Founders Feared The Imperial Presidency
Founders Feared The Imperial Presidency
[Sen. Daschle will be here to answer your questions and respond to your comments at 10:30AM EST -- Ed.]
In one of the best books on the Constitutional balance of powers in the conduct of foreign affairs, Pat Holt — Chief of Staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee throughout the 1960s and 1970s — characterized the competing and overlapping grants of power in the Constitution “an invitation to struggle.”
Consider this:
– Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution makes the President the “Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” but Section 8 Article I makes clear that only the Congress can “declare War.”
– Section 2 of Article II permits the President to “make Treaties” and appoint “Ambassadors and other Public Ministers and Counsels” but only with agreement of 2/3 of the Senate.
In their wisdom, the Founders did not give outright power on these critical matters of war and peace to any one branch of government. Instead, they left it up to the elected political leaders to debate and struggle over these questions in the hopes that such debate would be the surest way to end up with sound policy.
By refusing to even cooperate with the Senate Judiciary Committee efforts to oversee the legality of the NSA program, the Administration is ignoring the Founders’ sound advice. By refusing to allow the Senate Intelligence Committee to look into the NSA program, Chairman Roberts is doing the same.
The Constitution invites us to struggle about these questions, not ignore them. Chairman Specter, Senator Rockefeller and others have accepted the invitation. I hope others in the Senate will follow their lead.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Point taken Mr. Daschle, but when the chips are down doesn’t someone have to be in charge? Bush argues the war on terror is such a circumstance. How can we disagree?
March 1st, 2006 at 9:39 amYou will never have an accountable US government until the spending is brought under control. Until then, it will be pell mell mayhem.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:42 amCould the founding fathers foresee one political party controlling all branches of government and thus establishing an imperial presidency by virtue of abdicating in favor of the executive branch?
March 1st, 2006 at 9:46 amthe irony of this is that the Busheroos call themselves “conservatives,” who ostensibly like the way things used to be… they’ve taken us far, far away from the Founding Fathers’ intentions…
March 1st, 2006 at 9:47 amGood thing, for them, that they are dead. This would have killed them all.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:50 amRunning Man,
March 1st, 2006 at 9:50 amThat does not wash anymore. Bush has shown time and again he is at a minimum a deceptive person. And the idea that “War Powers” gave him the right to spy illegally came well after public outcry.
Bush feels he has this power. Period. Wartime or not.
And if spying on Americans is a byproduct of war, then future congresses are going to have their hands tied by the president. This is the problem.
#1″Point taken Mr. Daschle, but when the chips are down doesn’t someone have to be in charge”
Well, it’s been 4+ years since 9/11; don’t you think the immediate emergency is over?
Daschle makes a good point, using the word “struggle.” The whole point of our system was INefficiency — because an efficient system of government was one in which the rights of the citizenry would be taken away. That’s just what we’re seeing now. The House is supposed to be the PEOPLE’S body, yet we find them strangely silent when it comes to rights vs security.
All I know is: Bin Laden represents less of a threat to me than George W. Bush.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:52 amI want to thank Think Progress and Mr. Daschle for highlighting this. The UAE port “deal” has overshadowed this.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:53 amI’m afraid only legal force will back down this Admin. Nothing else has worked. The American people have been waiting and waiting for Congress to do this,so far….nothing. I watched nixon do the same ‘no rules for me’ thing. Finally the public had had enough and pushed Congress into action.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:53 am“he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”
In Bush world, up is down, and laws being faithfully executed means that the opposite should be done.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:56 am#1 & #6 – There’s the rhetorical question of “In extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary privileges should be permittedâ€.
Normally, I would say “yesâ€. That is, until I consider the decisions that the current administration has made thus far in their tenure:
a) Cutting taxes on the richest 1%, cutting health/social services for the lowest 10%
b) Increasing discretionary spending over 25% since entering office
c) Failing National Security after multiple warnings by the previous administration and numerous CIA/FBI briefings about eminent attacks by terrorists.
d) Fabricating “evidence of WMD’s†to attack Iraq.
e) Creating the largest deficit in the history of mankind.
f) Increasing the debt limit so further deficit spending can continue.
g) Ignoring countries that have nuclear weapons that can currently reach American soil to attack countries that don’t.
h) Labeling all critics as “unpatriotic†and crying “foul†when their actions are anti-Constitutional.
When a person’s words and their actions don’t agree, trust their actions to be the truth. Pres. Bush has made mistake after mistake after mistake. And we’re suddenly supposed to expect that he’s going to make good decisions all of a sudden? To quote Pres. Bush:
March 1st, 2006 at 10:08 amFool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .You can’t fool me again!
Sometimes, all the time in some cases, a Senate committee chairman just has to provide a figleaf for his president.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:09 amSpecter is holding hearings, but only because he knows nothing will come of them. If there was ever a genuine chance to change things, he would fold faster than a house of cards.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:09 amQuibbling about the constitutionality of Boy George’s actions begs the point. He doesn’t care about the Constitution and he’s made his opinions perfectly clear through his administration’s myriad illegal activities. We are now living under the closest thing to a fascist dictatorship that the country has ever experienced and to keep believing that you live in a democracy where the situation can be remedied through due process is delusional. Better think of a new strategy.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:10 amTo me, the biggest problem we have is that our elected officials have forgotten that We the People are actually people who hired them and pay their salaries by working very hard at our jobs.
When they don’t read bills before passing them, practice nepotism for their college cronies at our expense, and allow their egos to supercede the Constitution, they have clearly forgotten why they are where they are.
We need serious election reform. Get rid of the outside money. Allow running for elections to be free. Then we’ll have more than just rich white people running the show to to improve conditions for their rich white friends and relatives, in a country that is increasing diverse and impoverished.
I was raised to be proud to be an American. I am not. How can I be when we no longer represent the beacon of freedom and equality that our Founding Fathers sought to create for us?
March 1st, 2006 at 10:10 amThe Republicans who created George W. Bush are now trying to walk the line between loyalty and political survival. If they give anymore it will be impeachment. Pat Roberts and his ilk cannot sustain this.
Bush unpopularity is not a “Lib” sentiment.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:11 amSen Daschle, you must have worked rather closely with Sen. Roberts. What can you tell us about him personally that would give us insights about why he has taken this approach towards the administration?
March 1st, 2006 at 10:13 amBetter think of a new strategy.
Comment by purvis ames — March 1, 2006 @ 10:10 am
Like pitchforks and torches? :)
March 1st, 2006 at 10:13 amAs far as declaring war goes, this appears to be a power that Congress, for whatever reason, has decided to give to the President. I blame Congress for that, not the President.
I can only comment on the situation since Vietnam, but when has Congress truly had a debate over any recent war? There should have been LOTS of debate over this war, but Congress appeared to be content with the administration telling everyone in essence, “We’ve got material that we’re not going to release to anyone else. We know better than anyone else what is going on. Just believe us.” We now see where that has gotten us.
Now we’re in a position that we are stuck. Where are the cries from the Democratic side wanting to cut funding for the war and get us out? At some point the Democrats have got to stand up. If they don’t, they are no better than the Republicans on this issue.
Until that truly happens, we’re going to continue to make these mistakes.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:13 amWe all share your concerns, Sen. Daschle.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:14 amHowever, we are still waiting for Congress to do the right thing for the American people. We need action. We need this Administration to be held accountable for their many violations against the Constitution.
We need an out and out Democratic uprising.
Please be the one to lead us out of these dark times.
We need an out and out Democratic uprising.
Please be the one to lead us out of these dark times.
Comment by trueblue — March 1, 2006 @ 10:14 am
I couldn’t agree more.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:16 amHoe dare you question the Imperial Chimp? Off with his head”.
-George W. Bush
March 1st, 2006 at 10:16 am#17–I’ll help answer that. Roberts is from rabidly Republican KANSAS. Yes, here, where we are about to teach Intelligent Decline. It’s about a backwards state as they get. Roberts knows no other way; his buddy, Brownback, is the same.
Pure power trip. When Roberts has had his way for 5 years, he forgets what it means to be fair. To be honest.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:17 amWally O’Brien,
You’ll find this interesting:
Michael Ledeen: ” I describe myself as a democratic revolutionary, I don’t think of myself as “conservative” at all. Indeed it seems to me that most self-described leftists today are reactionaries, and have lost the right to describe themselves as people of the left.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Conversation_with_Controversial_Neoconservative_0228.html
March 1st, 2006 at 10:20 amSenator Daschle;
PLEASE do not include Sen. Spector in any future posts about this subject. He is as gutless, spineless, two-faced as they get. Refused to even swear in Gonzales, so that now, Gonzo is coming back with some “whoops…forgot to mention THIS…” statements that may have been perjurous had he been under oath.
Spector has danced this way for weeks. Publically speaking as if he’s upset/angry, but ALWAYS backing down when it mattered (hearings). This “man” disgusts me, and many others concerned about accountability on this issue.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:21 amIt seems to me the Founders could forsee many problems involving executive power including:
a president serving more than two terms, namely four.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:22 ama president who’s mission is to spread democracy across the globe
a president who funded an illegal conflict in a foreign country.
a president who could intern people within their own country.
a president who could delcare any dissent illegal.
a president so paranoid he could wiretap american citizens without their knowledge.
a president who could preemptively invade another country without provocation or reason.
Mr Daschel – I came accross this qoute recently and I find that the relevance is still apt:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Thomas Jefferson
Please continue doing your good work.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:25 amwhere’s Fat Tony and all the other original intent screaming meanies? When a it comes to real threat to the constitution and the framers clear intent, they’re nowhere to found…as long as their political party is the one doing the constitution shredding.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:25 am.
Sen. Daschle,
Thanks for coming on here! We miss you here in SD!
How do you respond to John Yoo’s statement’s that Congress’s power to “declare war” is not equivalent to “make war,” but is merely a ceremonial duty?
From a Boston Globe article:
March 1st, 2006 at 10:31 am
Honorable Senator Daschle
March 1st, 2006 at 10:32 amThank you for visiting here and recognizing a voice of the American People.
Know that the majority of us are sentient and are more than willing to support the adherance to Constitutional Law our country is founded upon.
I live in a “purple state”, and people I speak with from both sides of the spectrum are very upset over the disregard of the Law of the Land President Bush and his administration have continuously demonstrated.
Know that you have the support of the American citizen as you join your fellow Legislators in reining in and calling to justice an errant Executive Branch.
Thank you sir.
Gonzo Lies:
“Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales appeared to suggest yesterday that the Bush administration’s warrantless domestic surveillance operations may extend beyond the outlines that the president acknowledged in mid-December.”
From the Washington Post
March 1st, 2006 at 10:37 amOK,Tom. I am with you here, but why were you on Russert a few weeks ago talking about how NSA spying needed to be made legal? Now, they are actually working on the bill. I you were back in the Senate on which side would you be?
March 1st, 2006 at 10:38 amI saw that, too, Ellen.
That was a different time. A different age. A different world. Gosh, that was a few weeks ago. Here’s why:
The Democrats Harman and Rockefeller supported “memory pill” Roberts and his FrankenBush on the spying issue.
Can’t very well totally backtrack after blind compliciteness…
March 1st, 2006 at 10:47 amThe Article II argument is a ridiculous farce. It’s amazing to me how these people who are seemingly educated in their fields (John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez for instance) can come up with such utter horseshit in the defense of their power-hungry bosses. I wrote a diary over at dailykos yesterday, debunking this very idea (that Article II gives the President unilateral power in time of war). Please check it out as I think it gives some valuable talking points to refute this sham of an idea.
Debunking the CinC rhetoric
Sen. Daschle, I would be honored to hear any ideas you may have for us, as ordinary citizens, to light a fire under our elected representatives and get them to start representing our interests again. Thanks for all of your service to this nation and for your continuing efforts in defense of our once-great nation.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:55 amMr. Daschele~ Please sit down and button it…and take your buddies Reid; Leibermann and the entire DINO cult with you. Which side of the fence are you on now?
March 1st, 2006 at 10:57 amBrilliant article–
March 1st, 2006 at 11:06 amCarl lewis couldn’t have made a leap like that. Going from Article II of the Constitution to the NSA program…nice distance!
To 29 (and 1): To declare war or to make war is a distinction without a difference. It is a constitutional responsibility that Congress not take likely its role in involving our country in war. It starts with the declaration or authorization and it continues with funding. It is imperative that Congress take both of those roles seriously and use its leverage appropriately.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:14 am#34: We should demand a full Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into these practices, as well as a FISA review of the legality of the actions taken by this administration.
We also ought to be demanding greater transparency in all of this. There ought to be a public debate, and tranparency about some of these policies does not have to violate the clandestine nat, especially in the context of the “long war.”
The role of bloggers in this effort is critical. Congress is by nature a reactive institution, and to the extent that blogs can continue to press for that public debate provides a real service to our country at a time when honest and open debate is all too rare.
I’m increasingly concerned that in the effort to succeed in this long war, we’re forfeiting freedoms in the name of security and that ought to receive more attention than it’s gotten to date.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:22 amOne last word: I believe in the noise of democracy, and that noise eminates in part from what you are all doing here. But it also must come from our elected representation in the checks and balances created by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. There are few too checks and balances today at a time when we need them more than ever.
Thanks everyone for your participation in this important discussion.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:24 amTO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.
…
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.
The Federalist No. 51
March 1st, 2006 at 11:26 amDeclaration or authorization? Sorry, I see a big difference between an authorization to use force and a declaration of war. Nowhere in Congress’ authorization did I see the phrase “Declaration of War.” If Congress wants to give Bush war powers, it must be explicit. The Constitution does not mince words.
I for one will no longer accept the argument that we are at war. No, folks. In wartime, gasoline is rationed. Taxes are increased. The country is divided between those who fight and those who pay for it. Bush has done the ultimate disservice to our troops. He sends them to war with borrowed money. Right now they don’t pay taxes because they are in the military. A noble social contract: I am not fighting and I can certainly afford to supply those who are. But instead I got a big tax cut, and when these soldiers return to civilian life, the debt and interest will fall upon them. They will in a very literal sense be paying for their own body armor.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:29 amWe’re thinking in the old US democratic schema. It’s gone.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:35 amThe checks and balances are broken because Congress lacks the will to challenge the executive. The executive has the will to run roughshod over both the Courts and Congress. If and when the courts ever decide to weigh in, it won’t matter because the executive has shown the willingness to both rig the courts and ignore the courts. This is the exact scenario that led to the fascist takeover in 1932 and it is working again here. The new US schema was evolved by a small group of neo-cons, has control, and has destroyed our union. Congress is irrelevant now. Dust in the wind.
I believe that the it is time for the Democrats to raise the subject of Impeachment. Even if Congress never pushes for it, it should be on the minds of the People. This in itself would begin to rein in this Administration. The list of high crimes and misdemeanors is long. From illegal search and seizure to condoning Torture, lying about intelligence leading up to war to purposely revealing the name of a covert agent for political purposes, they have flouted the Constitution. The People and their elected representatives have to do something about it. It has gone way too far. How much begging of our officials do we have to do to get some sense of reason restored in the Government?
I know this post isn’t particularly profound but I hope it conveys the sense of frustration we are all feeling. I feel like we now live under a fascist regime. A decade from now people are going to go “What happened? Where are my Freedoms?”
I echo #20’s sentiments. We need leaders.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:48 amMr. Daschle…you say that Congress is a reactive institution. Then why doesn’t the Democratic party get behind the public and lead on the major issues of our day? Reactive institution alright…to money. The problem I have with your kind, is that you build (false)hope in people. Do you still think the public is that stupid? IMPEACH DASCHELE!
March 1st, 2006 at 11:51 amTo announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
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 a communist dictatorship. 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 to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country
Hermann Goering (1946)
All men having power ought to be mistrusted.
James Madison
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.
Thomas Paine
Three Founding Fathers in there, but the other two are relevant in this case. So Mr Daschle, how cheap is the liberty bequeathed by the Founding Fathers today?
March 1st, 2006 at 11:53 am42- That would appear to be the inherent risk associated with one-party control of the entire federal government. The Executive doesn’t need to run roughshod over the Courts or Congress: they own them, especially the all-trumping
March 1st, 2006 at 12:05 pmFederalistsSupremes.get behind the public and lead
Huh?
March 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pm#44 is right. PACs and lobbiests are the bosses of Congress. They have been corrupted by money, and have abdicated all responsibility to the people. Money is speech, and any other kind of speech is worthless. As long as big money can legally bribe our Congress, no scandal will be big enough to clean up the mess. Witness the lame attempt to limit the lunches and trips. HA! What a joke.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:17 pmMillions are funneled to the campaign chests to the incumbants, and Congress wants to limit gym privileges.
