate.

    I quote from your linked article:

    The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time.

    emphasis added. And later he adds:

    More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings’ design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

    This person is not evidence of some sort of government conspiracy. This person has concerns about the details of an investigation into the exact manner of failure of the WTC towers after being struck by airliners and burning until structural collapse. He is debating the details of that collapse, not supporting any theory of demolition.

    You’ve done exactly what I’ve said you were doing time and time again above, blubonnet.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  153. The details of the collapse is the underlying conclusion of what happened. He is not just someone who wrote an op-ed, he is a firefighter, and the editor of the professional publication. Thank you for reading it.

    I’m curious what you thought of the link, which is a one minute clip, my post on #138. ??? I hope you will be thoughtful, and analytical, instead of just angry, and insulting.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  154. You don’t get it, blubonnet, Bill Manning’s oped does not support your claims.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  155. Robin – Though I admire your tenacity, and ability to temper your discourse, I fear your time would be far better spent if you went to the nearest brick wall, read it a little Keats, and demanded a synopsis. The brick wall is far more likely to be able to verbalize the nuance and beauty of Keats’ prose than blubonnet would be to admit that he is consorting with the shallow end of the gene pool.

    And, BTW, offering a link as “evidence” when the link does not actually say what it purportedly says, with Gleen the Sock Puppet being the master of said practice.

    JD (26b504)

  156. The only reason I brought the firefighters’ magazine article here, is that you specifically stated that you “didn’t know who he was or what the magazine was, so I brought it to you.

    You did not answer my question regarding my #138 post.

    Just curious, what would it take to consider that 911 isn’t simply what the government tells us it is.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  157. EVIDENCE that is not being presented by tin-foil hat wearing, black helicopter believing, UFO sighting, mental midgets.

    JD (26b504)

  158. You are correct, JD. I’m just fascinated by the pathology here. The self-delusion evidenced by blubonnet is interesting to a point. That point being when I’m bored with repeatedly pointing out the really crude tricks these people play. And I’m about bored with blubonnet given that I think I’ve shown what he’s worth.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  159. Well, I’ve given you:

    direction to numerous documentaries,

    links with video small clips of video evidence,

    names of hundreds of credible,
    highly educated relevant to subject individuals,

    numerous science sources–physicists,

    links of info to the philosphy of the Neo-cons agenda,

    evidence of fire fighters including the chief of the FDNY, making statements of the bombs going off in the buildings,

    numerous former CIA statements,

    former NASA director statements,

    former director of the FBI statement,

    and other former FBI’s statements as well,

    numerous Senior military intelligence personnel’s statements, having studied terorism throughout their careers,

    and numerous structural engineers’ statements,

    and, numerous architects statements,

    NORAD officials statements,

    air traffic controllers statements,

    demolitions experts statements,

    survivors of WTC statements,

    NY police statements,

    former George W Bush administration officials statements,

    Congress men and women’s statements, both Republican and Democrat,

    former administration officials of other presidents statemtns,

    pilots statements(there’s an entire web site of pilots only),

    ALL SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT STORY IS NOT PLAUSIBLE, VIOLATES PHYSICS, WITH OMISSIONS OF FACTS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES FROM WITNESSES, IGNORING SOME OF THE MOST RELEVANT POINTS.

    But you all are smarter than all of these people. You include them in your categorizing of “those in the shallow end of the gene pool”. So, I guess you must be awfully well educated to be smarter than all of these people.

    Incidentally, the mass of the population joining in on the realization is only getting all the more sizable, has not diminished one bit.

    Go ahead, just cower, like pathetic rodents, afraid to look honestly at the facts. But you’re damned good at the art of insult though. Congratulations, you won that – the best at condascension and creative insults.

    If I could respect your intelligence, I might have felt insulted, but, you’re arrogant, blithering, and incapable honest, analytical thought, afraid of going against the grain of ‘normalcy’, Congratulations on your commonness.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  160. Blubonnet,

    I have asked you time and time again to refute granting the premise of a controlled demolition.

    You have failed to do so.

    You continue to tells us to look at the clip. I did so…again.

    It didn’t convince me of anything different because of a fact I’ll bet you are unaware of.

    The WTC towers and buildings were supposed to be fireproofed, but rabid enviromentalists forced the contractors and building tradesmen to stop fireproofing because the mixture they were using contained asbestos.

    Now answer this: did anyone see any detcord anywhere in WTC7? Anybody at all? Did anyone see all the paneling stripped away, and plastic explosives placed? No?

    Then you haven’t refuted my quoted point in #88.

    In all that you posted here, you still haven’t done so.

    That’s because you can’t.

    Paul (8077b1)

  161. Just curious, what would it take to consider that 911 isn’t simply what the government tells us it is.

    Refuting the quoted point made in #88.

    A link and a quotation providing it.

    Now.

    Paul (8077b1)

  162. If that’s blu, I’m willing to forgive her of her mistakes…

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  163. NK, you really had to dig for that one! :)

    Dana (3e4784)

  164. blubonnet, what would it take? The one thing you lack the most, honesty.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  165. Incidentally, the mass of the population joining in on the realization is only getting all the more sizable, has not diminished one bit.