Hypocrites, bought and paid for. But I know they’ve heard it a million times. The bottom line is the money, and they don’t care about anything else. Certainly not protecting our democracy.
#47,David~
March 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pmIt ain’t hard to do. Every progressive site on the net has meticulously outlined the issues for these DINO’s. Polls show what the citizenry would like to see in government. Hell, it’s even drawn-out in stick figures so that the brilliant minds in the DLC can figure it out. Yes, get behind the public…and LEAD! Capische?
Mr. Daschle – Were you this concerned about imperialism during LBJ’s Presidency? Were Democrats concerned with FDR’s Democratic govt, especially when he tried his Court packing scheme?
Imperialism is the liberal equivalent of sour grapes. Rather than cry about it Mr. Daschle, maybe you should encourage fellow Democrats to develop a positive agenda instead of feeding red meat to your radical, left-wing base.
For the record, I sent $$ money to John Thune! Sen. Thune, to you!
March 1st, 2006 at 12:24 pmThree Founding Fathers in there, but the other two are relevant in this case. So Mr Daschle, how cheap is the liberty bequeathed by the Founding Fathers today?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — March 1, 2006 @ 11:53 am
Terry you are an example of why Canada is the best educated country on the globe and the United States is 7th.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:26 pm#51 If Canada is so damn smart then why is the GDP per capita of the US 27% higher.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:30 pmThere you go, #50, a conservative troll setting up a straw man and knocking it down, giving Dems “good advice” to stop complaining about the mess the GOP has made. They wouldn’t acknowledge a “postive agenda” from the Dems if it cost them their lives.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:31 pmWait a minute. It IS costing lives! Still, they don’t care. All they care about is calling liberals “scum.”
Well, we are all scum together, being scraped aside by the Congress that worships money in their pockets and the executive that worships power.
#50 – Wow! Someone who’s proud about sending money to a lobbyist!
You, sir/madam, are now among the ranks of such luminaries as Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay!
More money for corporate special interests & lobbyists! So says #50.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:34 pmSolitaire – answer my point. How is Bush any different than FDR? FDR had the Courts and Congress like Bush, oversaw a national disaster, entered a war against Germany even though they did not attack us, and oversaw the malaise of the depression. Was FDR imperial scum too?
March 1st, 2006 at 12:35 pm#55 – I was proud to knock off Sen. Daschle because he was simply too liberal for South Dakota. PERIOD. He also lied about his record to get re-elected for years. I am glad I helped uncover that.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:36 pm#51, good guess, but I’m not. Appreciate the compliment though.
#52, hey Ben, how about that US dollar? Almost par with the loonie. Oh and how come their Olympic Medal count per capita is almost 11 times the US? Depends what you think is the measure of a person – you’ve set your store out I see.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pmBush does NOT cooperate with the entire Congress on anything! He just calls up Frist and Hastert who he can blackmail and ignores the Democrat leadership! He also gets McCain and Lieberman, his 2 lap poodle dogs, to spew baloney to the press for him as well! It is a total travesty!
March 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pmOk Mr. Daschle, I was fairly hard on you last time, crying about how you let us all down, but I have to admit this is an excellent article and long overdue.
Anyone who takes the time to read the Declaration of Independence, or our Constitution, particularly the Preamble and the Bill of Rights(the first 10 Amendments), will see that our current administration occupying the Executive branch of the government is far from anything our founding fathers envisioned.
The concept of a Monarchy was abhorrent to the framers of the Constitution, which is why our 3 distinct branches of Government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary have powers granted to each to keep the other in check, and to restrict either branch from running amuck.
In fact, George Washington actually was opposed to the title of President, as he felt it sounded too ‘Imperial’.
George Bush on the other hand has emerged as a pseudo-emperor, placing himself above the laws of the land, and looking upon Congress as a more of a recommending body than a legislative body. Statements like “we’ll be glad to listen to their recommendations†belittle our constitution and our form of government and set the stage to ratify the notion of an imperial executive.
I am glad to see you have the fortitude to come back into TP, and post again. I must admit I wish I had seen more of this Tom Daschle in 04 and prior, and I still feel let down by you Mr Daschle, as you were the leader of the Democrats and helped facilitate the handing of power to this unfortunate President, and I can’t help but think we would not be in this position if you had acted with more conviction when the dark hours came.
But no ones perfect, and I am glad to see you taking a stand still, and being willing to come back in here with us wayward barracuda.
This was a great article, and touches on the most important concept for Americans to hear today. Our Constitution does not just permit our self examination and challenge to monarchist rule, it demands it.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:38 pmJust For Fun:
“OK, big boy, I’ll just vote to override your veto.”
-Frist
Now that’s how you dissent.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:38 pm#53Well, we are all scum together, being scraped aside by the Congress that worships money in their pockets and the executive that worships power.
Comment by Solitaire — March 1, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Seriously, has that not been the case from day 1 of the US and for any other country of economic significance? That part just registers in severity. The real tragedy is the Democratic Party that is not interested in accountability being applied in some of the most basic institutions like education.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:39 pm#51 If Canada is so damn smart then why is the GDP per capita of the US 27% higher.
Comment by Ben — March 1, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
All you value is money? Guess we’ll soon be dropping to 8th, 9th, 20th place on that list….
March 1st, 2006 at 12:41 pm#55 I can answer that. Germany was occupying half of Europe and committing genocide at the time. Germany declared war on us as an ally of Japan. Germany had the most powerful army in the world swollowing up whole countries. Germany was actively bombing London into ruin. That is a completely different situation from a broken and broke Iraq. You cannot possibly be that obtuse.
And the internment was wrong. Period. Don’t repeat past mistakes, even if they are FDR’s or Lincoln’s mistakes.
And FDR said “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Bush said, “Mushroom clouds.” Bush wants us to fear animal-human hybrids. And the red state hicks cheered the war against some Arab country they know nothing about.
Bush is an idiot. And Republicans are corrupt.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pm#51, good guess, but I’m not. Appreciate the compliment though.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — March 1, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
I thought you mentioned living in Alberta… Must’ve misunderstood.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pm#63 – shut up! What do you value? You bitch the economy is in shambles on a daily basis. If you don’t value you $$, then you wouldn’t care.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pmWuth all due respect to Mr. Daschle, the Dems can’t really lay claim to anything or open their mouths on these issues. Their plan to say and do nothing on just about everything seems to be working. They probably could have done more to make Americans feel better.
I agree with cynical ex-hippie. On the money. This is no war. This is PNAC imperialism and Leeden and Cheney and Co. forgot they can’t take over the world without soldiers. And the Bush government is losing the military support. Perhaps the Dems will one day go on record of being 100% against illegal spying and take it to the airwaves every day and night.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:43 pm#55, Grow Up – check your history books, sonny – Germany declared war on the US. If you wnat to assert something, try and be correct. As your Dear Leader is apt to comment, ‘he inherited the 2001 recession from his predecessor’, as did FDR. It’s pretty obvious that FDR’s stewardship and enlightned programs such as the GI Bill cemented the US century and laid the groundwork for the Golden Era of the US Republic. Now let’s see you pin something of that order on the Chimp or his Carlyle Group Organgrinders. Anyway, we’re off topic, so let’s Grow Up.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:43 pm#55 – “How is Bush any different than FDR?”
First, FDR did not perform at least 10 illegal acts upon the Constitution.
“FDR had the Courts and Congress like Bush”
Did he do everything in secret and refuse to work with Congress?
“oversaw a national disaster”
Did he do nothing, even though he knew the event was coming? Did he fail as bad at the rescue as Bush?
“entered a war against Germany even though they did not attack us”
The problem with this is that we assisted, we did not start the war. Do you see the difference?
“and oversaw the malaise of the depression”
But he was not the cause of it. Bush has done NOTHING for the American people. He is ONLY FOR CORPORATE leaders and his high dollar friends.
“Was FDR imperial scum too?”
No because he at least cared about the American People, where Bush could give a ratsass about them.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:43 pm#34 – “Sen. Daschle, I would be honored to hear any ideas you may have for us, as ordinary citizens, to light a fire under our elected representatives and get them to start representing our interests again. – Comment by “fawn”ing green
March 1st, 2006 at 12:44 pm******Oh…please!!! I just wish Senator Daschle would go away – they way the good folks of South Dakota intended. The Senator’s mealy-mouthed “take” (pun intended) on the “Imperial Presidency” would have more weight once he explains his dear wife’s lucrative lobbying efforts on behalf of Boeing, et al. Believe me, Tom, the founders didn’t envision your wife and the remaining pack of jackals and lobbyists corrupting our system. Go bale some hay – the sun is shining.
#64 – nice partisan answer. The list of Democrats who thought Sadam was a threat is endless, but it’s not worth repeating because I don’t bother with brick walls.
Democrats are corrupt and are too dumb to beat an idiot like Bush.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:44 pm#55 The difference….Roosevelt is dead, thus does not have power currently, Bush is president right now and does. Minor technicality I know but bringing up 60 year old historical occurrences to cover current issues is disingenuous. …. BTW after the attack of the Germans alliy Japan, and we declared war for that attack, Germany declared war, so that does give us the reason to enter the war against Germany.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:45 pm#55 you have a lot of mistatements of fact in there.
1. FDR had the Courts and Congress like Bush,
The difference is that he worked within the law and tried to help the country.
2. oversaw a national disaster,
And did it very well, as opposed to Bush’s heckova job.
3. entered a war against Germany even though they did not attack us
yes, they did, as they were in a treaty with the Japanese and the Japanese attacked us.
4 and oversaw the malaise of the depression.
Again, he helped the people. He didn’t accelerate the malaise. Bush has placed our country in more debt than generations will be able to expunge.
5. Was FDR imperial scum too?
March 1st, 2006 at 12:46 pmDid I say he was? Another troll straw man. Take another tack, Irma.
#63 – shut up! What do you value? You bitch the economy is in shambles on a daily basis. If you don’t value you $$, then you wouldn’t care.
Comment by Grow Up Sen. Daschle — March 1, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
GUSP said “Shut up!” That’s the BEST you could do GUSP?
Well, I see we’ve made it to 20th place already…
March 1st, 2006 at 12:48 pmfvck a troll…the president has ransacked the country while the media is either too guilty to report it, or too quick to follow the trolls off topic and begin debating the current administration vs. FDR…let’s get back on topic!
March 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pmnot to say bloggers are media, but what’s happening here is what happens on the 24 hour news channels everyday
March 1st, 2006 at 12:51 pm#64, sometimes I feel like it :)
#63 I don’t know Cynical. FDR said: “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.†and Chimpy said: “Go visit Disneyland” – yeah I know, I’m stretching.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:51 pmGo bale some hay – the sun is shining.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 1, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
So, the current troll talking point is to tell us to relax and go play. Forget that the country is falling apart…
When are these people going to finally understand that we don’t play the game by their Blind Adherence Rules? That we aren’t that egocentric.
Why don’t you go away instead?
March 1st, 2006 at 12:52 pmIt didn’t matter whether Germany declared war on us or not.
They declared war on our ally, England, and that was more than enough reason for us to fight them. When they started bombing they invited our aggression.
Just like Saddam did in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait.
But when we invaded Iraq in 2003, we invited other countries who may see Iraq as an ally, (or decide to see them as one), to attack us.
2003 will go down in history as the year the US had a collective brainfart.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:52 pmDear Clif, noted Hisorian – Please comment on FDR’s knowing about a pending attack on US naval installation in the Pacific – and the underlying reason – OIL. Also your insightful comments about the research and manufacture of atomic bombs and the high amount of “collateral” damage in both Hiroshima and Nagaski. (My curiosity about the left’s hypocricy is picqued everytime I hear a whiner mourn poor dead Iraqis.)
Back on thread -
Senattor Daschle, will you be joining noted apologist and former VEEP, Al Gore on the hand wringing tour?? Thank you, South Dakota, for finally ridding the Senate of the former Minority “Leader”.
I’m off to court.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:53 pm#64 – nice partisan answer. The list of Democrats who thought Sadam was a threat is endless, but it’s not worth repeating because I don’t bother with brick walls.
Democrats are corrupt and are too dumb to beat an idiot like Bush.
Comment by Grow Up Sen. Daschle — March 1, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
#63 – shut up! What do you value? You bitch the economy is in shambles on a daily basis. If you don’t value you $$, then you wouldn’t care.
Comment by Grow Up Sen. Daschle — March 1, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
It’s I-RIGHT-I. Same language usage, philosophy, and tactics.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pm#74 you’re right. Dragged off topic again by a troll. Sorry.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pmHere is a list of the Laws of the Constitution Bush has broken:
1. Article I: Section 9, Clause 7: [was violated by President Bush] by redirecting funds legislated for Afghanistan to planning for the invasion of Iraq prior to the Congressional resolution allowing it – also in general by violating numerous codes of US statutory law (against wire fraud (misrepresentations of fact on TV), bribery, off-shore prisons, torture etc.).
2. Article II, Section 2, Clause 3: both Cheney and Bush were Texas residents (also in violation of Amendment 12); Section 3: failing to …take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” I.e. by allowing Vice President Cheney to continue to receive payments from a company to whom he granted multi-billion dollar “no-bid” contracts, and by participating in, aiding and abetting a system of institutionalized Bribery, usurping the Power of the
People of the United States under the US Constitution and replacing the republic with a form of naked Corporatism.
3. Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: on September 11th, 2001 Commander in Chief George W. Bush took no action whatsoever to defend the United States, and then abandoned his search for the alleged perpetrator to pursue an illegal war on Iraq, which former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill identified as a presidential goal stated to the cabinet in its first meeting.
4. Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2: by unilaterally revoking or redefining the meaning of words in International Treaties such as The Geneva Conventions, the Nuremburg Principles and numerous other International Treaties including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (historically, Acts of Congress, not presidential fiat, ended treaties).
5. Amendment I, Clause 1: by tolerating laws establishing religion (such as those remunerating daily prayer in Congress) and through statements advocating that Congress make laws allowing selective religious discrimination in hiring, and by actively working to instigate religious discrimination in hiring for jobs funded with tax dollars.
6. Amendment IV, Clause 1: by repeatedly evading the FISA Court, which was created exclusively for the for the purpose of rapidly granting emergency wiretaps, to illegally spy on US citizens, Clause 3, by detaining people without evidence, grand jury or warrant.
7. Amendment V, Clause 1: by holding individuals without charge or trial and without any oversight whatsoever by the Legislative or Judicial Branches, Clause 6: through the use of torture.
8. Amendment VI: by holding US citizens incommunicado and in secret without evidence, probable cause, warrant or charge, bail, due process, trial, or conviction, and, in the context of secrecy, perhaps including torture and execution.
9. Amendment VIII, Clause 3: by approving, allowing and justifying torture.
10. Amendment IX: by apparently manipulating the electoral process through bribery, the purging of voters, by allowing campaign staff to act as final arbiters in elections (while excluding independent observers during vote counting) such as Katherine Harris in Florida and J. Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio.
11. Amendment X: by attempting to overrule state laws such as right to die referenda in Oregon and medical marijuana laws in California.
12. Amendment XII, Clause 2: both George W. Bush and Richard Cheney were inhabitants of the states of Texas (although Cheney quickly moved to Wyoming and voted in primaries as a ridiculous fig leaf held in place by the “liberal” press), and other clauses: through election fraud in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere.
13. Amendment XV: through voter purges in Florida and elsewhere, in which purged voters were primarily of a single race, and who were not informed of their removal from the list of registered voters, making it impossible for them to vote.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:55 pm378 – “They declared war on our ally, England, and that was more than enough reason for us to fight them. When they started bombing they invited our aggression.” – WarFACE
March 1st, 2006 at 12:56 pm*****Quickly – explain how LONG it took us to get into WWII after our dear friend and ally was attacked??? Better get back to unbeliever’s class for a refresher history course. Revisionism doesn’t count.
I’m off to court.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 1, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Another frivolous lawsuit you filed? Or your own arraignment?
March 1st, 2006 at 12:56 pm#77 the country is not actually falling apart, it is deviously being pulled apart for political and financial gain for an elite few.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:56 pmmighty,
March 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pmI think a nice afternoon of stacking hay bails would cleanse your clogged sense of government.
74 and 75, and to everyone else in here using open profane language and hurling senseless insults.
We have a former Senator and Democratic leader offering us the opportunity to debate issues and solutions, and this is the best you can do?
At least Mr Daschle is not afraid of throwing himself in here and mixing it up. It would be nice if everyone didn’t sound like they live in a lime green doublewide.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pmBetter get back to unbeliever’s class for a refresher history course. Revisionism doesn’t count.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 1, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
For the 50th time, I teach Science.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:58 pmkly – explain how LONG it took us to get into WWII after our dear friend and ally was attacked???
Lend lease program began immediately. Flying Tigers were operating in the Pacific in the 1930s. Are you saying Bush should have waited before invading Iraq?
Seriously, why did we invade Iraq?
March 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pmIn their wisdom, the Founders did not give outright power on these critical matters of war and peace to any one branch of government.
au contaire, mon ami, the US Constitution gave outright power to the people, through the Congress, on critical matters of war and peace.
war powers of the Congress
Article I, Section 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . .
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
war power of the President
Article II, Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Comment: A military commander, any military commander, does not enjoy “power on these critical matters of war and peace”–he merely commands the military forces. That’s what the Constitution says.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pmI think Daschle knew what he was getting into here. Going to a blog is to invite idiots who say grow up or call you stupid or say ha ha we kicked your butt. Yes, there is some real debate here if you can get past the noise of pajama warriors venting their personal problems from mom’s basement.
Kudos for Daschle. He ran the gauntlet, first by being the biggest target of Karl Rove’s hit machine, then in the turgid waters of blogging.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:01 pmcynical,
March 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pmYou really shouldn’t be a stranger.
Seriously, why did we invade Iraq?
Comment by cynical ex-hippie — March 1, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
#89 Because Bush thought it was Afghanistan when He was shown a map, he said attack here and his aids were too cowled by Rove not to…….
March 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pmSarcasm off
Serriously, mighty, grow up, and the rest of you Daschle-bashers,
Why did we invade Iraq?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pmexplain how LONG it took us to get into WWII after our dear friend and ally was attacked??? Better get back to unbeliever’s class for a refresher history course. Revisionism doesn’t count.
Comment by not-so-mighty aphrodite — March 1, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
I do not have revisionist history of WW2. My dad lived it. So did all his brothers. I have and Uncle who fought in Bastogne in the Bulge, I have another who landed on Utah beach on D-Day, and another who smoked out the enemy in the Phillipines during the “clean-up”. I have plenty of first hand information, aside the fact that I know how to read.
And long before we were officially engaging the jerries we were fighting them in the skies over England, providing troops, adivisors, planes, weapons, ammunition, and all sorts of military support.
Now having said that, I have a question.
Whats your point?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pm#83, Quick explanation for you – FDR did everything he could to help the European democracies fight totalitarianism. Trouble was the corporatocracy, led by luminaries like Hitler apologist Joe Kennedy and corporate profiteers like Prescott Bush were making too much money out of German war mongering to allow the US to enter the war. If it had not been for FDR, the Party of Bush would have let German Fascism run riot. Today the Party of Bush has unleashed American Fascism.
History is important when people forget its lessons, back to the thread – don’t give Judge Judy a hard time MA – I’ve seen her, she takes no prisoners and you are too opinionated for her liking I think.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:03 pmDaschle’s obviously gone.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:03 pm#88 Better get back to unbeliever’s class for a refresher history course. Revisionism doesn’t count.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 1, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
For the 50th time, I teach Science.
Comment by unbelievable — March 1, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
So you are acknowledging that you don’t know sh*t about history? I didn’t think so.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:04 pmmighty has his messkins stack his hay so he can better spend his time supporting war criminals and degradation of civil liberties. I love how he constantly drops his legal job(stenography).
March 1st, 2006 at 1:05 pm52)
Greed. Unadulterated capitalism above all else GREED.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:07 pmDaschle’s obviously gone.
Comment by Solitaire — March 1, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
since about…..oh say……
Comment by Tom Daschle — March 1, 2006 @ 11:24 am
March 1st, 2006 at 1:07 pmWhy did we invade Iraq? Depends on whom you ask!
If you ask our soldiers, it was to retaliate for Saddam’s part in the 911 attacks (according to Zogby 85%)…
March 1st, 2006 at 1:08 pmmore on war powers:
Many of the framers passionately defended the decision to deny the president the power to involve the nation in war. When Pierce Butler, a member of the Constitutional Convention, proposed giving the president the power to make war, his proposal was roundly rejected. George Mason said the president was “not to be trusted” with the power of war, and that it should be left with Congress as a way of “clogging rather than facilitating war.”
James Wilson, another member, argued that giving Congress the authority to declare war “will not hurry us into
war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of
men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at
large.” Even Alexander Hamilton, one of the founders most in favor of strong executive power, said that “the
Legislature alone can interrupt [the blessings of peace] by placing the nation in a state of war.”
As John Hart Ely, former dean of Stanford Law School, has commented, while the original intention of the Founders on many matters is often “obscure to the point of nscrutability,” when it comes to war powers “it isn’t.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:09 pmI’ll say one thing for Daschle. He sure brings out the trolls.
Like Ben.
Ben, let me ask you a question. Were you raised by your Mom?
I only ask because most boys raised by a father would not talk to a women like you just did, entirely unprovoked.
Boys raised by their mommies usually have that type of disrespect to women in general, so I was just curious. I figure you didn’t get your ass whipped enough by your dad to learn any respect.
Oh well, theres always time.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:10 pm“Bush is a War Criminal.” I carve it into every ceramic jar, bowl, or plate I make. Ceramic lasts a long long long time. Man, people buy that stuff faster than I can make it! Of course, it’s just a hobby, but those items go so fast, I could very well make it my career!
March 1st, 2006 at 1:11 pmWe are not few, those of us who believe that our president is a war criminal. I think we are the majority. But no poll ever asks THAT question.
If we wanted to retaliate for Saddam’s role in 9/11, one meeting with a Kurd in a European cafe would have settled the score.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:14 pmListen, I’m a registered democrat, with respect for mr. daschle, but if he cannot stand to read some blue language, I will lose respect for him and this site…he can go on cnn (or any other news outlet be it Broadcast or Print) where it is censored…if there are any children here they are reading scarier shit than some 4 letter words – how long are we going to sit around with “pinkies out” drinking tea discussing the days events while this country is bent over a barrell and brutely raped of everything it stands for with a spiked baseball bat…also, personally, owning a trailor (or land) would be a step up for me, so for now I can only sit back and dream of any color double wide
March 1st, 2006 at 1:14 pmI don’t believe Bush is a war criminal.
I know he is.
The facts PROVE it.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pmNow, I just wonder how 85% of our soldiers got THAT idea?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pmSo you are acknowledging that you don’t know sh*t about history? I didn’t think so.
Comment by Ben — March 1, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
What? That was neither implied nor infered. I see maybe we’re down to 25th place with that assinine remark.
I bet I know more than you. Like Worfeus, I have relatives who served in WWII. In particular, ths one:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=John+Basilone&btnG=Google+Search
March 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pmOK, on topic, with history flavor, I present the German Act of Enablement, 1933 – credited by many as the point of no return for Nazi Germany:
“Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich:
The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which has the agreement of the Reichsrat and meets the requirements for a constitutional amendment, which is hereby announced:
Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes laws as referred to by Articles 85 sentence 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.
Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Law Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.[2]
Article 4
Reich treaties with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.
Article 5
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on April 1, 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another.
Quick glossary: the ‘government of the Reich’ is Hitler’s Nazi party in the Nazi parliament. Look at Article 2 – laws enacted by the government don’t have be constitutional if the government says so!
Now, why, Mr Daschle is the US Patriot back in effect and only 1 Democrat dared to vote against it? Why is the Democratic party failing miserably to oppose the consolidation of power in the executive to piece together its own Act of Enablement, Johnny Cash style (’one piece at a time, and it didn’t cost me a dime’)?
Stop worrying about being tough on defense and start worrying about being tough defending the Constitution, or is it only a ‘godd***ned piece of paper’!? If Democrats can’t defend it now, what makes anyone think they will defend it as President, oath notwithstanding?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:16 pm#98, I don’t teach history either, Benny, but I cleaned your clock for you.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:17 pmI have to get back to work to keep this economy roaring, but I will say this before I go.
Hatred for Bush is rooted in the left’s inability to defeat him. (AND in Daschle’s case, inability NOT to be defeated by him). Democrats love to exploit the headlines, but average Americans understand that these are difficult times and things could be much worse. (Like say, letting people like Daschle and Jimmy Carter in charge!)
AND for the record FDR fans, unemployment today is about half the average of what it was during his imperial regime. But hey, why fight on facts – liberals do so much better lying! Just ask Sen. Daschle – OOPS, I mean former Sen. Daschle. SUCKAS – you just can’t beat Bush!
March 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pmI’m off to court.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 1, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
What drunk in public again?,
Peeing in the bushes? (he really does like that you know),
Competancy hearing from your family, neighbors again?,
Or just trolling in public?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:19 pmlong are we going to sit around with “pinkies out†drinking tea discussing the days events
Comment by bushllit — March 1, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
I hope you are not trying to describe WORFEUS with that description.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pmI have to get back to work to keep this economy roaring, but I will say this before I go…….
Comment by Grow Up Sen. Daschle — March 1, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Playing on the bosses dime,
How very republican of you
March 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pmSUCKAS – you just can’t beat Bush!
Comment by Grow Up Sen. Daschle — March 1, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
So are you a solitary idiot, or do you come from a long line of idiots?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:24 pmPlaying on the bosses dime,
How very republican of you
Comment by Clif — March 1, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
That’s what they do… Besides, it’s IRI. He talks about Jimmy Carter a lot. And how we’re being duped by Bush because we’re not doing anything, and about not talking to brick walls. You’ll not see this guy again, just like we stopped seeing REAL AMERICAN when we busted IRI for faking being Catholic.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmNOW HERE THIS.
ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE, who still supports this LAMEBRAIN, this BACKWARDS INBRED HILLBILLY BUMPKIN in office, is a FOOL.
Plain and simple. Just a FOOL.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pmIf the country was in flames, and the White House in ruins, and Chinese and Russian flags adorning all of our government buildings, the Bush followers would tell us to just stay the course.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pmThey are IDIOTS.
Here me? IDIOTS. They are not loyal, they are not smart, they are not patriotic, they are just IDIOTS.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:30 pm“stupid is as stupid does”
Forrest Gump
March 1st, 2006 at 1:30 pmOh Terry that hurt.
The history thing on unbelievable was a little joking since she set it up by insisting she was a science teacher not a history teacher.
Worfues, you need to lighten up before you have health issues. As far as rearing goes any male who calls himself a liberal and is proud of it is not a man. That was such a bs position you just took. I am sure that unbelievable has thicker skin than that. She doesn’t need your pussass sticking up for her.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:30 pmAs far as rearing goes any male who calls himself a liberal and is proud of it is not a man.
Comment by Ben — March 1, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
Oh gee, Ben thinks I’m not a man……
March 1st, 2006 at 1:32 pmWhat to do…….
March 1st, 2006 at 1:32 pm#19 Wally – you must be a karl Rove plant. Could you imagine how Democrats would get beat up in the 06 elections if we called now to strip funding for our troops? We would get beaten about the head and neck and at the polls. Christmas is over, get Karl a different present thank you.
We can Not Support The War and still support the poor saps the bushco administration sent over there.
Senator Daschle, Thanks. You did a good job here previously. I think I remember you also doing Talking Points Memo as well not too long ago. I also want to thank you for that 12/23? Washington Post article you wrote concerning the NSA wiretapping and what the Senate OK’d vs. what the administration wanted.
We’d appreciate if you would make more public statements, particularly in the region you used to represent as far as positions that have been misrepresented by the current administration. Conrad Burns (I know, not your state, but close) needs some helpful reminders lately.
Take care.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:35 pmSolitaire – answer my point. How is Bush any different than FDR? FDR had the Courts and Congress like Bush, oversaw a national disaster, entered a war against Germany even though they did not attack us, and oversaw the malaise of the depression. Was FDR imperial scum too?
Bush = idiot…FDR = thinker. FDR had actually read the Bill of Rights and thought about it and respected it. He had empathy for the poor even to the point of being labeled a communist by the republicans.
FDR used people power and backed it up with tax money to pull the people out of several disasters at once. From the Great Depression to the dust bowl to the taming of the rivers for flood control, power generation, and irrigation for farmers. Bush failed at the ONE he was presented with in a much more modern era and with alot more money at his disposal.
Comparing Iraq with Germany is BS. We were already at war with the axis the moment pearl harbor was bombed. Iraq was not part of any axis… and Bush simply SAYING Iraq was a threat does not make it so… Bush is a known repeat liar. FDR followed the will of the people republican and democrat and stayed out of the war until the will of the people changed. He did not go to war with half the country being able to give very informative reasoning against making that move.
And as far as the depression what is Bushes big comparison? He is leading us towards another one. Trying to get everybody to put everything including social security into the pyramic scheme known as the stock market yet AGAIN!!! Even to the point of borrowing money to put into the stock market!! That is exactly what brought on the great depression in the first place.
Just about every single comparison between Bush and FDR are opposites. The one example that I can think of that is similiar is FDRs attempt to stack the Supreme Court… and even there we can see a huge difference because unlike this current republican (nazi youth) rubber stamping congress the democrats during FDRs time declined to back his efforts. And once again his efforts to stack the courts (though wrong) were not to start wars or spy on Americans…it was to force through all of the New Deal FOR THE PEOPLE … and the republicans wanted to fight him at every turn AGAINST THE PEOPLE.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pmPeople, please add the name Ben, to your current list of IDIOTS.
Bumbling chuckleheads and wimpering simps, soo afraid of a terrorist attack, sooooo afraid of being hurt, that they PISS on the Constitution, commit TREASON by supporting a dictatorial tyrant, and support crimes against humanity, like torturing human beings so their cowardly little lives are not disturbed by the big bad terrorists.
Put Ben on your list of IDIOTS, and cross reference that to your list of COWARDS and TRAITORS.
When we impeach this Hitler wannabe in office, we can shave his thick head, beat his ass and send him down the road with the rest of the scum to be stoned by the mobs of patriots still loyal to this country and our Constitution.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmBut do have a nice day Ben.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:40 pm#124, people take you more seriously when you stay away from the ad hominem attacks, Benny, you should try it sometime.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pmI know, TT, but the Ann Coulter made me do it.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:42 pmHere, take a good long look people. This is the IDIOT these trolls follow.
This is the MORON they are in here defending.
Take a good long look.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:47 pmCause that fingers for you Amurika.
That fingers for you.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pmsdgu – what a troll. You behavior reflects the spoiled children you hold in high esteem that currently occupy the Executive Branch. I guess you have no Honor at long last sir.
btw – you could rate unemployment down but you can’t compare the statistic to previous presidents. That’s because bushco stopped counting the people who couldn’t get/stopped looking for work when their benefits ran out back in 2001. You’re comparing apples to oranges. But that is right in line with the accounting practices you tout so much. & lay off the hate stuff. Rovian bullshit. You repubs hate openly. We venimently disagree, but we don’t hate. It isn’t our driving force. But it is one of the right’s prime motivators. Look no further than Michael Savage or Rush (oxy) Limbaugh. You too apparently.
Chao.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pmDear Clif, noted Hisorian – Please comment on FDR’s knowing about a pending attack on US naval installation in the Pacific – and the underlying reason – OIL. Also your insightful comments about the research and manufacture of atomic bombs and the high amount of “collateral†damage in both Hiroshima and Nagaski. (My curiosity about the left’s hypocricy is picqued everytime I hear a whiner mourn poor dead Iraqis.)
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Wow mighty your a big idiot. Thanks for posting here for all to see for years to come. Your conspiracy theory about FDR and Pearl Harbor is just that. As much as people would like to prove that the NeoCons were behind 911 that really isnt much of an point until there is proof now is it?
Oil was not part of anything to do with Japan other than our embargo on Japan for its unilateral war it was waging against people that had not attacked them.
The atomic bomb was in response to WWII … your collateral damage in Iraq is against innocence. Iraqis were not part of any global war against the USA. You are murderers. Just like the Japanese were and the Nazis.
Maybe you should think about the whiners that complain about the poor dead Americans in the WTC towers the same way you think about the poor INNOCENT Iraqis that have been treated like the Afghans were treated by the Soviets. Murdering people trying to defend their homes in falluga …when they wont come out of their home you just run over the whole house with a tank and crush everyone inside. And what gives you this right? What did these people do to America? What? Name ONE thing they did to justify treating them like we treated the nazis…just one.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:50 pmworfeus,
March 1st, 2006 at 1:57 pmI was thinking more of the congressional leadership and pundits that debate the current events of the nation with tonge in cheek high browed refrences to some seriously detremental decisions made by those guiding this country…showing emotions, being hot headed should not be a bad thing
Wow mighty your a big idiot.