    I am waiting for the next Truther rally here in Indianapolis. Keep me posted. Clearly, there is a wave of support, ever growing, and it is bound to reach us here in fly-over country.

    But you all are smarter than all of these people. You include them in your categorizing of “those in the shallow end of the gene pool”. So, I guess you must be awfully well educated to be smarter than all of these people.

    If they believe that President Bush was responsible for 9/11, and that our government knocked down the WTC, then yes, I am considerably smarter than all of them, combined.

    JD (26b504)

  166. – blubonnet (who is apparently a girl)

    No, Paul, Rosie said a steel frame building has never before been destroyed by fire. Whittle, said, that Rosie said (sigh) “steel has never been melted by fire”. You didn’t understand what I said. We all know that steel can be melted by fire if the temperature is hot enough. Burning jet fuel does NOT reach that temperature.

    blu, why do you keep saying this. She said “the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel.” It’s on video at 4:06 in the video of “The View” that Paul linked.

    The fact that you deny what someone said, when the video is right here for us to see, makes some of us wonder whether you are mis-leading about other pesky details at your silly links of ‘experts’ being misquoted. Like, say, were there a zillion miles of det cord and hundreds of kilos of C-4 in the world trade center on September 11.

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  167. Blubonnet,

    The reason I keep pointing out your non-refuting of granting the premise of the controlled demolition is because that piece of evidence–the lack of any det cords, plastic explosives and the months it takes to set up–outweighs all the experts that say “something isn’t right.” That is a hole in the contolled demolition theory the size of an airplane hangar.

    I highly recommend you read the late Dr. Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World (don’t worry, he was a lefty politically; he was also a first-rate scientist.) Sagan fought a lifelong battle to teach people critical thinking using the scientific method to base their worldview on what is real. How to properly use facts and logic, how to marry the wonder of an open mind with the tough skepticism needed to find the truth no matter where it leads.

    I recommend this because I think you are a bit misguided, and someone along the way has failed to teach you these skills. This book will remedy that.

    I am open to changing my mind. But until someone can refute granting the premise (no det cord and plastic explosives, and the sheer amount of time it takes to set it all up) I won’t be convinced that WTC7 collapsed by anything other than its own weight.

    Paul (8077b1)

  168. The video asks at the end, “Any questions?”

    Were there any differences in the steel tolerances?

    Were there any differences in the structural design?

    Has anybody considered that the fire in the first building mostly burned on the outside, allowing some of the heat to dissipate? The fire in WTC7 was almost completely internal, allowing the heat to rise? That even if jet fuel doesn’t burn at that temperature, the heat can still rise above the flashpoint of jet fuel? (Jet fuel–or anything else, for that matter–doesn’t simply stay at flashpoint temperature. No, the temperature will continue to rise if the heat is not dissipated and the fire has an oxygen source.)

    And the most important: Where’s the det cord? The plastic explosives? How could each have been placed overnight when such a job, properly done, takes months? How come no one–not one person–noticed anything of the kind in WTC7 or the towers?

    Once again: Until someone can refute granting the premise (no det cord and plastic explosives, and the sheer amount of time it takes to set it all up) I won’t be convinced that WTC7 collapsed by anything other than its own weight.

    Find one expert. Just one.

    Paul (8077b1)

  169. Good rationalizing, Paul.

    I’ve given you numerous links, and there are numerous links within those links. There was a physics specific link I gave with “physics” in the URL, up a ways.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  170. I read the physics links.

    So what?

    Nobody answered my questions that I’ve raised time and time again:

    Where’s the det cord? The plastic explosives? How could each have been placed overnight when such a job, properly done, takes months? How come no one–not one person–noticed anything of the kind in WTC7 or the towers?

    Once yet again: Until someone can refute granting the premise (no det cord and plastic explosives, and the sheer amount of time it takes to set it all up) I won’t be convinced that WTC7 collapsed by anything other than its own weight.

    Direct link and quotation.

    NOW!!!!

    Paul (8077b1)

  171. Get this through you head, blu:

    No matter how many articles you bring up, no matter how you try to distract me, I will keep hitting that detcord point, until you either refute it or admit you are wrong.

    Paul (8077b1)

  172. It is hilarious to read some of blubonnet’s links, and read commentary from the “170” experts who lack even a fundamental understanding of the actual structural design of the WTC towers.

    And I’m supposed to believe those people over the NIST report, when they can’t even get straight how the WTC towers were built? Not happening.

    And as Paul pointed out, rigging the building for demo would involve large amounts of destruction to interior walls over many weeks or months of time, it could not happen without being witnessed.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  173. Hey Robin, get a load of the Wikipedia article on this (scroll down to WTC7):

    FEMA’s provisional study was inconclusive and the collapse of 7 WTC was not included in the final report of the NIST investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center when it was published in September of 2005.

    With the exception of a letter to the Journal of Metallurgy,

    which suggested that some of the structural steel had been exposed to temperatures sufficient to melt it,

    no studies of the collapse of 7 WTC have been published in scientific journals.

    Whoa!

    Blu!

    I thought you were linking experts!

    Paul (8077b1)

  174. Paul, none of the “170” experts blubonnet links to actually reaches any formal conclusions based on actual evidence. Just vague accusations based more often than not on factually false claims made on the same websites.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  175. Just vague accusations based more often than not on factually false claims made on the same websites.

    Yeah, no kidding.

    Paul (8077b1)

  176. The FEMA report on WTC 7, which was not hit by the plane, and had some fire in it, and went down like…..well click onto link in my post #170. again. But, the FEMA report acknowledged simply, although the 911 Commission Report did not touch the subject, the FEMA Report said that “there is a low probability of fire bringing down the WTC7″. There was no other talk of it, however in that FEMA report.

    It is true that the steel had reached temperatures hot enough to melt the steel, which is impossible for just burning jet fuel to reach. In fact among experts, it is assumed that the jet fuel burned quite rapidly, and was gone within the first fifteen minutes. There had been sulfidited iron discovered incidentally.

    Also, as I stated previously, the physicist Dr. Stephen Jones observed the evidence of thermite used, which cuts through steel like a knife through butter. In the documentaries, which are plentiful on the bottom of screen at the http://www.patriotsquestion911.com site ,on the clips of the towers burning, you’ll see the dripping, like sparklers from the sides of the building where there was fire, the indication of thermite.

    Also, if you watch the documentaries, you’ll see the beams that were twisted, obviously melted, twisted into some bizarre shapes, there were melted globs of steel, when by standards of physics, burning jet fuel cannot reach that temperature-hot enough to melt steel!

    Also, in the documentaries, you’ll see pieces of metal that were projected across, from the WTCs lodging into the sides of other buildings, stuck at horizontal angles! Tremendous power to do that! Again…it’s on film.

    Another thing, again and again are firefighters, that know something at about fires in buildings, and what to expect of course, stating the anomolies of explosions going off throughout the WTC buildings. Heck, there’s numerous examples on film, of citizens, and WTC workers, as well as firefighters, and others running out of the buildings with explosions going off (you can hear them on the film), and the testimones of terrified individuals, experiencing them, and way below the impact point of the plane. Just watch the documentaries.

    Dr. Stephen Jones report is available on the web, to read, with all its dry, technical talk of physics, which some of you physics saavy guys, might understand. It is peer reviewed by the way.
    Incidentally the military are known to use thermite.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  177. blubonnet, it does not matter what temperatures jet fuel can reach. The fires on the WTC towers were fed by more than jet fuel, the interiors and contents of the buildings burned too. That is a yet another deliberate misrepresentation by you and your kooky websites.

    There is plenty of energy in the collapse of the buildings to explain the deformation of steel.

    You have no credible evidence of intentional demolition, and can’t – because no one could rig the buildings for demolition without the occupants noticing. WTC 7 was hit by debris from the collapse of the towers as well as had uncontrolled fires burning in it for hours before collapse. But more importantly, there was no reason to demolish it – its intentional demolition served no purpose. And that’s the core problem with all the whackiness, there is no logic to any of it.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  178. Robin, what qualifications do you have to decide what is kooky? How does your set of credentials out weigh the physicist, the physicist whose specialty is metallurgy? Just curious.

    If you bothered to watch the well researched documentaires, at least one of them, you’ll understand how the questions you ask, have explanations.

    Incidentally, I don’t know about WTC7, but I do know that there was a period when WTC I and II, were shut down, a few weeks prior to the hits.

    What irony, it turns out that a brother of GWB’s was doing “security” work. Bomb sniffing dogs, that had been standard there, were pulled out then, if truth is what you seek. (I think you’d like to just shove it into the land of delusion, to laugh at people and others, like intelligence personnel in the military, and CIA, and FBI, and administration officials, etc. The truth…does it scare you? No?) Just see the documentary then, and listen also to the testimonies of some that worked in the buildings in the weeks preceding the hits, about the oddities prior.

    Seriously, if this is an actual conversation we are having, or, sometimes, I think you just come here to this thread, to speak derogatorily of my factual presentation, calling it otherwise.

    Why don’t you study the documentaries, take notes, and then work to dispute them, after you have all of the story of facts, and the documentary evidence on film.

    Consider this, as a stimulating experience. Have some friends over, and for grins, if nothing else, but try to remain open minded, but objective, watch the documentaries, or one (911 Mysteries is a good one), then, have a spirited discussion, instead of the ordinary, baseball scores, etc. conversations.

    Incidentally, by throwing out the words “kooky” and “whacky” it seems that, you, instead of thinking about the possibility of it being real, which of course the evidence is plentiful, you are desperately attempting to shove it out of your mind, and others’ mind by speaking with ridicule, despite the plethora of facts that go contrary to your perception.

    Keep in mind, Robin, the firefighters know what is to be expected in a building fire. There are quite a few firefighters, including a chief firefighter of FDNY on the http://www.patriotsquestion911.com site that speak of the explosions that did NOT have any plausible explanations.

    You sound either frightened to acknowledge the facts or like someone is paying you to undermine these facts that I share. I do know that people get paid to go onto blogs and counter perspectives that are not wanted by certain people. Of course, I have no evidence of that , but it seems like it, because no information, whether it contains proof or not touches anything resembling analytical or objective perception on your part, just arrogant derision. You simply use words like “kooky” and “whacky”. Nothing actually tangible. Scaring others out of thinking seems to be the plan. God forbid, they be called kooky. Incidenatlly quite a few Republicans on that site as well.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  179. Jaysus on a Pony

    Why hasn’t blu been picked up and held for observation?