Comment by Gerald Gibson — March 1, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
In fact, one could say she’s a mighty big idiot. :D
March 1st, 2006 at 1:59 pmTerry, seriously, look at the manner in which you and worfeus make posts. Why should anyone take you guys seriously? Look at worfeus last post. Treason, Hitler, cowards, idiots, simps, etc. He just rants. And I love the new liberal attack that conservatives are afraid. That is lame. The reality is that a nuke, a dirty nuke, would sink the US. Not because people would die but that they would change how they live. If you have not already you should take a look at the movie Dirty War made recently by HBO in conjunction with the BBC. The threat is real. If we screw up and it happens to us, it happens. We won’t be able to do shit about it. But you know you guys could be right. We could pull the troops, tell them we’re sorry, promise not to do it again and believe that they will leave us alone if we behave better and if we stop letting Israel control our foriegn policy as it relates to the Middle East.
Tell me, what should the US do right now and what should thier policy be going forward. What should the US do if Israel attacks Iran? What if Israel is attacked?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:59 pmbeing hot headed should not be a bad thing
Comment by bushllit — March 1, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
I know and I’m with ya buddy. Anyone whos read a few of my posts now I am ‘fringe’ mad.
I was talking to some of the earlier rants, not necessarily yours. I just wanted Daschle to stick around a little longer and possibly come back more often.
But in all honesty I have to admit, WORFEUS runs on RAGE.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:01 pm113) Hatred for Bush is rooted in the left’s inability to defeat him
Actually we didnt like him back when he was calling into question John McCains war years…when he was being backed by the likes of Americas Taliban Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.. Back when he sounded like an idiot every time he opened his mouth. Back when he surrounded himself with the same assholes that were around with Nixon. Back during 1999. You are misrepresenting those of us that use reason to make our decisions. It is the right that thinks this is all about games and MY TEAM!!! … Bush was bad for America before he ever got into office … Many people after the 2000 elections were stolen said …something bad is going to happen to America now … and they were right.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:06 pmLook at worfeus last post. Treason, Hitler, cowards, idiots, simps, etc. He just rants
Comment by Ben — March 1, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
I’m sorry, what word other than Coward, Traitor or Idiot do you feel best describes you?
Give me some examples and I will try to squeeze them in.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:06 pmBen – I’ll answer that one.
We are not the only nation in the world. There are other nations that need to play a roll to protect their nations as well.
We need to stay out of other countries business, unless there is a DIRECT harm to the US or geniside is being performed. And then, we should be accompanied by several other countries.
We should attend to our own country. Look at it this way…. We went into Iraq on BOGUS information. We invaded a country and they are fighting back. Imagine a country invading us. Say, China! What do you think we would do? Just sit there?
Of course there is a threat. However, by us being in debt up to our eyeballs, how can we protect ourselves? We can’t even afford to place more inspectors in the ports to inspect more cargo. Is this making us safer? So the more money we spend on other countries hurts our ability to protect ourselves.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:07 pmMr Daschle under Reagan the USA was attacked, Under Clinton the USA was Attcked, Under Bush the USA was attacked.
Never was there a war on Terror. Suddenly under Bush we have a war on a WORD. A Euphemism.
Its not a War on Terror. Its a WAR on whoever gets called a ‘Terrorist’. There are no Boundaries to this War. Eventually paranoia sets in, no one trusts their neighbors. The Officials in High places become Stalinist, any threat to their percieved power and poltical opponents are labeled Subversive or ‘Terrorist’ suddenly just because of that one Word one has become the enemy. Its Crazy.
We cannot ALLOW a war on a WORD to remove or alter our checks and balances that have Survived many wars before this.
The congress has allowed a very dangerous precedent that has before killed millions of its own citizens.
A soft Dictatorship such as under Bush is unadvisable and Ill Considered. America and the World have survived much greater wars than this without giving the any one person Unitar Powers.
In My view of course –mr ho
March 1st, 2006 at 2:12 pmTell me, what should the US do right now and what should thier policy be going forward. What should the US do if Israel attacks Iran? What if Israel is attacked?
Comment by Ben
1) Attack the people that attacked the USA… Saudi Arabia.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:17 pm2) Put the benedict arnolds that have defended the Saudis from the American people on trial… both when the FBI was trying to question them in the days after 911 and by defending them in court against the 911 families AND by steering America away from them into Iraq. They are traitors and need to go to prison.
3) Attack the country that is harboring Bin Laden and that has proliferated WMDs to Lybia, Iran, and North Korea… AND has the “muslim bomb” who is that country? Pakistan.
Bin Ladens goal all along was what is happening in America today.
Its funny how that Bin Laden tape that came out after 911 has disappeared. You know, the one that says Americans will “choke on their own fear”, and “the freedoms and rights they now taut will be taken away by their own hand for their fear”.
As long as we follow cheap hacks, traitors and cowards like George Bush and Dick Cheney, Bin Laden WINS.
Period.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:18 pmIn addtion to Gerald poignant and accurate responses in #144, I might point out that we’ve KNOWN where Bin Laden was since shortly after our invasion into Afghanistan.
He’s in KASHMIR, the disputed region between India and Pakistan.
He’s been there all along, and he’s still there.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:21 pmYou might notice that I tend not to disparage the trolls. They are pretty good at it already.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:21 pmOkay RB that was civil.
We are not the only nation in the world. There are other nations that need to play a roll to protect their nations as well.
So what do you do when those nations are on the take? You know had France, Germany and Russia supported the US this would not be the war we are having.
We need to stay out of other countries business, unless there is a DIRECT harm to the US or geniside is being performed. And then, we should be accompanied by several other countries.
I will refer to the previous point about other countries. You emphasize DIRECT but the Iraq regime was behaving in ways that were harmful to US interests and security.
We should attend to our own country. Look at it this way…. We went into Iraq on BOGUS information.
Personally I have always thought that the WMD’s were an excuse to put a military force in theater. I think that the US government, not necessarily and entirely this administration, thought that a military response to a growing threat of global terrorism was needed.
Of course there is a threat. However, by us being in debt up to our eyeballs, how can we protect ourselves? We can’t even afford to place more inspectors in the ports to inspect more cargo.
How about this as a question. Do the ports charge fees for use of the port? Why are fees not adequate enough to fund proper security? That much commerce and we cannot price in proper security?
March 1st, 2006 at 2:26 pm“So what do you do when those nations are on the take? You know had France, Germany and Russia supported the US this would not be the war we are having.”
Well, had we tried to involve more countries we might have a different war. There was not effort, because this was the focus from day one of Bushes precidency. So by waiting and trying to obtain more support for the war, Bush would loose support because more information would come out about how wrong this invasion was.
“I will refer to the previous point about other countries. You emphasize DIRECT but the Iraq regime was behaving in ways that were harmful to US interests and security.”
Really? How were they a DIRECT threat? They hardly had any aircraft, and Sadam did not want any group to threaten his authority, so he did not want the Talaban to be in his country.
“How about this as a question. Do the ports charge fees for use of the port? Why are fees not adequate enough to fund proper security? That much commerce and we cannot price in proper security?”
I have no idea? However, I still don’t see that helping. Look at what the increased service charges for airline flights have gotten us. We really don’t have any better security for airlines than we had before 9/11. Sorry, I can’t talk intelligently about this.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:35 pmI’m off to court.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 1, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Drunk driving charges are a bummer, I’ll bet…
March 1st, 2006 at 2:35 pmI will refer to the previous point about other countries. You emphasize DIRECT but the Iraq regime was behaving in ways that were harmful to US interests and security.
State them with links to back it up not opinions if you please……
March 1st, 2006 at 2:38 pmBen, perhaps you don’t think history is relevant? Oh and your fellow traveler Mr Grow Up started the Bush is like FDR rubbish, not us – I think most of the excitement was around that old Republican canard. I think the parallels between 1920s and 1930s Germany and the US are there to be drawn by anyone with a bit of objectivity. Try this thesis and see what you think Granted this is about American Fascism, and not all fascists are Nazis, but there is relevance today between the Patriot Act, the concept of the Unitary Executive, the powers of the President in ‘War’ and the process by which Nazi Germany created its dictatorship. Learn by history or repeat it. If the US has to become a dictatorship to defeat Al Qaeda, then who wins?
Now what is this linkage between occupying Iraq and a dirty bomb? Explain that to me. Does the Iraq occupation make a dirty bomb attack more or less likely? What do you think?
March 1st, 2006 at 2:39 pmDo the ports charge fees for use of the port? Why are fees not adequate enough to fund proper security? That much commerce and we cannot price in proper security?
Comment by Ben — March 1, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
Brilliant, just brilliant.
A Fee.
Ok listen up everyone,Jot it down, call you congressmen, alert the media. Ben has produced yet another valuable Conservative idea for Homeland Defense.
A Fee.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:40 pmGenius.
Question. Did you think of that all by yourself or did you have help from a right winged think tank?
March 1st, 2006 at 2:41 pmWe are not the only nation in the world. There are other nations that need to play a roll to protect their nations as well.
So what do you do when those nations are on the take? You know had France, Germany and Russia supported the US this would not be the war we are having.
Well then I guess you need to have some moral clarity and maybe a little truth on your side before you can get people to “be on your side”.
We need to stay out of other countries business, unless there is a DIRECT harm to the US or geniside is being performed. And then, we should be accompanied by several other countries.
I will refer to the previous point about other countries. You emphasize DIRECT but the Iraq regime was behaving in ways that were harmful to US interests and security.
That is not good enough for war. We here in the USA dont put people to death even if they are stealing or breaking peoples legs. And if you think Iraq was doing bad things try looking at Saudi Arabia..they did 911 against us. And try looking at Pakistan there airforce and head scientist was selling NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. AND they almost voted in their legislature to HELP the taliban against a US invasion AFTER 911. Then lets look at North Korea. In just a couple years they will have missles that can get their nukes to the US west coast. Korea has been in a state of war with America for several decades now. Iraq is low hanging fruit ..and you righties are too big of pussies to go after real enemies so you go after people that are easy to kill even if they didnt attack us on 911.
We should attend to our own country. Look at it this way…. We went into Iraq on BOGUS information.
Personally I have always thought that the WMD’s were an excuse to put a military force in theater. I think that the US government, not necessarily and entirely this administration, thought that a military response to a growing threat of global terrorism was needed.
They were right. A military response ALONG with other peace making responses was needed. But where does Iraq fit into that? Did we scare the Saudis by attacking Iraq? They dont seem too detered by that action.
Of course there is a threat. However, by us being in debt up to our eyeballs, how can we protect ourselves? We can’t even afford to place more inspectors in the ports to inspect more cargo.
How about this as a question. Do the ports charge fees for use of the port? Why are fees not adequate enough to fund proper security? That much commerce and we cannot price in proper security?
Comment by Ben
Who cares. A smart person would batten up the hatches and post guards around the perimeter… It just does not matter where the money comes from. And unless there is an eminant threat the a DEFENSE is the best DEFENSE. Going on offense at the expense of defense is the BIG LOSING STRATEGY of all time that has brought down most major armies when they should have won …it is called being flanked. And if we are attacked again it will be because we are busy dicking around in Iraq while we leave ourselves open here at home.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:43 pmIf you ask our soldiers, it was to retaliate for Saddam’s part in the 911 attacks (according to Zogby 85%)…
According to the PIPA study, so do a lot of GOP voters.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:43 pm#135
“As much as people would like to prove that the NeoCons were behind 911 that really isnt much of an point until there is proof now is it?”
What would be their motivation for wanting that to be true?
“Murdering people trying to defend their homes in falluga”
Are you serious? LOL!
“…when they wont come out of their home you just run over the whole house with a tank and crush everyone inside.”
Do you have some evidence that this happened in Fallujah?
March 1st, 2006 at 2:44 pmIt just does not matter where the money comes from. And unless there is an eminant threat the a DEFENSE is the best DEFENSE. Going on offense at the expense of defense is the BIG LOSING STRATEGY
Comment by Gerald Gibson — March 1, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Exactly Gerald. Really well said. We squander money stirring up trouble without bothering to worry about homeland defense.
Securing our pourous borders is a great place to start, and a great place to spend 200 BILLION dollars.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:46 pmIf we wanted to retaliate for Saddam’s role in 9/11, one meeting with a Kurd in a European cafe would have settled the score.
And even that would have turned out to be false. Would they have eaten “yellowcake” with tea?
March 1st, 2006 at 2:47 pmMy pa told me when I was young that if you plan on stirring up a hornets nest in your own back yard, you might want to close your homes doors and windows first.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:48 pm“As much as people would like to prove that the NeoCons were behind 911 that really isnt much of an point until there is proof now is it?â€
What would be their motivation for wanting that to be true?
Because the neocons are the ones with a motive. And because we have been lied to about 911 (skyscrapers do not fall because of fire) and so if they did it we want them to pay.
“Murdering people trying to defend their homes in fallugaâ€
Are you serious? LOL!
Yes. They were Iraqis. They lived there. It is there HOME. They were defending it. We killed them for it. They didnt attack us on 911. So it was not justified. So it was murder.
“…when they wont come out of their home you just run over the whole house with a tank and crush everyone inside.â€
Do you have some evidence that this happened in Fallujah?
Comment by Tracy
I heard a soldier that was there say that is what he did. It was on either CNN or History Channel I think. I will see if I can find it on the Internet.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:51 pm#155
You went into Iraq cause it was a simple target, air raids had completely destroyed the place before America Strolled into Baghdad in three weeks,Flat terrain and delapitated army
It would be nice to see America and its poodle the UK take on a real threat like say North Korea , But that would be too difficult and courageous
March 1st, 2006 at 2:52 pm#113 is NeD. I see you are even more angry, frightened and hateful now that the smoke is clearing from the wreck that is in the White House.
Like when an animal gets meaner when they get scared, so does NeD the troll. I think NeD proves evolution.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:54 pmIt’s as if North Koreas nuclear capabilities do not exist (taboo)cause you are cowards basically
March 1st, 2006 at 2:54 pmI love the certainty that charging a fee is stupid. We keep hearing that we are only looking at 5% of the containers. The port is a business. It charges customers. The price they charge should include enough to pay for the inspection of all containers. It does not need to read on the invoice “inspection fee” it can be priced into the overall charge.
This is exactly what I am talking about with you guys. You are so focused on hate that you cannot even listen or discuss solutions.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:55 pmHatred for Bush
Now that is a hoot! Saying whatever vile thing pops in that tiny little about whatever Democrat or liberal isn’t hatred, but saying Bush is an awful President for starting illegal wars, overseeing the worst deficits ever, and violating numerous is. You just have to love that GOP hypocrisy and it’s attendant Winger Projection Syndrome.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:55 pm123- I’m a liberal; you’re a punk.
And I mean that in the truest, sell your ass for smokes in jail, sense.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:59 pm#166 – I agree.
For the pro-Pres. Bush Partisan, anyone who questions him MUST hate him! Doesn’t matter the argument or the facts, they’ve got their marching orders and nothing will deter them!
March 1st, 2006 at 3:02 pm‘president Bush’
March 1st, 2006 at 3:03 pmanagrams to
‘He spurts in bed.’
“George Bush” anagrams to “He bugs Gore”
March 1st, 2006 at 3:06 pmThe great thing about Hatred for Bush is that it can be employed to deflect absolutely any argument. It doesn’t matter what points your opponent brings up. Just respond with you just hate Bush and you’ve won the argument!
Brilliant!
March 1st, 2006 at 3:08 pmWell David I feel pity for you. If you are an older person then you are probably a loser. If you are young you will change unless of course your destiny is to be a loser.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pmDebts punisher. Bush angram 100%
March 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pm#171. . . that’s they’re whole program. Everything they do boils down to identifying and attacking enemies. It boils the blood and energizes the base.
Lying to achieve that end is OK because they go to church. (Jesus is OK with liars as long as they’re Christian liars — especially rich, white Evangelical liars.)
March 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pmPS: Hey trolls, Jesus was five feet tall, weighed 100 pounds, was brown, had a hook nose, and scraggly black hair and a beard.
Deal with it.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:24 pm#175 And he said love not kill your enemies……
March 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pmbut the Beatles were more popular than Jesus
March 1st, 2006 at 3:35 pm#176 Karl Rove said only liberals do that!
March 1st, 2006 at 3:47 pm#177 John Lennon said give peace a chance. Conservatives don’t like that and tried to have him deported.
And there was a little matter of domsetic spying, for which Nixon was decent enough to resign. But Nixon didn’t have as many apologists, enablers, and lapdogs as Bush.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:50 pm#166, Ben, I’m not as dismissive of that idea as perhaps others are. The 5% inspection rate is outrageous, especially given the risk. although there are other measures that can be taken at the source of the container too that are not included in the overall threat mitigation. If I read you correctly, your approach is more indicative of funding security on a per use basis, which makes sense. If, big if, there was a quid pro quo and the taxpayer did not pick up the tab in the end…
The fundamental point of terror is the same as crime preventation – you can’t pour money into it and expect 100% guarantees, it is more of an ‘insurance’. In Europe, they’ve lived with Red Brigades, Baader Meinhof, Black September, the IRA, Mossad – all kinds of murderous politicos for decades. You step up all kinds of law enforcement to mitigate the risks, address the priorities as best you can and you get on with life. Because it is your life that they want to change, make you give up your liberties to deal with them.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pmWell I disagree Terry with your post #180.