    Darleen (187edc)

  180. Dr. Stephen Jones report is available on the web, to read, with all its dry, technical talk of physics, which some of you physics saavy guys, might understand. It is peer reviewed by the way.
    Incidentally the military are known to use thermite.

    A few things, after reading his report:

    To Jones’s credit, in the conclusion, he does call for the greater scientific community to do more research into what happened. He has concerns about the details of an investigation into the exact manner of failure of WTC7 burning until structural collapse.

    The problem with his hypothesis, that he claims cannot be dismissed as ‘junk science’ has a most damning flaw: how was such a controlled demolition accomplished?

    He does say this:

    Explosives such as RDX, or HMX, or superthermites, when pre-positioned by a small
    team of operatives, would suffice to cut the supports at key points such that these tall buildings
    would completely collapse with little damage to surrounding buildings. Radio-initiated firing
    of the charges is implicated here, perhaps using superthermite matches. (See
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf .) Using
    computer-controlled radio signals, it would be an easy matter to begin the explosive demolition
    near the point of entry of the planes in the Towers (to make it appear that the planes somehow
    initiated the collapse.) In this scenario, linear cutter-charges would have been placed at
    numerous points in the building, mostly on the critical core columns, since one would not know
    beforehand exactly where the planes would enter.

    In your words, blu: nice rationalization. Does Jones present any evidence of this? No.

    Does he explain the lack of det cord? With the radio-controlled detonators, maybe. But this is pure speculation on his part.

    Does he explain lack of paneling pulled away from the support beams? The lack of explosives replacing that paneling? That nobody–not workers, not police, not firemen, saw anything of the kind?

    No, he does not. Nowhere in this report does he address any of those issues. Does anyone else? No? Maybe because it didn’t happen that way?

    Even Jones admits that he is advancing the controlled demolition theory because it better fits some of his observations, not because he has proof that this is how it happened.

    Why did Dr. Jones publish his report on the web? Why not in any scientific journal? That is standard practice among scientists; that is true peer review, and allows others to try and duplicate his findings. Duplicate findings is the classic test in science. Duplicate findings–along with tough skepticism–is what transforms mere hypothesis and speculation into fact.

    Maybe because the greater scientific community doesn’t agree with his observations? Maybe because they think he’s wrong?

    Paul (8077b1)

  181. You sound either frightened to acknowledge the facts or like someone is paying you to undermine these facts that I share.

    Facts? More like assertions and speculation than any facts.

    I do know that people get paid to go onto blogs and counter perspectives that are not wanted by certain people.

    Oooo, it’s a conspiracy to suppress the truth!

    Of course, I have no evidence of that, but it seems like it, because no information, whether it contains proof or not touches anything resembling analytical or objective perception on your part, just arrogant derision.

    Presenting facts you can’t refute is arrogant derision? You’re delusional.

    Paul (8077b1)

  182. Oh, look at this:

    PROVO — Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called “9/11 truth movement” that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.
    BYU will conduct an official review of Jones’ actions before determining a course of action, university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said. Such a review is rare for a professor with “continuing status” at BYU, where Jones has taught since 1985.

    It gets better:

    When Jones began to share his demolition theory publicly last fall, he politely declined to speculate about who set the charges other than to say terrorist groups couldn’t have been the source.
    Then, later, he started to speak publicly about research conducted at BYU on materials from ground zero. He said he found evidence of thermite — a compound used in military detonations — in the materials.
    In recent weeks, after becoming the co-chairman of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Jones seemed willing to go further, implicating unnamed government groups but not President Bush.

    Then, there’s this:

    “BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty,” the statement said. “We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones.”
    Last fall, BYU faculty posted statements on the university Web site that questioned whether Jones subjected the paper to rigorous academic peer review before he posted it at physics.byu.edu. Jones removed the paper from BYU’s Web site Thursday at the university’s request.
    Efforts to reach Jones prior to press time Thursday night were not successful. He later declined comment. Jones told the Deseret Morning News on Wednesday that his paper had gone through an unusual third round of peer review in what is now an apparently unsuccessful effort to quell concerns on campus.
    “BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones’ work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues,” the university statement said.

    Exactly the question I asked.

    Recent rebuttals to the demolition theory have been released by the State Department and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which published a 10,000-page report on the towers’ collapse.

    Ha!

    Paul (8077b1)

  183. But wait! There’s more!

    “Melted” Steel

    CLAIM: “We have been lied to,” announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. “The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.” The posting is entitled “Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.”

    FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength–and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”

    Pay close attention, Blu.

    “Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

    Pay close attention to this also, Blu.

    But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

    “The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”

    Paul (8077b1)

  184. Also, as I stated previously, the physicist Dr. Stephen Jones observed the evidence of thermite used, which cuts through steel like a knife through butter. In the documentaries, which are plentiful on the bottom of screen at the http://www.patriotsquestion911.com site ,on the clips of the towers burning, you’ll see the dripping, like sparklers from the sides of the building where there was fire, the indication of thermite.

    Indication as evidence? “Dripping like sparklers” = “Bu$hco did it.”

    How can you not buy right into that? And who needs det cord when you’ve got sparkly indicators?

    Pablo (99243e)

  185. The puffs of dust theory was shot though also.

    So was the WTC7 controlled demolition collapse.

    And here is the list of real experts consulted, many more not named–over 300 in all. Including one who was misquoted by 9/11 Truthers (check out his area of expertise):

    Demolition expert [Van] Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. “I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building,” he tells PM. “I only said that that’s what it looked like.”

    Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. “I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line.” But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: “The paymaster of Romero’s research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement.” Romero responds: “Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.”

    Blu, thanks for playing our game. Better luck next time.

    Paul (8077b1)

  186. blubonnet keeps saying that there was “evidence” of thermite. The NIST report discusses the video segment showing flowing molten materials. But there was no evidence that could only indicate thermite. Thermite isn’t really a useful way to bring down a structure quickly, as thermite is very hot ( usually used to weld railroad rails ) but not explosive.

    The word “thermite” sounds impressive to the ignorant or the deceptive, but in reality there is nothing unique about the chemicals of thermite. Thermite is just aluminum mixed with iron oxide, ie., rust. There are of course many hundreds of tons of those chemicals in the original towers. Jones chose as his “signature” something that was chemically common.

    Its nonsense, its deliberate misrepresentation and its whacky.

    blubonnet, as I’ve said before, you need to figure out what emotional need this conspiracy theory is meeting for you and find a healthier way to fill that need.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  187. Oh man. I should have clicked on this link about “Loose Change” creator Dylan Avery way earlier. After framing a picture with the words “The fact that this man is alive…is proof that “Loose Change” is bullsh1t,” webmaster Madox of ‘The Best Page in the Universe’ explains:

    He, along with a couple of his friends, created a 9/11 conspiracy video claiming that the US government and the military caused 9/11. Take a closer look at the last part of that last sentence: he’s claiming that the US government, for whatever ends, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it.

    Since Dylan’s arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we’ve established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn’t the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What’s a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?

    The thrilling conclusion:

    Now we’re expected to believe that the same government that was able to commit the largest terrorist operation in history–with military precision no less–is suddenly too incompetent to sniff out and shut down a little website set up by some college losers within days, if not minutes of its creation? The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we’re expected to believe that they wouldn’t be able to nix this kid long before his video ever became popular?

    Paul (8077b1)

  188. Blubonnet’s nuttiness has long been a source of amusement on this site and others. What makes me angry about “truthers” in general is that they distract from perfectly legitimate questions about the collapse of the Twin Towers such as faulty design and construction and the use of substandard materials.

    nk (1c6c66)

  189. nk, actually as evidenced by the links blubonnet supplied, they steal from such legitimate questions their very legitimacy on purpose. They use the people asking those questions as cover for themselves. They are vampires on honest people.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  190. Again, your ability to make snide comments, is worthy of applause, but study of an impressive body evidence compiled by scholars and put into laymen’s terms, you cower from.

    Seems for some in the Republican/Conservative crowd, an ostrich is a more appropriate representative bird than an eagle.

    You are attempting, Robin to discredit huge bodies of evidence from hundreds of scholars, with appropriate degrees and fields of expertise to make statements. Who is being dishonest, Robin? You obviously have no shame. Just derisive words for highly credible works of scholars and government intelligence people that would like to get these points out. Prove otherwise, and use your mind instead of your impressive skill at deflection.

    You think it is all so unfathomable. Consider this. You do know, don’t you, any political saavy person does, that George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush worked for the Nazis. (The origins of the Bush dynasty).

    Okay, well, a quote from the former ambassador to Germany WILLIAM DODD, 1938, said this:

    “Fascism is on the march today in America. Millionaires are marching to the tune. It will come in this country unless a strong defense is set up by liberal and progressive forces…A cliques of US industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government, and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. Aboard ship a prominent executive of one of America’s largest financial Corporations, told me point blank, that if the progressive trend of the Roosevelt administration continued, he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism to America.”

    An article that sums things up, although no mention of 911 in the article, and it is a very short article is below. I wonder if you have the objectivity and open mindedness to read it, or if you have that very serious learning disorder of “already knowing everything”

    Bush Fulfills His Grandfather’s Dream

    at:

    http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5638/1/32

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  191. George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush worked for the Nazis. (The origins of the Bush dynasty).

    Oh gawd, that tired old mendacious canard.

    Geez, blu…when do you trot out the Leftist Judenhass conspiracy of Mossad bringing down the WTC?

    You’re sick. Very. Sick. Toxic.

    I wouldn’t leave you alone around children under any circumstance.

    Darleen (187edc)

  192. The debate is over. Godwin’s Law.

    Paul (8077b1)

  193. Phrases like “Oh, Gawd”, gee, that’s powerful in verbal exchanges and debate.

    Yeah, Darleen, you tell all those scholars, those physicists, those former CIA, that former FBI director, and other former FBI, those pilots (over 50), those firefighters, those many former administration officials, and former Pentagon officials, and NORAD officials, and structural engineers, and architects, and WTC contractors, and air traffic controllers, and about half of the the US population now, how sick and toxic, and deluded we/they are. You tell’em, Darleen!