Saying lets tack on a Fee for security is a Red Herring, and a lazy one at that.
We have the money to secure our ports. Bush just won’t allocate it.
A fee is charged on a perpetual basis, and could never cover the hundreds of billions we need NOW to lockdown the ports.
Who’s gonna collect this fee? Who’s going to ensure its paid. Who’s going to see it gets allocated to the port security and not redirected to other government programs.
But the real Red Herring is IGNORING the fact that a FEE does not address the issue of letting a 911 Particpating Country manage our port terminal operations.
Its a typical, lazy republican half assed solution to a complex problem, and we already have plenty of those.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:13 pmROFL
hec of a job USA
=)
wink from Switzerland
March 1st, 2006 at 4:15 pma direct democracy
#161
“(skyscrapers do not fall because of fire)”
You are not a engineer…are you?
“They were Iraqis.”
Yeah former Sadamm Baath party supporters and members, Fedayeen Saddam, and foreign fighters.
“I will see if I can find it on the Internet.”
You do that.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:15 pmTracy
The fire in the trade center supports were subjected to was at best, 500 degrees. This according to the agency head charged with determining the reason for the collapse.
See Jet Fuel does not burn that hot. Thats why they use it. Steel requires between 1200 and 3000 degrees to melt, depending on temper.
The director of the federal investigation into the tower collapse felt there must have been some other cause of the drop, and his guess was explosive charges strategically placed.
Of course as soon as he said that the Bush administration fired him.
You guys run from the truth like you run from a real fight.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:20 pmBush played you sheeple like a 50 cent banjo.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:21 pmTracy – “#183
“(skyscrapers do not fall because of fire)â€
You are not a engineer…are you?”
I am, though I am not a structural engineer. I can tell you though by the math, that these buildings COULD NOT HAVE FALLEN AT A FREE FALL RATE without explosives being in the building.
The math proves that if a ball was dropped from the top of WTC, the ball would have fell to the ground in 9.2 seconds. The building fell at about 14 seconds. NO WAY! There is resistance from the floors and the other materials that would have slowed the decent, and even then it would not have fallen on its self.
Here is the math:
The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole
March 1st, 2006 at 4:24 pmthing was over in just about ten to sixteen seconds. IMPOSSIBLE without assistance by explosives.
Particularly if you note that the second tower dropped in identical fashion and moments later.
A fire could not have done that.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:28 pm#187 – Also the fact that the last tower to be hit was the first to fall. If fire was the cause, then the first tower should have fell first since the fire burned longer. RIGHT?
The fire theory is just a bunch of smoke.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:30 pm#162
In a conventional war…are you serious? Nukes aren’t a realistic option, although we know who would win there if it came to that. Are you sure the soldiers of North Korea would have any motivation for fighting other that the threat of KJI executing them for desertion?
March 1st, 2006 at 4:30 pmTracy – Considering that the North was constantly firing on the south when I was in Korea, I would say yes.
They would follow their leader blindly like most Republicans.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:32 pmTo me, it’s the third building that collapsed that is even more mistifying.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:32 pmBob – ABSOLUTELY!
Also, the fact that NO OTHER BUILDINGS fell around the area. There were other buildings that had damage to them from the debree, but no others fell.
Things that make you go…. HMMMMM
March 1st, 2006 at 4:34 pmTracy, how about all those Germans falling lock step into Hitler’s plan? I would bet that many a German soldier was damn glad when it ended.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:35 pmRemove bush, please refrain from confusing poor tracy with the facts. She/he gets so confused if the stated facts are not on the daily talking points memo. She/he will be forced to make baseless attacks and innuendo in order to make Karl’s daily word count for the lowley troll. Please understand she/he is looking forward to slithering up the GOP machine to reap the benefits of being on the inside.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pmRemoveBush, I recall that the third building contained some kind of documents that were increminating to some in the neocon world. hmmmmm
March 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pmBob – Yeah, there’s a lot of speculation about that. But we will never know.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:42 pm# 188 Right.
They dropped perfectly, no one side or the other bending from the melting steel as has been purported.
If fire had done this, then one side would have dropped first on at least ONE of the buildings.
They both dropped straight down, right in place.
They were “PULLED” as is the term used by demolition experts.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pm#191, 192
March 1st, 2006 at 4:44 pmIn fact another building did collapse prior to the other three – the eight story Custom House building which blew up for no apparent reason.
#182, yup, its an easy argument to puncture Worfeus – I guess I was seeking out how the public can better set and control the security they feel they deserve based on how much they are willing to spend. Security is a trade off, what you spend secuiring your house is a risk/reward game same as flood/earthquake/hurricane insurance (unless you live in NOLA where its daylight robbery).
Trouble is, noone ever considers the armed forces budget as (1) part of the homeland security budget (2) part of the energy/oil subsidy given to the oil companies. If it was possible to better trade off things like:
1. A B2 bomber versus a cargo scanner for every dock
2. A new stealth fighter for fully funded first responders
3. A missle shield that does not work for a modern energy infrastructure with built in redundancy and security
Now that’s a debate every American should be able to have.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pmHere is a video that was put together that is very informative. It actually is one of the better videos I have seen about 9/11. I have not seen a lot of them, but this does a nice job.
Check it out.
http://www.loosechange911.com/
March 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pmNo civil war? Negroponte either did not get that memo from rove or hasn’t read it yet.
WASHINGTON – A civil war in Iraq could lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East, pitting the region’s rival Islamic sects against each another, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said in an unusually frank assessment Tuesday.
“If chaos were to descend upon Iraq or the forces of democracy were to be defeated in that country … this would have implications for the rest of the Middle East region and, indeed, the world,†Negroponte said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on global threats.
Saudi Arabia and Jordan could support Iraq’s Sunnis, Negroponte said. And Iran, run by a Shiite Islamic theocracy, “has already got quite close ties with some of the extremist elements†inside Iraq, he added.
While Iraq’s neighbors “initially might be reluctant†to get involved in a broader Sunni-Shiite conflict, “that might well be a temptation,†Negroponte said.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:46 pmIn February 2005 the 32 Story Madrid Towers burned for over 24 hours in the worst skyscraper disaster in Spain.
24 hours of searing, blazing intense fire engaging the entire building.
Yet the tower did not fall.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:47 pm#198 – I believe you are talking about WTC6?
The people were EVACUATED 8 minutes before it was blown up.
How would anyone know it was going to blow up?
March 1st, 2006 at 4:48 pm
March 1st, 2006 at 4:50 pmWORFEUS – do you mean this one?
March 1st, 2006 at 4:51 pmIn October 2004 Venezuela’s tallest scyscraper burned for over 17 HOURS! The fire engaged over 30 FLOORS.
But the building did not fall.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
March 1st, 2006 at 4:53 pm200…I just watched that video also and it really puts ALL of this in perspective…How about the Shrub saying Don’t fall for “outrageose Conspiracy theories” and The official version is the biggest Conspiracy theory that there was! Shrubs hates AMERICA and it’s citizens…They can’t go after Bin Laden cause he didn’t DO 911! Plus with the connections to Shrub and Bin Laden family They are not looknig for OBL! Wake up folks!
March 1st, 2006 at 4:56 pmI hope that someday there will be a REAL report on what happened that day.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:57 pm“One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.
The bamboozle has captured us.
It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.”
Dr Carl Sagan
March 1st, 2006 at 4:59 pmThe Demon-Haunted World
Well I disagree Terry with your post #180.
Saying lets tack on a Fee for security is a Red Herring, and a lazy one at that.
We have the money to secure our ports. Bush just won’t allocate it.
A fee is charged on a perpetual basis, and could never cover the hundreds of billions we need NOW to lockdown the ports.
Who’s gonna collect this fee? Who’s going to ensure its paid. Who’s going to see it gets allocated to the port security and not redirected to other government programs.
Worfeus, again, you do not charge a fee. When the port submits an invoice it does not have on it the individual expenses of the port as individual fees. They have charges and those charges should cover port expenses plus the budgeted profits. The port needs to hire the manpower and purchase the equipment to inspect every container. The increased charges are funded by the customers. There is no need to collect a fee. They pay the invoice.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:03 pmWhy are fees not adequate enough to fund proper security? That much commerce and we cannot price in proper security?
Comment by Ben — March 1, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
You said it slappy, not me.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pm“Worfeus, again, you do not charge a fee. When the port submits an invoice it does not have on it the individual expenses of the port as individual fees.”
They certainly have an itemized list of what the charges are for. Therefore, this cost is a fee, and would have to show up on the invoice.
“They have charges and those charges should cover port expenses plus the budgeted profits. The port needs to hire the manpower and purchase the equipment to inspect every container. The increased charges are funded by the customers. There is no need to collect a fee. They pay the invoice.”
Again! You will need to hire people to manage the money and ensure that it is distributed properly and not diverted to fund, oh lets say a war.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pmDr Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World
Comment by WORFEUS — March 1, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
The same Carl Sagan who said there would be a nuclear winter if the oil wells in Kuwait were ignited. They burned for a year and half. No crop failures. Oh well, nevermind.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pmThe port needs to hire the manpower and purchase the equipment to inspect every container.
Comment by Ben — March 1, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
The port operator oversees all port terminal operation.
This is now a UAE Government firm.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pmYea, you’re so much smarter than the late great Dr Carl Sagan, and his words are no moot thanks to such a genius as yourself.
On your best day nimrod, you are not half the brain, or soul, as was the late great Dr Carl Sagan.
schmuck.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:10 pmBecause the neocons are the ones with a motive. And because we have been lied to about 911 (skyscrapers do not fall because of fire) and so if they did it we want them to pay.
Not again…
The building fell, in the opinion of numerous independent architects and engineers because of three things. Plane, fire and weight of the top portion of the building falling (at the speed of gravity).
The fire caused the steel to bend, allowing the top portion which had been severed by the plane, to act like a pile driver, crushing the weakened building under the force of gravity. Steel must be fir protected because at high temperatures it weakens and melts. It is actually a less structurally sound material than wood (wood burns, whereas steel melts and bends, failing under fire far sooner than a wood structure would). Due to the floor systems, the building was held relatively rigid at its interior structural supports.
No conspiracy. Just a lot of catastrophic elements coming together. Unlikely, but very possible. Therefore, ruling out more than an unfortunate domino reaction of events.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:10 pmIdiot
March 1st, 2006 at 5:11 pmThose pictures prove NOTHING! NOTHING!
NOTHING!!!!
March 1st, 2006 at 5:13 pmThe idiot statement was for Ben, not you UNB, however your theory is right wing crap.
The heat from the fire was not greater than 400 or 500 degrees, not near enough to bend the steel girders of the tower.
And what happened to the center support beam? If it “bent” as you say, why didn’t the towers lean?
Its structurally impossible to drop strait down with a central support beam. It would have to lean first.
Unless of course the central support beam was blown at or near the base.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:14 pmThe math proves that if a ball was dropped from the top of WTC, the ball would have fell to the ground in 9.2 seconds. The building fell at about 14 seconds. NO WAY!
Yes way – gravity causes everything to fall at 32 feet per second squared squared.
The building was an enclosed box (The facade and the window glass caused it to be a solid surface, just like that bowling ball. And if anything, a bowling ball would have more wind resistence because it is independent, whereas the top of the building was falling upon the building.
Math is a theory. It is not reality. Sometimes you can do all kinds of fancy tricks with math and theory that do not translate into reality.
I know you want a conspiracy, but there is not proof of one in the tower collapse by anyone but Al Quaeda.
(And I was an Architect with degrees in Architecture and Structural Engineering)
March 1st, 2006 at 5:16 pmYou don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the center beam would not allow the tower to drop straight down.
The fire never reached below the 10th floor. How could the beam disengage?
And how could these as you yourself admit, rare circumstances, occur identically on BOTH towers?
Think UNB. Your a science teacher. THINK.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pmYea, you’re so much smarter than the late great Dr Carl Sagan, and his words are no moot thanks to such a genius as yourself.
Well then explain how he could have been so wrong about a nuclear winter? By the way he said if the 600+ oil wells were lit that is what we would get. They got lit and nothing happened. So was the late great a fear monger? No. He probably believed it to be true but he could not have been more wrong.
Worfeus, you and that mouth of yours. Dude, like I said lighten up before you stroke out.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:18 pmHey unbelievable, and your name is perfect in this discussion, how is it that NO OTHER steel framed sky scraper has fallen due to fire?
The Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building
On the foggy morning of Saturday, July 28, 1945, Lt. Colonel William Smith was piloting a U.S. Army B-25 bomber through New York City. He was on his way to Newark Airport to pick up his commanding officer, but for some reason he showed up over LaGuardia Airport and asked for a weather report. Because of the poor visibility the LaGuardia tower wanted to him to land, but Smith requested and received permission from the military to continue on to Newark. The last transmission from the LaGuardia tower to the plane was a foreboding warning: “From where I’m sitting, I can’t see the top of the Empire State Building.”1
Confronted with dense fog, Smith dropped the bomber low to regain visibility, where he found himself in the middle of Manhattan, surrounded by skyscrapers. At first, the bomber was headed directly for the New York Central Building but at the last minute, Smith was able to bank west and miss it. Unfortunately, this put him in line for another skyscraper. Smith managed to miss several skyscrapers until he was headed for the Empire State Building. At the last minute, Smith tried to get the bomber to climb and twist away, but it was too late.
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane’s high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.
World War II had caused many to shift to a six-day work week; thus there were many people at work in the Empire State Building that Saturday. The plane crashed into the offices of the War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Catherine O’Connor described the crash:
The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds – I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance – and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, “Come on, Joe; come on, Joe.” He walked out of it.2
Joe Fountain died several days later. Eleven of the office workers were burned to death, some still sitting at their desks, others while trying to run from the flames.
One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall’s windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.
Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.
The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:18 pm#217 Look at the evidence…I know you don’t want to believe this unbeleivable…I still want to believe the official version but there are too many holes in it…And in light of all the B?S that has happened since is a great indicator to whose “truth” I believe!
March 1st, 2006 at 5:19 pmWell I’m not an architect, but I worked construction for 15 years, and I can tell you there is NO way the towers dropped straight without charges blowing the center supports.
They would have leaned.
I know this.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:19 pm
March 1st, 2006 at 5:21 pmA fire could not have done that.
Comment by worfeus — March 1, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
It wasn’t just a fire. It was a plane that had severed the top of the building, which drove the rest of the weakened structure into the ground.
This is wholly possible by the conditions that ocurred.
Here is a liberal university related report in lay-man’s terms:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html
March 1st, 2006 at 5:21 pmCENTER BEAM?
GOTTA LEAN.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:22 pmThey certainly have an itemized list of what the charges are for. Therefore, this cost is a fee, and would have to show up on the invoice.
That’s not correct. Invoices are not required to list every expense. Do they list the port employees wages and FICA taxes? No. So they would not have to show the breakdown. Some charges are listed but not all of them. The business decides how the invoice will read other than what is required by law such as taxes.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:22 pmThe authors attribute each tower’s collapse to three separate but related “loading events.” The first event was a Boeing aircraft hitting the building, cutting through the exterior structure and creating a fireball that immediately consumed some of the estimated 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel. The highrises’ structural systems were sufficiently redundant, however, that this major damage by itself did not cause the collapse. According to the report, “most of the load supported by the failed columns is believed to have transferred to adjacent perimeter columns through Vierendeel behavior of the exterior wall frame.”
The second event was the continuing fire, fed both by the remaining jet fuel and the office contents of furniture and paper. This fire heated and weakened the structural systems, adding stress to the damaged structure. Meanwhile, the sprinklers were not operating as designed. “Even if these systems had not been compromised by the impacts,” says the report, “they would likely have been ineffective… the initial flash fires of jet fuel would have opened so many sprinkler heads that the systems would have quickly depressurized and been unable to effectively deliver water to the large area of fire involvement.”
The third event was a progressive collapse: “As the large mass of the collapsing floors above accelerated and impacted on the floors below, it caused an immediate progressive series of floor failures, punching each in turn onto the floor below, accelerating as the sequence progressed. Freestanding exterior walls… buckled at the bolted column splice connections and also collapsed.”
The Public Broadcasting Service’s Nova series from WGBH Boston presented a popular account based on the engineering report. The companion Web site offers additional links to more information about the towers.