    Here’s the links, so you can write to them, and tell’em off. There’s scores of those individuals, in each category, and in some categories, over a hundred, and growing, (you’ll be busy) so you might want to make a letter that you can just send in mass. Good luck. You’ll show’em, prove’m wrong, Darleen! Gee, you’re a tough broad.

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/physicists.html

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  194. You know, I think I get the credit for introducing Blu to this fine site! That ought to at least get me a Patterico’s Pontifications coffee mug and a blogroll listing! :)

    Dana (556f76)

  195. Incidentally, Darleen, the facts are the facts, and the Bush family did make their fortune having worked for the Nazis.

    Do you have the objecitvity and honestly discriminating mind enough to read the article (post #193) and prove it wrong? I bet you’ll be to denounce it with zero substantiation.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  196. Dana, your humor and good spirit over-rides your Conservative/Republican delusion. You are a good hearted one.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  197. blu

    are you getting kickbacks for each spam link you insanely spew?

    Darleen (187edc)

  198. “Who is being dishonest, Robin? ”

    You are. I’ve already shown that.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  199. Darleen, the answer is no.

    Robin, you have shown zero evidence of your accusations.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  200. blubonnet, to the contrary, I’ve shown several. Including using your own link to a supposed expert who agrees with you to show how you misrepresent such “experts” actual opinions.

    What lacked any credible evidence are your accusations. They still do.

    Your inappropriate behavior in repeatedly spamming your links is also illuminating in your character.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  201. All that I’ve shown you, Robin Roberts is an attempt to convey what is genuine, something that seems impossible by standard assumptions, but if you look at the evidence and the infinite (because they continue consistently with no end in sight as of now), the infinite, stream of testimonies from the above mentioned site.

    The evidence is there, but you won’t look, and you continue to denounce the evidence, without actually seeing a documentary, or check out the statements of the professionals. That kind of response makes me thing that you are possibly one of those people we’ve heard about that gets paid to discount information someone does not want to be known. When nothing tangible to work with for you forces you to just call me dishonest, or someone else just uses the word “kooky” or the like, it shown nothing in the way of genuine exchange of knowledge and evidence.

    As post #160 shows, the evidence is AMPLE. Your capacity for objectivity has been shown to be lacking. A curious, and/or open mind is yet to be seen as well from you.

    Yes, I continue to post it, because I really truly want everyone to know what has taken place in this country.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  202. No, blubonnet, what you’ve shown is exactly what I described, the dishonest use of so-called “experts” by misrepresentation of what they are saying.

    You got caught with the editor of the firefighter magazine whose editorial questions the investigation ( long before the NIST report was even begun actually ) not because he believes that the Bush administration demo’d the buildings but because he wanted a more complete investigation of how the fire caused the buildings to collapse. This was a perfect example of your dishonesty.

    Together with the fact that your sites literally claim support from “experts” whose opinions are mutually contradictory, we see the pattern of dissemination from you and your ilk.

    You are quite whacky. You have adopted as a belief something that is contrary to every single tenet of logic. Your beliefs are literally impossible to reconcile – the internal inconsistencies are fatal to the whole nutbar conspiracy nonsense.

    You’ve adopted a religion of conspiracy. You do need to consider what emotional need these conspiracy theories address for you.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  203. And my “spamming” as you say, is merely using the site link as a noun, which while identifying the link as I mention it, still offering others to look at it.

    There is no secret in my attempting to make this information available to as many as are willing to realize it. It will only help our country become aware of this criminal administartion with a following to Leo Strauss, a philosophy which is about obtaining absolute political power by any means possible, including deception. Wolfowitz and Kristol will not deny this. The fact that the Bush families history with Nazis, makes this evidence all the more compelling for anyone with the fortitude to open their eyes. Yes, I’m doing all I can to get this information out there!!!

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  204. No, you’ve spammed the same links repeatedly when they are not relevant. That is trying to build up the link count to make search engines think that these whacky links have more credibility. You are stealing Patterico’s credibility.

    The Nazi stuff only reinforces your whackiness.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  205. Don’t worry. The links all have the no-follow tag and aren’t recognized by search engines.

    Patterico (bc1d76)

  206. And, Blubonnet, I’d like to see the polls that show half of the U.S. population believe the WTC collapses were a controlled demolition. What a bizarre coincidence, that the government was demolishing these buildings at the same hour that terrorists slammed jets into the buildings.