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
March 1st, 2006 at 5:22 pm217)
Sorry but there was a large structure in my town that was taken down not long ago…guess what? They didnt fly a plane into it to bring it down. You know why? Because it doesnt work that way. I also have watched on Discovery channel and History channel (modern marvels – demolition explosives) exactly how and why buildings are pulled down with explosives. No insurance company, no scientist, no engineer would EVER back a company that tries to say they can bring down a building in its own footprint without very VERY carefully placed explosives. It is not a crap shoot…it is an exact science. And there were many engineers that also said in the first few days after 911 that it could not have happened without explosives. One that worked for a company funded by the military changed his story a few weeks later under pressure. Another guy that worked here in Indiana was fired because he questioned why his test results were falsified after he turned them in. Once again just like with Intelligent Design …just because someone says they are an engineer does not mean anything… PROVE your case.
The science of highrises and demolitions has been going on for around 100 years now. It is well prove what can and cannot happen. 911 did not happen the way we have been told. If they can show through science that all that they learned in the past 100 years was flawed then so be it…so far only the people that have being trying to say the 911 story is wrong have bothered to put out scientifically backed evidence…everyone else uses 1) assertions 2) they have stoped talking about it as directed by their employer 3) are making stuff up instead of doing the research because the want to believe…
March 1st, 2006 at 5:23 pmNow if the planes had hit the 5th floor, instead of above the 90th floor.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:23 pmunbelievable – Here is a report from a PHD as well that says just the opposite.
http://mujca.com/jonesphysics.htm
March 1st, 2006 at 5:24 pmSo OK, looking at port security again: different angle.
Does anyone really believe that the TSA significantly enhances the overall chance of a plane not exploding in the sky…? Especially if the cargo hold is full of stuff that never gets looked at (remember Pan AM 103 by any chance?). My point, I do have one, is that whether federal or private, there is little or no accountability in homeland security issues, plenty of fig leaves, but no buck to stop somewhere.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:26 pmWell I guess there are two streams of thought both well off this thread. That’s it for me.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pm#236 – Correct! HSD has no accountability!
March 1st, 2006 at 5:28 pmComment by RemoveBush — March 1, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Back to insults to cover the fact that I have 14 years of professional experience in building design and you have…. well, a lot of mathematical formulas?
Do you know that mathematically, a human cannot run 100 yards in under 10 seconds? Yet, the current record is something like 100 yards in 8.8 seconds. Sometimes the math gets it wrong.
But, whatever. Knock yourself out. I’ve made my case. I have a class to get to.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:29 pm1 + 1 = 3
March 1st, 2006 at 5:32 pmWhat’s the matter unbelievable, can’t prove your case other than say “Ive got 14 years experience”?
For all I know you are a 16 year old talking crap.
You have YET to back up anything you say with FACTS. I have provided evidence after evidence while all you have done is provide lip service.
Your a real professional! All talk and no facts!
Oh and by the way. We have also proved in the recent melenia that the world is not flat and that we rotate around the sun.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:32 pmSorry Terry, we kinda got off on this one but the fact is it is important.
People don’t want to talk about it because they don’t want to believe it.
Even UNB, our lovely liberal educated warrior believes their lies on this one, because they used some psuedo-science mixed with lies.
They fired the director of the labortory they hired to do the investigation because he disagreed with the purported theory.
He said the steel he tested never saw temperatures above 500 degrees, and he also said that even if it had, the fire burned too quick.
He also said none of it accounts for the clean drop of BOTH towers. Even if a highly unlikely series of events caused one of the towers to drop in a fashion that would be the envy of any demolition or pyrotechnics expert, the second tower never could have.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:36 pmMath is sometimes wrong when you take it out to impossible extremes (time travel anyone?) However engineering does not deal with math in the extremes. It deals with math that it can apply to physical models… there are constraints. They design within those KNOWN constraints.
This isnt quantum physics math …this is much more simple well understood math.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:36 pmAnd BTW UNB, please note I have been polite and even handed in my disagreement with you on this. And I respect your experience, but the experts out there, even the ones originally hired by the Feds to sort this out, disagree with you, and my own common sense disagrees with you.
I watched it live. And when it happened, the first thing I asked myself was, how did they drop straight down like that?
March 1st, 2006 at 5:40 pmunbelievable … I dont care if any one theory is proven true or false …maybe it was all Bin Laden …but you know what? I want at least ONE to be proven. And I will believe that one. THat is how I am. Use the best science available. Run a few tests and lets see the truth… In fact I would have gone so far as to pay to have a building built and destroyed to prove to America what really happened. Why not? We can afford it. If there were no other strangness happening that day I would be much less inclined to doubt…but guess what? There were Israeli spies picked up by the FBI that day because a concerned American called them when she saw then taking pictures of the towers and celebrating…. CELEBRATING…. why? That is only ONE out of at least dozens of things that would make a normal investigative detective look around for what that stuff means in the big picture. I just want the truth… and analagies dont do it for me. I want hard science. And only the people challenging the official story has provided any so far so I lean in their direction until someone can counter them… isnt that what REASON is all about?
March 1st, 2006 at 5:43 pmWe don’t even need the math.
Just everyone stop and ask yourselves, what happened to the center support beams?
How did a fire on the 90th floor, cause those beams to collapse? The weight of a plane? Then why didn’t the towers lean?
Gravity pulls down and uneven based on mass, so one side would have pulled more in one direction than the other.
The center beam would not have snapped at the base, unless it was bent over, and if it was bent over the towers would have leaned.
The only thing that could have caused the central support to break without leaning, would be some really well placed charges at the base.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:44 pm
March 1st, 2006 at 5:50 pmFindings —
The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:52 pmSorry, did I hijack the post?
Twenty minutes after Flight 11 hit WTC 1 survivors in the impact area were attempting to leave the building.
There should have been no survivors between floors 93 and 98 if an 800ºC inferno was raging at the core of WTC 1.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:03 pmThe “truss theory” relies on the assumption that 800ºC+ infernos started a catastrophic chain of events which led to the collapse of the twin towers.
There were fires in both buildings following the aircraft impacts, but no infernos – “most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperatures above 250ºC.”
March 1st, 2006 at 6:05 pmHijack away …at least it is an attempt at good instead of the years of BS we have been getting.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:07 pmThe first collapse of tower 2(or was it 1) was not a perfect takedown. My son pulled three firemen and a Con Edison employee from beneath the wreckage of a fire truck and an ambulance. Neither of the vehicles had any air in their tires. One of the firemen had four neatly arranged holes in his back from muffler clamps on the truck.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pmAaron Swirski, one of the architects of the World Trade Center, talks exclusively to Jerusalem Post Radio on the World Trade Center collapse. He says they designed the towers to withstand something like a plane flying into the side.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:10 pmThe Declaration of Independence declares just that — “all men are created equal…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Governments…derive their powers from consent of the governed.”\
March 1st, 2006 at 6:11 pmI look at it like a mission statement of the nation; dissolving previous political bonds with England, and to assume a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.
The Constitution, documents how the government will operate. It spells out rights and laws and how they are to be enacted.
The first article describe the division of powers: Only Congress can make laws.
The bicameral government was the most important result of the constitutional convention, not to give too much power to the role of states over the populace and vice versa.
What is so hard for Bush&co to understand about this fundamental basis for the United States?
The founders wanted balance, fairness, no concentration of power in any one of the three branches of government. They worked and debated for nearly 12 years before coming up with the agreed upon document.
Bush&Co represent what the founders seemed to fear — concentrated power and the abuse of such power.
The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. “It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,” Romero said.
Van Romero, Vice President for research
March 1st, 2006 at 6:13 pmNew Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Demolition Expert
“I DESIGNED IT FOR A 707 HIT“
Lee Robertson, WTC original structural engineer,
March 1st, 2006 at 6:15 pmDETROIT, Sept. 11 (UPI) —
A lead engineer who worked on New York’s World Trade Center Towers expressed shock Tuesday that the 110-story lanmarks in Lower Manhattan collapsed after each tower was struck by a hijacked passenger jetliner
March 1st, 2006 at 6:16 pmA few other problems not answered by UNB with regards to heat melting the steel.
1. The fires were all but out when the towers fell. In fact, watch the videos again. They were ’smoldering’ fires only. NO INFERNO. The only place where fire burned once the jet fuel burned up(which happened in minutes) was at the small holes in the side of the buildings where the planes entered.
2. The North Tower was hit first. It burned for a full 40 minutes longer than the South Tower. But the South Tower FELL FIRST! Certainly if it was the intense heat they described that wore down the beams, the first tower to fall would have been the one that burned the longest….duh…..
3. The jet fuel burned in minutes. After that the only thing burning was plastic, paper and other office materials, (gypsum board (Drywall) burns cooler than wood). Office materials could never generate the so called 800C heat that the supports supposedly were exposed to for an extended period of time.
4. If the temperature on the 93 thru the 98th floor of the north tower is factual, then why didn’t any of the survivors who passed those floors get burned alive by it??? Human flesh does not do too well at 800 degrees Celsius, but hundreds of people waded right through it.
Those are a few. There are dozens more.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:29 pm
March 1st, 2006 at 6:41 pm#88 – “For the 50th time, I teach Science.”
Comment by unbelievable — March 1, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
*****Don’t forget to mention your expertise in architecture. But it explains alot – your ignorance of all other social subjects, politics, American history, sociology, political science, etc. You did need a few of those courses to graduate from college didn’t you?
#135 – “Murdering people trying to defend their homes in falluga …when they wont come out of their home you just run over the whole house with a tank and crush everyone inside. And what gives you this right? What did these people do to America? What? Name ONE thing they did to justify treating them like we treated the nazis…just one.” – Gentle Gerald
March 1st, 2006 at 7:26 pm*****Dear Gerald – Fallujah, being an insurgent stronghold, should have been levelled (Dresden style) after the murdered were mutilated, burned and hung from a bridge. Next stop on my “clean the rat nest” tour – Ramadi. I’ll let you you wring your hands and weep for those who would kill our soldiers – I do not.
Five things I’d like to ask Mr. Daschle:
1. Have you ever investigated closely why you were sent Anthrax?
2. Why did Bush want to limit 9/11 probes?
3. Is there any debate about PNAC?
4. What is your opinion on PNAC?
5. Why was the focus changed so swiftly from Osama to Saddam?
Ok, in reality I have a lot more question that I’d like to have answered, but I know I won’t receive answers anyway.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:51 pmThey were “PULLED†as is the term used by demolition experts.
Comment by WORFEUS — March 1, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
Actually, they were held. The buildings had interior structures with hundreds of structural floor systems that acted as diaphragms.
Explosives are not necessary. But if there were explosives, the Al Quaeda guys probably rigged them just as they did prior.
No one will convince me on this aspect (the building collapse) alone that it was a U.S. government conspiracy. I’m just not that needing of it. Sorry Worfeus.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:50 pm1. The fires were all but out when the towers fell. In fact, watch the videos again. They were ’smoldering’ fires only. NO INFERNO. The only place where fire burned once the jet fuel burned up(which happened in minutes) was at the small holes in the side of the buildings where the planes entered.
The damage had already been done by the fire. It was a matter of small breakdowns that escalated into the collapse. It being ‘on fire’ at the time of the collapse means nothing. The damage had already been done. Steel, once weakened, is fragile.
2. The North Tower was hit first. It burned for a full 40 minutes longer than the South Tower. But the South Tower FELL FIRST! Certainly if it was the intense heat they described that wore down the beams, the first tower to fall would have been the one that burned the longest….duh…..
No no. There’s more to this than the fire. There’s the damage done to the structure. The one that burned longer might have had less interior structural damage as the planes hit differently. You cannot compare them identically, as they were not identically hit.
3. The jet fuel burned in minutes. After that the only thing burning was plastic, paper and other office materials, (gypsum board (Drywall) burns cooler than wood). Office materials could never generate the so called 800C heat that the supports supposedly were exposed to for an extended period of time.
The jet fuel burns hotter than the point at which steel melts. It was enough to weak the steel.
4. If the temperature on the 93 thru the 98th floor of the north tower is factual, then why didn’t any of the survivors who passed those floors get burned alive by it??? Human flesh does not do too well at 800 degrees Celsius, but hundreds of people waded right through it.
The stairwells of skyscrapers are required to be fire rated at higher ratings than the rest of the building. I hope, for obvious reasons. As a result, they are generally made of concrete or concrete block, which is resistant to fire. The reason they could pass through this area was a combination of the concrete block, the fire rating of the structure and the water from the fire sprinklers.
Google ‘fire proofing materials’ and you should get a sense of what we can do to save people from fire through technology.
Those are a few. There are dozens more.
Comment by WORFEUS — March 1, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
And I imagine they all have logical, architecturally explainable answers as well.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:00 pmYour a real professional! All talk and no facts!
Comment by RemoveBush — March 1, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
As I’ve said, it’s not my problem that you don’t accept gravity, statics and applied (not theoretical) physics as facts. You refuse to define what does. You just throw theory and equations out there with no clue of what you are talking about or any reality based structural perspective. Theory is not facts.
But you go ahead. Enjoy yourself and your silly conspiracy. It seems to be all you have.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:04 pm*****Don’t forget to mention your expertise in architecture. But it explains alot – your ignorance of all other social subjects, politics, American history, sociology, political science, etc. You did need a few of those courses to graduate from college didn’t you?
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 1, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
Please. Your envy is showing again.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:08 pmunbelievable – you are in a class all your own!
“As I’ve said, it’s not my problem that you don’t accept gravity, statics and applied (not theoretical) physics as facts.”
So you consider Newtons Laws as Theoretical? Yeah! Your a very bright person.
Newtons laws are FACT:
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
II. The relationship between an object’s mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Conservation of Energy is a FACT:
Conservation of energy is possibly the most important, and certainly the most practically useful of several conservation laws in physics.
The law states that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
“You refuse to define what does. You just throw theory and equations out there with no clue of what you are talking about or any reality based structural perspective. Theory is not facts.”
Actually, they are. Theory has been proven as fact. For example, Ohms Law is theory. Yet it is an ABSOLUTE FACT that when you have 5V and a 100 Ohm resistor you get 50mA of current. This is a fact, and it is also theory.
“But you go ahead. Enjoy yourself and your silly conspiracy. It seems to be all you have.”
Still you have failed to provide ANY FACTS TO SUPPORT ANY CLAIM YOU MAKE! Yep! A real professional.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:30 pmThis is extremely pedantic, but the phrase “Invitation to Struggle,” which Holt borrowed for the title of a book, originates with and is generally associated with the constitutional scholar Edward S. Corwin.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:48 pm#257 by Worfeus
2. The North Tower was hit first. It burned for a full 40 minutes longer than the South Tower. But the South Tower FELL FIRST! Certainly if it was the intense heat they described that wore down the beams, the first tower to fall would have been the one that burned the longest….duh…..
Worfeus, I saw a couple of documentaries on public TV about the collapse of the towers. Might have been Frontline and/or Nova. They went through a thorough explanation of what scientists and engineers determined about the collapse. It was very interesting and very convincing.
The two towers DID NOT FALL EXACTLY THE SAME. The failures modes in fact were different. The South Tower was hit significantly lower thus there was much more weight above the weakened level. This additional weight is what made it fall first, even though it was hit second. It’s simple physics.
Check Wikipedia; it has lots of explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
unbelievable is correct. The collapse has been explained pretty well. There were several factors that played into it, similar to how there were several factors that played into the Challenger disaster. You think it was the o-ring failure allowing hot rocket gases to escape, right? Well, that was part of it, but the key problem was that the attachment strut where the Orbiter is joined to the External Tank was UNDERDESIGNED–it had too low of a safety factor. If it had been properly, conservatively designed, Challenger would have made it! This was quietly corrected after the accident.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:03 am“Invitation to Struggle,â€
Comment by Mark Schmitt
Interesting, on-topic post. Thanks, Mark. =:-) I was disappointed that Daschle in fact did not hang out on this thread and answer questions as was advertised. He responded early and briefly. It would be fascinating to go toe to toe with some of the high powered current or former politicians.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:12 amFallujah, being an insurgent stronghold, should have been levelled (Dresden style) after the murdered were mutilated, burned and hung from a bridge. Next stop on my “clean the rat nest†tour – Ramadi. I’ll let you you wring your hands and weep for those who would kill our soldiers – I do not.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
That is what the Red Coats said about Americans as well ..but you know what? They were wrong.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:30 amFallujah, being an insurgent stronghold, should have been levelled (Dresden style) after the murdered were mutilated, burned and hung from a bridge. Next stop on my “clean the rat nest†tour – Ramadi. I’ll let you you wring your hands and weep for those who would kill our soldiers – I do not.