    And please don’t think this is a Democrat/Republican, conservative/liberal thing. I’m a middle-aged liberal Democrat, and I think conspiracy theories in general, and your conspiracy theory in particular, are usually not to be given much credence.

    lc (1401be)

  207. Robin, I have been merely presenting the notion, that the multiple statements (and individual points of debate) of the many from aforementioned site, (which this ongining discussion here is about), need to be taken as a whole, which the documentaries do, all points brought together. After having taken the body of evidence together, you’d be foolish to think that the government is not complicit. I will bet you that most all of the people that are on the site, have seen the documentaries. Despite the fact, as you have stated correctly, that all on the site are not claiming the government involvement, but that the government story in not being forthcoming in everything, in fact half of this United States feels the same way, that there is a cover-up by the administration regarding 911.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  208. lc, you’ll find that any polling data that blubonnet offers will conflate the question of a controlled demolition to whether or not the polled thinks that the Bush administration is telling the “whole truth” which would even include people who think that the silly PDB issue is significant.

    blubonnet is easily predictable because these types of people, from Holocaust denial to Intelligent Design / Creationists – all use the exact same rhetorical tricks. We’ve seen the same patterns of such conspiracy nutbar tactics for many decades.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  209. blubonnet, the body of evidence only supports that you are being deceptive. Claiming that someone who is upset that more is not being done to investigate the adequacy of the structural fireproofing is supporting your arguments is a lie.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  210. There you go again, RR, with nothing to back your statements, only derisive unfounded accusations.

    lc, keep in mind that these polls were done about year ago, some even before that. Acknowledge, as I have stated, that the 911 truth movement is growing consistently. So, in all liklihood, half of the population are now where I am, but that is only taking into consideration the polls I offer in the links here time taken, AND that the truth movement is expanding greatly. Here are some links.

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Less_than_half_of_Americans_satisfied_0523.html

    http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  211. blubonnet – Does Charlie Sheen still support these wacky theories or has he sobered up?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  212. blubonnet – Are those videos of Osama bin Laden with the individual hijackers talking about the 9/11 plan before they came to America all fakes?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  213. I’m done here.

    About time!

    Paul (8077b1)

  214. So you are not going to spam the same whacky links yet a 20th time, blubonnet? Oh, say it isn’t so.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  215. I just saw one of the best documentaries so far, called Improbable Collapse :
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  216. blubonnet, if this is true, how do you know I’m not a government agent recording your IP address and about to blow your ass up because you’re too cheap to pay for an Anonymizer service?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  217. I’m done here.

    Well, that was a lie also!

    Paul (a47125)

  218. blubonnet, if this is true, how do you know I’m not a government agent recording your IP address and about to blow your ass up because you’re too cheap to pay for an Anonymizer service?

    She knows you’re not, Christoph. Why?

    Because Dylan Avery is still alive:

    Since Dylan’s arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we’ve established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn’t the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What’s a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?

    Paul (a47125)

  219. blubonnet, if this is true, how do you know I’m not a government agent recording your IP address and about to blow your ass up because you’re too cheap to pay for an Anonymizer service?

    I don’t know about blubonnet but my ISP is the telephone company and nobody messes with the telephone company. It especially won’t let anybody, including the government, blow up a paying customer. It had been broken up into “Baby Bells” but it reconglomerated after 9/11. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    nk (119c34)

  220. I don’t know about blubonnet but my ISP is the telephone company and nobody messes with the telephone company.

    Sure about that? Hey, we’ve just seen the first time that fire has melted steel (I guess blacksmiths who have throughout history shaped heat-weakened iron and steel were in fact using Elf-Magic), maybe this is the first time in history the US Government bypasses the telephone company.

    It especially won’t let anybody, including the government, blow up a paying customer.

    All their interested in is paying customers? Greedy bastards.

    /sarcasm off

    Paul (a47125)

  221. oops, it’s they’re not their

    Paul (a47125)

  222. Hey, I’ve got an idea. I know with your self assuredness, certainly you could disprove those silly “conspiracy kooks”. So, why not watch the video documentaries, or just one or two, since there are about 10 or so now, and after taking notes, prove the falsity of the statements made these folks. Show how these folks’ story could not possibly be true. (?)
    structural engineers,
    physicists,
    pilots,
    congresspeople,
    firefighters,
    demolition experts,
    former military intelligence people,
    former CIA,
    former FBI director,
    air-traffic-controllers,
    NORAD people,
    former Bush administration officials,
    former Pentagon officials,
    physicists (w/specific knowledge in metallurgy)
    architects,
    engineers of every sort,
    former presidentail administration officials(D&R),
    former NASA director,
    NYC policemen,
    WTC survivors,

    Half the population of NYC disbelieves the government story. That was early on, after the event. The 911 truth movement has only grown more massive since then.

    About half the US population disbelieves the government story, for anyone that has seen both the government story and the challengers of the government story ( in above documentaries).

    There are, and there will be more, attempts to discredit the challengers of the government story, coming up, government paid. However, in the attempts to discredit the 911 truth movement, the offer of the 911 truth movement for a debate, to the ones supporting the official story, while open to the public, continues to go unaccepted by those on the government side.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  223. SINCLAIR LEWIS : “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, and carrying a cross.”

    AESOP: “We hang the petty thieves, and appoint the great ones to public office.”

    ABRAHAM LINCOLN: “America will never be destroyed from th outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

    JAMES MADISON: “If tyranny an oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

    JAMES MADISON: “The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.”

    HERMAN GOERING: “Naturally, the common people don’t want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or acommunist dictatorsship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them, they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism and exposing the country ‘to danger’. It works the same in any country.”

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  224. NK: Chicken is good cold but even better after a Martini.

    nk (119c34)

  225. TELFORD TAYLOR, U.S. Chief Prosecutor, 1947 Nuremberg War Trial against the managers of IG Farben : “These companies, not the lunatic Nazi fanatics, are the main war criminals. If the guilt of these criminals is not brought to daylight and if they are not punished, they will pose a much greater threat to the future peace of the world than Hitler, if he were still alive.”

    After that acknowledgement, now, read what this former CIA site owner is offering up in knowledge. You need to read the whole page. It isn’t long:
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.comFascism/Operation_Paperclip_file.html

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  226. Uh-oh….I got the link typed wrong up there in previous post. This is the correct one of the former CIA fellow’s site, the information about Operation Paper-clip….below.
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Operation_Paperclip_file.html

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  227. Osama bin Laden: “To kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.”

    In Fatwa entitled Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement, February 28, 1998

    DRJ (bfe07e)

  228. More Osama bin Laden: “We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal, whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet’s Night Travel Land [Palestine].”

    CNN interview 1997

    DRJ (bfe07e)

  229. Should we be alarmed? You figure that out. This is a mere 10 minute clip. You will be rivetted.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D6fxyOtVel

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  230. WILLIAM COLBY, former CIA director: “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

    A.J. LIEBLING: “The freedom of the press belongs those that own one.”

    MICCHAEL PARENTI, “The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas reach the public.”

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  231. WILLIAM COLBY, former CIA director: “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

    A.J. LIEBLING: “The freedom of the press belongs those that own one.”

    MICHAEL PARENTI, “The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas reach the public.”

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  232. Hey, I’ve got an idea. I know with your self assuredness, certainly you could disprove those silly “conspiracy kooks”. So, why not watch the video documentaries, or just one or two, since there are about 10 or so now, and after taking notes, prove the falsity of the statements made these folks.

    I’ve already done that, blu. In spades.

    See comments #185-189 and #190.

    Paul (a47125)

  233. WILLIAM COLBY, former CIA director: “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

    I can dunk on Ben Wallace! Prove it isn’t so!

    Just because he said that doesn’t make it true.

    Paul (a47125)

  234. Answer this question that daleyrocks asked, blubonnet – Are those videos of Osama bin Laden with the individual hijackers talking about the 9/11 plan before they came to America all fakes?

    Paul (a47125)

  235. I see blubonnet is back with the same misdirection and misrepresentation.

    So much for the promise to be done.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  236. Hey Robin,

    That’s why I posted comment #221:

    I’m done here.

    Well, that was a lie also!

    Paul (a47125)

  237. Since when did Sinclair Lewis, Aesop, Abraham Lincoln, James Madison and Herman Goering have anything to do with 9/11?

    That’s the most whacked-out appeal to authority I’ve ever seen.

    Paul (a47125)

  238. Perhaps they were all Masons, Paul?

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  239. Lewis Carroll:
    Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    nk (119c34)

  240. Maybe you should debate the 139 architectsand engineers, over at http://www.ae911truth.org

    Or maybe you’re smarter than the 180 engineers and architects over at http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

    Some of the ones in one site are the same as the other site, so, I’m not saying that there are 319 specifically.

    By the way, the numbers just keep growing. There will be more attempts to undermine it, but it isn’t working, because discerning minds are taking note. The amount of genuine evidence on the challengers (of the official story) are burying the government story!

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  241. Here are 139 architects and engineers that will challenge you. http://www.ae911truth.org

    There are 180 of them over here. http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

    Hmmm, the numbers just keep growing, of people disagreeing with the government story.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  242. I got a better idea, blu. How about you debate the people Popular Science found? You know, REAL experts?

    Paul (f54101)

  243. We’ve already established that blubonnet’s listing of a litany of “experts” is a deliberate misrepresentation on his/her part. Those listed are often just disputing a trivial detail that does not actually support the core of blubonnet’s fantasies.

    Truthers are simply dishonest.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  244. Do you think that if he says the numbers of supporters keeps growing often enough, it will make it come true?

    JD (815fda)

  245. Yes, JD, and Tinkerbell just needs us to believe.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  246. Robin – I admit, I find people suffering from teh krazy rather entertaining. I would love to understand how they arrive at these ideas, what allows them to make their leaps of faith and logic. Generally, they cannot explain it too well, since they tend to be a bit on the wacky side.

    JD (815fda)

  247. JD, what do you think of my theory of the motivation of Truthers and JFK conspiracy people? I can’t remember if I wrote it here or in the JFK thread.

    Many people claim that these people need to find a conspiracy to put order into their world – that they can’t accept a randomness represented by the lone gunman. I think that instead, these people get an emotional response from being in possession of “secret” knowledge, not shared by the rest of us. To reinforce their importance and singularity from this secret knowledge, they then have to proselytize.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  248. In a big picture way, I think it holds. On an individual level, I would be interested in the levels of education, upbringing, social status, and countless other factors. There has to be a characteristic common to the Truthers that not only allows them to follow their byzantine “logic” trails, but to believe in it so fervently. Or, maybe they are just nuts.

    JD (815fda)

  249. hi i enjoyed the read

    Luciano (df1889)

  250. Hey Blu,

    Make sure you watch this show on the History Channel.

    You will be riveted and challenged.

    Paul (f54101)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7832 secs.