Comment by mighty aphrodite
You call them insurgents. I call them the citizens of that country (citizens that didnt attack our citizens on 911). But as is normal from the right all you have to do is change the wording and the reality changes to right? WTF are we doing in THEIR homes towns in the first place anyway?
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:35 amI see that Daschle left after about post 50 > he is not much of a blogger to give up so soon > lol. Just the same as a Senator > he gave up too easily and got defeated! He never even knew that Thune who replaced him is bisexual/Gay! Jeff Gannon the male hooker has Thune’s name listed in his client address book > lol.
(Do NOT yell at me about this > I am a Democrat, but remember that Daschle sold out to Bush on the Iraq War and his reward was being voted out of Senate! Message: do not trust Bush because he stabs even those who help him like Daschle > Lieberman will get his reward soon > lol.)
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:17 am#69 The Senator’s mealy-mouthed “take†(pun intended) on the “Imperial Presidency†would have more weight once he explains his dear wife’s lucrative lobbying efforts on behalf of Boeing, et al. Believe me, Tom, the founders didn’t envision your wife and the remaining pack of jackals and lobbyists corrupting our system. Go bale some hay – the sun is shining.
Comment by mighty hypocrite — March 1, 2006
Mighty Hypocrite,
And what do you think of man who replaced Daschle as Senator John Thune’s own background as a lobbyist? For your information, from the Feb. 28 “New York Times” (and please don’t avoid the issue by attacking the NYT as “liberal” or whatever):
“As a lobbyist in 2003 and 2004, Mr. Thune earned $220,000 from the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, a small but ambitious company in South Dakota. The railroad hopes to rebuild and rehabilitate 1,300 miles of track, the nation’s largest proposed railroad expansion in more than a century.
Now, as a junior senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune is working to make that happen, raising questions about whether there should be curbs on lobbyists-turned-lawmakers in the same way that there are on those who take the more traditional route of leaving Capitol Hill for K Street.
Last year, his first in the Senate, Mr. Thune wrote language into a transportation bill expanding the pot of federal loan money for small railroads, enabling his former client to apply for $2.5 billion in government financing for its project.”
And are you trying to imply that it is only the Democrat lobbyists, who are in the minority, that are corrupting Washington? Ever heard of the convicted felon Jack Abramoff, former College Republicans chairman, and his K-Street Project? Also, would you have us believe that it is a mere coincidence that Dickhead Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, is now about to receive $250 million worth of improper charges and keeps on getting no-bid contracts despite its long record of overcharging and unaccounted for equipment ?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:47 amAnd, as usual, since you can’t argue with the real subject–what’s clearly written in the US Constitution–, you try to change it with reichwing talking points. You’re really getting quite tedious.
I forgot to mention in #272 gay hooker James Guckert/Jeff Gannon’s record on the campaign trail for John Thune. What fine company, right, Mighty Hypocrite?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:52 amI’m off to court.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 1, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
What drunk in public again?,
Peeing in the bushes? (he really does like that you know),
Competancy hearing from your family, neighbors again?,
Or just trolling in public?
Drunk driving charges are a bummer, I’ll bet…
Street walking again? come on Ma you can tell us….
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:06 amSo you consider Newtons Laws as Theoretical? Yeah! Your a very bright person.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 1, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
Stop putting words in my mouth. You are building theories. And you know it.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:06 amThe two towers DID NOT FALL EXACTLY THE SAME. The failures modes in fact were different. The South Tower was hit significantly lower thus there was much more weight above the weakened level. This additional weight is what made it fall first, even though it was hit second. It’s simple physics.
Check Wikipedia; it has lots of explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
unbelievable is correct. The collapse has been explained pretty well. The
Comment by CZ-1 — March 2, 2006 @ 12:03 am
Thanks for the voice of sanity :). It’s hard to debate anyone who has their mind made up and is unwilling to consider anything further. RB and I had this conversation in another forum, extensively, and it’s clear that he wants a conspiracy, regardless of the facts.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:10 am“No one will convince me on this aspect (the building collapse) alone that it was a U.S. government conspiracy.”
Yeah, your open minded to debate and discussion.
“Thanks for the voice of sanity :). It’s hard to debate anyone who has their mind made up and is unwilling to consider anything further. RB and I had this conversation in another forum, extensively, and it’s clear that he wants a conspiracy, regardless of the facts.”
You have not provided FACTS. It’s an opinion. I have not provided FACTS its an opinion. You have professionals who support your claim, but less than the many professionals who I have who say otherwise.
You fail to explain the very basics. You play this “I’m better than you because I know more” attitude which is BS.
You are not better than me or anyone else.
I look at the FACTS, and debate them. You just argure that you are right. That is the difference. You provide one article which you says supports your OPINION without providing ANY OTHER SUPPORTING information.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:52 amRemove Bush,
I have provided facts. You refuse to accept them because they dispell your myth. You act like I’m going out of my way to intentionally burst your bubble. Not so, I just think that you should know that a lot of experts with experience in the profession disagree with you.
You’re like debating an Evangelical Christian. You keep re-defining things to fit your theory, rather than follow scientific protocol. Nothing I post will matter to you, so as I’ve said, I’m not going through the effort of posting six years of college and 14 years of experience when you think someone with a PhD and no real experience trumps it.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:47 am“No one will convince me on this aspect (the building collapse) alone that it was a U.S. government conspiracy.â€
It’s hard to debate anyone who has their mind made up and is unwilling to consider anything further.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
You can point the finger all you want and try to play better than me, but you know what? I don’t give a rats ass about you and your opinions. You are JUST LIKE a racist KKK member. You argue that your right, despite the evidence that Black people are human and just the same as you.
“You refuse to accept them because they dispell your myth.”
No! I am providing EVIDENCE against your claim in support of EVIDENCE I believe with my 15 years of ENGINEERING experience, and my 2 years AA, and 4 years BS.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:55 am“You keep re-defining things to fit your theory, rather than follow scientific protocol.”
Oh and by the way….. You have NOT ONCE followed scientific protocol. This requires discussion of the information available and evaluation of the facts. Not just a “I’m right and your wrong attitude”. You fail to argue ANYTHING and try to play the PMS card, directly or indirectly, and the I’m better and you suck.
“Nothing I post will matter to you, so as I’ve said, I’m not going through the effort”
How would you know????? You have not debated or discussed anything. Its all been “I’m right and your wrong”, despite the magnitude of evidence ANYONE provides. You don’t want to discuss anything with an open mind because you MIGHT have to admit your wrong.
I’m done discussing anything with you, as you OBVIOUSLY have NO IDEA WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. You cant even carry on a debate. For all I know your a 16 year old and simply repeating information you heard. You expect anyone to take you seriously with this attitude?
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:03 amI’m done discussing anything with you, as you OBVIOUSLY have NO IDEA WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. You cant even carry on a debate. For all I know your a 16 year old and simply repeating information you heard. You expect anyone to take you seriously with this attitude?
Comment by RemoveBush — March 2, 2006 @ 11:03 am
Sure you are… And you keep telling yourself that I and thousands of other professionals don’t know what we’re talking about. The reality is that in court, I would be an expert and you would not.
You’re the one who started the condescention and name calling. You are the one who is angry. You are the one who needs to be right, no matter how many times I’ve tried to explain to you that you that this is no personal. I’m just posting an alternative explanation and you’re the one who is yelling (that’s what all caps means). Yeah, that makes me the one with the attitude… Okay.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:50 am#184
“I am, though I am not a structural engineer.”
Really…who would have guessed?
“Steel requires between 1200 and 3000 degrees to melt, depending on temper.”
Steel doesn’t need to melt to fail. Did you ever take a physics class? I have been an architect for 15 years and not one structural engineering firm in the U.S. has come forth with the BS “explosives” theory that so many unqualified wanna-be experts have presented.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm#186
If your field of engineering does not involve the study of statics then you are not even remotely qualified to make a educated guess about why the WTC towers fell on 9/11.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:08 pm#190
So you would put your money on the North Koreans vs. the United States if they went to war? You are too funny!
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:11 pm#194
“Remove bush, please refrain from confusing poor tracy with the facts.”
Do you have any about the WTC collapse? Remove Bush has yet to produce any claims that can be validated by structural engineers.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:14 pmSteel doesn’t need to melt to fail. Did you ever take a physics class? I have been an architect for 15 years and not one structural engineering firm in the U.S. has come forth with the BS “explosives†theory that so many unqualified wanna-be experts have presented.
Comment by Tracy
Before the “BS explosives theory” ever came out firefighters and others at the scene said they thought they saw and heard the explosives.
And you do know that many people around the country were pressured to drop their belief and not to pursue it to see if it was true right? What is wrong with looking to see if it was true? Something to hide?
And you dont have to look at people that knew anything about 911… you can go back to the 90s and watch shows about demolitions where they talk about why it is physically impossible to bring down a building in its own foot print without strategically placed explosives because even weakened buildings do not magically collapse all at once. It happens unevenly and so it always ends up falling over.
AND you are correct. It does not take melted steel to bring down a building…however the fire did not even get hot enough to weaken the steel…yet in the rubble there was pools of molten steel… which can only happen in a steel mill or from cutting explosives…
You may be right Tracey but until the inconsistancies are explained then it is just a hunch at best not a fact or even something that can be called a scientific theory.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 pm“If your field of engineering does not involve the study of statics then you are not even remotely qualified to make a educated guess about why the WTC towers fell on 9/11.”
Tracy, I deal with statistics EVERY DAY! That is one of my points. If you look at the history of steel beam sky scrappers, there is not one case of FIRE ever destroying a building. Not to mention a plane crashing into a bulding, which I posted about the Empire State Building.
So by using the statistics available and the data that has been available, along with the MANY experts and the testemony of the Firefighters and Police officers that they heard and seen explosive going off, I would say that makes my evidence pretty strong.
Unlike unbelievable, I look at the data and I analyze the information, ALL THE INFORMATION. She fails to explain how a 50 ton hydrolic press in the BASEMENT can be litterally destroyed by a plane crash on the 80th floor. If explosives were not used, then how does a fire ball literally destroy a press and all of the basement area of a sealed infrastructure.
People want to close their eyes, and not look at ALL evidence. I can make a case for anything I want when one of my parts fails, but until I perform an in depth look into the fault its only speculation.
“So you would put your money on the North Koreans vs. the United States if they went to war? You are too funny!”
Your not to bright are you? Your statement was that NK would not follow their leader if we attacked them. My statement was in response to that. Learn to read!
“Are you sure the soldiers of North Korea would have any motivation for fighting other that the threat of KJI executing them for desertion?”
Where in my statement do I say anything about the US vs. NK? I simply rebuted your statement that they would do nothing based on my EXPERIENCE of being in Korea and NK fireing on the US soldiers often.
GEEZE!
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:25 pmTracy, I am not at home right now. But when I get home I will provide you with enough information for you to look at that will keep you busy for at least 2 months.
I have been researching this for at least a year. I have several engineers, including the very firm that does this for a living that says that if they were going to bring down a building they would take out the structure at the base. Hense, that’s why there was molten steel in the basement for months after the collapse.
Check back after 7PM tonight and I will give you all the information you can possibly think of. And unlike unbelievable, I have information from both sides and I will provide that as well.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:29 pm#255 “I DESIGNED IT FOR A 707 HIT“
Lee Robertson, WTC original structural engineer,
Comment by WORFEUS
True, but the towers were each hit by a B-767, which is somewhat larger and heavier than a B-707, and the 767 planes hit at much higher speeds (490 and 590 mph) than the 707 design scenario (180 mph, lost in fog while trying to land). This translates to 7 times the kinetic energy of the 707 impact scenario.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:32 pmHeres something to start with, until I get home.
Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:34 pmOr this:
http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:36 pmCZ-1 – That’s true, but you might want to look at the video again. Did you even see the building sway that much?
I would say that the building was pretty well built to withstand the hit.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 pm#202….
Well look what we have here, a reinforced concrete frame with steel skin. Worfeus you and Remove Bush…you two guys please, please, do some REAL research before you comment on the WTC collapse again. This is getting old.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 pmTracy – I have, perhaps you should?
How about this?
In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse.
Or this:
In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:44 pm#287 by RemoveBush
…fails to explain how a 50 ton hydrolic press in the BASEMENT can be literally destroyed by a plane crash on the 80th floor. If explosives were not used, then how does a fire ball literally destroy a press and all of the basement area of a sealed infrastructure.
A 110 story building falls down into its basement, and you wonder why stuff in the basement was destroyed? F = ma. And I remember how the fire continued to burn under the rubble for MONTHS after the collapse. I don’t see why it’s difficult to believe that this hydraulic press was destroyed without any explosives being involved.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:44 pm“A 110 story building falls down into its basement, and you wonder why stuff in the basement was destroyed? F = ma. And I remember how the fire continued to burn under the rubble for MONTHS after the collapse. I don’t see why it’s difficult to believe that this hydraulic press was destroyed without any explosives being involved.
Comment by CZ-1 ”
NO NO! This was even BEFORE the towers collaped. Perhaps you should do some more research?
WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim Blows ‘Official 9/11 Story’ Sky High; Eye Witness Testimony Is Conclusive That North Tower Collapsed From Controlled Demolition
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:48 pmWTC janitor pulls burn victim to safety after basement explosion rocks north tower seconds before jetliner hit top floors. Also, two other men trapped and drowning in a basement elevator shaft, were also pulled to safety from underground explosion..
24 Jun 2005
#292 I would say that the building was pretty well built to withstand the hit.
Comment by RemoveBush
It wasn’t built to withstand:
* the hit +
* the fire +
* the damage to the fireproofing materials +
* the stairwells were fireproofed/walled with gypsum board—not concrete block.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
#220
And what happened to the center support beam? If it “bent†as you say, why didn’t the towers lean?
More help for you….and others.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:55 pm#296
Source for your research?
I remember that the burning jet fuel from the planes actually went down the elevator shafts all the way to the lobby of the buildings. One woman who was just walking into the building from the street was horribly burned when this flaming fuel blasted out into the ground level lobby. Could this be the reason behind some of these stories you’ve seen?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:02 pm#232
I think YOU are the one who needs to prove your case with some evidence. Please cite one engineering firm or reputable engineer that has stated that the WTC collapse was caused by explosives.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:02 pmTracy – I am not sure if you are addressing this for support or rejection of the claim of explosives?
In either case, your point is another reason why many people, including myself, claim there were explosives. Why was there not a 15 or 20 story part of the CENTER columns still standing if the pancake theory is true?
With the pancake theory, this would not cause the center columns to be taken down as well. There would have been a LARGE portion of the center still standing. But there was not.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:06 pmDo people not read ANYMORE?
From #289
Tracy, I am not at home right now. But when I get home I will provide you with enough information for you to look at that will keep you busy for at least 2 months.
I have been researching this for at least a year. I have several engineers, including the very firm that does this for a living that says that if they were going to bring down a building they would take out the structure at the base. Hense, that’s why there was molten steel in the basement for months after the collapse.
Check back after 7PM tonight and I will give you all the information you can possibly think of. And unlike unbelievable, I have information from both sides and I will provide that as well.
Comment by RemoveBush
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:08 pm#257
“If the temperature on the 93 thru the 98th floor of the north tower is factual, then why didn’t any of the survivors who passed those floors get burned alive by it???”
The passed thru the concrete core!… i.e. the FIRE PROTECTED stair wells the were designed to have at least 2 hour rating even if the sprinkler system was cut….which many MEP engineer suspect it was.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:19 pm#294
Again were they reinforced concrete structures with a steel skin like the Madrid Towers?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm#270 – “You call them insurgents. I call them the citizens of that country (citizens that didnt attack our citizens on 911).” – Gerald (I’ll have another) Gibson
*****Of course you do, Gerald. I would expect no less from you.
“WTF are we doing in THEIR homes towns in the first place anyway?” – Gerald, again
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:31 pm*****Simple question – simple answer. Saddam’s refusal to abide by more than a dozen sanctions and terms of the 1991 cease fire (which is NOT a truce – it is a “cessation of hostilities” – as long a specified conditions are met.) The firing at US aircraft enforcing an agreed to “no-fly”zone is just one reason we “are in their towns”. I know these are difficult concepts…for apologists.
#287
“Tracy, I deal with statistics EVERY DAY!”
STATICS!!!! Do you know what that is?! Not statistics! Now I know you aren’t even close to knowing anything about structural engineering.
“Where in my statement do I say anything about the US vs. NK?”
It didn’t, I just asked you a question.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:36 pmHey MA, since you support killing American Soldiers so much for a worthless cause, why not join the Military and support your cause directly rather than by lip service?
Just an idea.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:37 pm#302
“I have several engineers, including the very firm that does this for a living that says that if they were going to bring down a building they would take out the structure at the base”
Great and make sure you provide some contact information so that I can call them and ask them to provide some real evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers. As a licensed architect I would love to hear their claim.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:43 pm#307 – I have already stated CLEARLY that I am not a structural engineer. I don’t pretend to be either.
I do have a very solid engineering background and, frankly, the evidence, statements, and cover up about these events make it pretty clear.
There is very little evidence or PROOF of the contrary to the days events. The Odss of 3 buildings falling the same way, is about a BILLIOIN TO ONE.
It does not take a structural engineer to look at all of the days events, and the statements by Larry Silverstien to deduct that there HAD to be explosives in the buildings.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:44 pmTracy – the company is Controlled Demolition. Feel free to contact them and ask them what they ment by: “if I was going to bring down a building I would remove the base support”
Since you have this hollier than thou attitude. I’m simply providing information that has been gathered and LARGELY supports the theory of explosives. Your problem, along with unbelievable, is you have a narrow view of the evidence. You fail to look at everything of the day or events. You take one thing and run with it.
OK, since your such a professional. Tell me how WTC 6 was damaged? The building blew up only 8 minutes after people were evacuated. You don’t appear to look at the evidence. Don’t get mad at me, or anyone else, who brings up things that does not support your point. These are valid and enexplained issues, which make the entire events point to only one thing.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:51 pmDr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team’s report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing – that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of “experts” making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team’s August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to “rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.” The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to “soften and buckle.” (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that “most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C.” To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatterâ€.
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I’ve copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:56 pmTracy – Here’s another expert, and he explains things very well with evidence in many cases.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:09 pm#311 “Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.”
It wasn’t just the jet fuel. The jet fuel ignited several floors worth of office areas and building materials. That was the stuff that continued to burn for months after the collapse. My wood burning stove at home can fairly easily reach 900 deg F, and there is a warning label on it that says something like, “Do not overfire your stove. If the metal top or the chimney pipe are glowing red, you are overfiring.”
Also, the steel need not melt or even soften. It simply has to weaken, coupled with significant structural damage from the hit, for there to be a problem.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:18 pm#307 – I’mBushed – Get up to speed – been there – done that.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:23 pmCZ-1 – Yes, but 40 minutes is not enough to cause this type of disaster.
Also, there were sizmic readings before the collapse that shows EXPLOSIVES were used. The readings also show that the collapse its self cause little to no blip on the sizmic tape.
So, the collapse does not cause the readings to show anything, and the actual impact shows up but is not as big as the sizmic readings just before the collapse, means that the building fell by a fluke?
There is just too much evidence to counter that. How is it that sizmic data shows that a very large series of ground disruptions happened just before the collapse? The top part of the building would not have been enough to cause this reading, so what was it if it was not explossions?
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:28 pmMA – What was your rank? What was your MOS? What company/unit did you serve in? Where were you stationed?
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:49 pmI think if several, similarly-constructed WTC buildings fell on 9/11/2001 after fire and damage, the true coverup here is that this type of construction is fatally flawed and we likely have a number of buildings around the country at risk. That’s a typical Bush & Co. coverup: protect corporations and industry at the expense of the general public. Just as the Bush EPA said it was safe to live and work in the area of the WTC when in fact they had no data that demonstrated it was safe, and subsequent data shows it was not safe.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:02 pmSo, when the owner of the building says that they decided to “pull-it”, means nothing?
In a September 2002 PBS documentary called ‘America Rebuilds,’ Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:20 pm#318
Assuming that quote is accurate, the way you are interpreting it makes no sense. Isn’t more likely Silverstein was simply referring to discussions about pulling down 7 WTC AFTER the crisis was over? Couldn’t it just be that he’s describing this conversation against the backdrop of the building unexpectedly collapsing? i.e. “We were talking about how maybe we should just pull it down, and then wow, it just collapsed by itself.” How would they “pull it” unless they had set up explosive charges before this all happened? And in controlled demolitions, other preparations take place inside the building. How would that have been accomplished in an occupied building?
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:10 pmThat’s the point….. It was not meant to be a play on words. The building did not fall in peices like it would if just due to structural failure. Look at the video. It was demolished.
So if this building was “pulled”, then it only makes sense that the other buildings were demolished with the way they fell.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:36 pmHere is a picture of building 7 at 3pm on September 11, two and a half hours before it collapsed. The lower portion of the building is darkened from the reflection of the other smaller building across the street. The only fires are on the 7th and 12th floors and are so small they could have been put out by the office sprinkler system. Why did Silverstein and the government make the decision to ‘pull’ the building when debris from it’s collapse would hit the other buildings and start fires in them too?
Many people have claimed that the diesel fuel and emergency generators exploded within building 7 but even the FEMA report admitted that these remained fully intact. The FEMA report sought to explain how the building collapsed but could only conclude, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.â€
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pm#310
I am going to ask them if it is their company’s position that explosives have to have been used to take down the WTC towers on 9/11.
“OK, since your such a professional. Tell me how WTC 6 was damaged? The building blew up only 8 minutes after people were evacuated.”
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/b6_explosion.html
As far as the huge hole in WTC #6 the most telling is the fact that all floors had almost identical damage profiles and that the steel members were bent DOWN not up.
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:06 pmTracy – WTC6 was damaged well before the collapse of either WTC. This article implies that the damage is due to the collapse of the WTC.
CNN caught it on tape and it was not talked about at all. It was confirmed that there was an EVENT at WTC6, but it was not clear wat it was.
Again, I will provide the information after work.
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:16 pmAlso, I’m sure they are going to say no (pressure by old Georgie). They have commented in a documentary, that this is the way that they would do it if they were to demolish a building.
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:17 pm*****Simple question – simple answer. Saddam’s refusal to abide by more than a dozen sanctions and terms of the 1991 cease fire (which is NOT a truce – it is a “cessation of hostilities†– as long a specified conditions are met.) The firing at US aircraft enforcing an agreed to “no-flyâ€zone is just one reason we “are in their townsâ€. I know these are difficult concepts…for apologists.
Comment by mighty hypocrite
To Bush Apologist Mighty Hypocrite,
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:19 pmOh, but remember that the reasons King George originally gave for invading Iraq were not the ones you mention above but its supposed connections with 9/11 (since proven to be non-existent) and Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. In fact, once it became quite clear that the WMD weren’t going to be found because they weren’t in Iraq in the first place, instead of apologizing and admitting his mistake, Bush started giving other excuses. And he also joked about it at a Press Club dinner pretending to look under a table, etc. while saying “They must be somewherea2 in total insensitive regard to the young soldiers he sent over to Iraq–especially to those who have died or been maimed and their families. I know that’s difficult for apologists like yourself to fathom.
For Starters. I have many files and web sites to look through for specific things of this nature.
As promissed here are the links. I am not sorting them or pulling out information at this point. Feel free to discuss.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/files/Presentation.exe
http://www.youtube.com/w/?v=x-RjohsWGO4
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
File No. 9110251
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
FIREFIGHTER EDWARD CACHIA
Interview Date: December 6, 2001
Transcribed by Laurie A. Collins
As I’m standing with my officer, the
people are continuing to jump. Ganci is still on
the radio trying desperately to get some
information concerning this third plane in the
air.
As my officer and I were looking at the
south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a
lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit,
because we originally had thought there was like
an internal detonation explosives because it went
in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then
the tower came down.
File No. 9110388
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
FIREFIGHTER PETER FALLUCCA
Interview Date: December 26, 2001
It was a big fireball or
something from the plane I guess, came from across the
street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the
rig, there’s a cop, city police officer, in the street. He’s telling us, “I’m getting out of here. I
just saw a rocket.” He said he saw it come off the
Woolworth Building and hit the tower.
Now I see the two towers are hit. He says,
“I just saw a rocket hit that building. I’m getting
the F out of here. I’m getting out of here.”
And we were like, holy — I’m saying to
myself, I didn’t even go in yet. They’re shooting
rockets.
FILE NO 9110488
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
FIREFIGHTER TIMOTHY BURKE
INTERVIEW DATE JANUARY 22 2002
TRANSCRIBED BY ELISABETH NASON
THEN THE BUILDING POPPED LOWER THAN THE
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:57 pmFIRE WHICH LEARNED WAS GUESS THE AVIATION FUEL
FELL INTO THE PIT AND WHATEVER FLOOR IT FELL ON HEATED
UP REALLY BAD AND THATS WHY IT POPPED AT THAT FLOOR
THATS THE RUMOR HEARD BUT IT SEEMED LIKE WAS
GOING OH MY GOD THERE IS SECONDARY DEVICE BECAUSE
THE WAY THE BUILDING POPPED THOUGHT IT WAS AN
EXPLOSION
3 buildings on the same day falling straight down in neat lil piles…THREE?!?! The SAME day…! Naturally…Too convient for my tastes!
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:27 amMore Links…
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:44 am
#323
The article I cited with the huge hole in WTC #6 talks about the SEVERE damage caused by the main towers coming down, i.e. the huge hole caused by tons of steel pile driving all the way through the sub basement parking garage.
“It was confirmed that there was an EVENT at WTC6, but it was not clear wat it was.”
Yes, the INITAL damage WTC #6 was caused by a large amount steel debris being ejected and falling on it when the plane hit. Do you not remember seeing a bunch of debris falling when the planes hit?
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:47 am#296
Please give a link to the story about this press being destroyed before the collapse of the towers.
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 amTracy – here’s the link.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104undergroundexplosions.htm
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:55 amTracy – Gettin hit by spam filters, so I have to post the actual article.
Unexplained 9-11 Explosion at WTC Complex
Despite the fact that the horrible events of Sept. 11 occurred in broad daylight and were widely photographed, significant aspects of the attacks have been completely suppressed by a media blackout.
Exclusive to American Free Press
By Christopher Bollyn
A massive explosion, witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, evidently devastated World Trade Center 6, the eight-story U.S. Customs building, although no national newspaper, other than American Free Press, has written a word about it.
Before the smoke had cleared from around the stricken South Tower, a mysterious explosion shot 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at WTC 6.
The unexplained blast occurred between the burning North Tower and the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the South Tower, at about 9:03 a.m.
The explosion at WTC 6 was shown afterward on CNN. But because it was not broadcast as it happened there has been some confusion about when it actually occurred.
The large amount of smoke seen cascading around the South Tower in the video led some observers to mistake the blast for a dust cloud from the subsequent collapse of the tower.
TIMING CONFIRMED
American Free Press contacted CNN to determine exactly when the footage was filmed.
CNN’s Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist said “that’s correct.â€
When asked if CNN could offer any explanation about what might have caused the blast that soared higher than the 47-story WTC 7 in the foreground, the archivist said: “We can’t figure it out.â€
The affected space between WTC 7 and the North Tower was occupied by the Customs House building, also known as WTC 6. The building housed the offices of 760 employees of the Customs Service, a part of Treasury. Other federal agencies had offices in the building, including the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. They did not return calls to AFP about the matter.
A spokesman for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which had an office with four employees on the sixth floor of the Customs House, confirmed the time of the explosion and told AFP that the employees had survived and been relocated. One private company, Eastco Building Services, Inc., reportedly leased space in the building.
Some 800 workers from WTC 6 were safely evacuated within 12 minutes of the first plane hitting the North Tower at about 8:46 a.m., according to a Sept. 18 Washington Post article by Stephen Barr.
The Barr piece is the only known article published about WTC 6. However, Barr failed to mention the explosion that apparently devastated the building just minutes after the workers had escaped with their lives.
AVOIDING THE SUBJECT
Although the Customs House apparently exploded at 9:04 a.m., the government-sponsored investigation was steered away from looking into what had actually happened.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency funded an investigation by the American Society of Civil Engineers. However, investigators were reportedly blocked from the building by an order from the New York City’s Department. of Design and Construction .
Kenneth Holden is commissioner of the DDC, having been appointed by the former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani on Dec. 7, 1999.
Regarding the investigation of WTC 4, 5, and 6, FEMA’s “Building Performance†report says, “WTC 5 was the only building accessible for observation.†But, it adds, “the observations, findings, and recommendations are assumed to be applicable to all three buildings.â€
A spokesman for FEMA told AFP that because the building was considered by DDC to be “very dangerous,†there was “no data collection†from WTC 6.
Dr. Gene Corley, one of the engineers who led the investigation, told AFP that concerns about loose gold bullion and cash prevented investigators from entering WTC 4.
The FEMA report says, “The buildings [4,5,6] responded as expected to the impact loadings.†Although the report says, “most of the central part of WTC 6 suffered collapse on all floors,†it adds, “damage was consistent with the observed impact load.â€
The Customs House had a huge crater in its center.
Corley told AFP that he had not seen the CNN photos before and called them “interesting.â€
Corley, like other experts, thought the damage at WTC 6 was caused by the collapse of the North Tower. However, not one of the experts could recall seeing the CNN footage before.
A spokesman for the Customs Service told AFP, “It did not blow up. When the tower collapsed it caved in.â€
Corley said he had not seen the photos of the extremely high-speed missile-like object seen streaking toward WTC 6 from behind the North Tower as the second plane hit the South Tower.
He noted that parts of the plane’s landing gear and an engine passed through the South Tower, and landed several blocks away.
These objects, however, had a distinctly different trajectory from the streaking missile-like object. Another investigator, Jonathan Barnett, told AFP, “The debris from Tower 2 hit Building 5, not 6.â€
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pm#332
Let’s say for minute that this story about the explosions in the WTC tower basement are true. Getting back to the main outrageous claim that the U.S. government was responsible for the entire attack: A. How do we know that these explosions were not planed parts of the Al Qaeda plot? i.e. the planes were part of the attack along with explosions in the sub-basement levels done in conjunction to take down the towers. B. Has anyone ever disputed who were in control of the planes as they smashed in to the towers, i.e. Al Qaeda terrorists? Remember terrorists already tried to take out the towers with bombs in 1993…unsucessfully.
Present some evidence that proves that the U.S. government or anyone else but Al Qaeda was resonsible or offer some proof that those people who smashed those planes into the towers were actually secret American government pilots, that Atta himself was actually working for the U.S. government, or that the video showing him passing thru security at Logan International was a body double.
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:44 pmTracy – I’ll state the information for now and try to post some evidence now, but most of the evidence will have to come later tonigh or this weekend.
“A. How do we know that these explosions were not planed parts of the Al Qaeda plot? i.e. the planes were part of the attack along with explosions in the sub-basement levels done in conjunction to take down the towers.”
We don’t, but how are the terrorists going to perform this on 3 different buildings? Actually 4 if we count WTC6.
“B. Has anyone ever disputed who were in control of the planes as they smashed in to the towers, i.e. Al Qaeda terrorists? Remember terrorists already tried to take out the towers with bombs in 1993…unsucessfully.”
Well, in the original Bin Laden tape he claimed that he had nothing to do with the attacks. I don’t think there is enough evidence either way to answer that question.
“Present some evidence that proves that the U.S. government or anyone else but Al Qaeda was resonsible or offer some proof that those people who smashed those planes into the towers were actually secret American government pilots, that Atta himself was actually working for the U.S. government, or that the video showing him passing thru security at Logan International was a body double.”
Again, I will provide this later with links but here is the general idea behind it.
The theory is this:
1) How can a band of 19 people, who many turn up later to be alive, cause the air force to stand down?
2) Given that planes were being injected into the ATC radar that day by a convienent war game, it would not be hard to switch air craft.
3) Note that there were 35 air bases around the path of the hijacked planes path that day. There is NO WAY that there was not one plane that could be sent up to even investigate the issues.
4) Why did the Secret Service (SS) do their job and force the VP into a bunker, but the SS did nothing for the president when he was sitting in a building that was being broadcast live? This is COMPLETELY against protocol.
5) Why is it that Pentagon officials report smelling Cordite? Cordite is a type of gun power, or explosive material.
6) Why is it that the light posts that were sheered off by the plane at the pentagon did not damage the plane and why did it not crash before hitting? There was a plane, will provide information later, for Bush 1 that was taking off and one of the planes clipped a pole and it crashed directly after that.
7) There was an FBI informant that was housing 2 of the hijackers.
8) I can’t answer the security video, but there are suggestions that there was a company in another country who assisted with this. It would not be that difficult to take a video and place a different time stamp on it, would it?
9) One of the planes actually landed in Ohio, and it was delayed for over 2 hours with only about 40-60 passengers but a plane with over 200 people was evacuated in just 20 minutes.
This link is a good starting point to answer a great deal of the questions. This investigator approaches the issue with a true investigative approach. He asks the questions and allows the viewer to come to their own conclusions.
http://www.loosechange911.com/
March 3rd, 2006 at 3:03 pm35 USAF Bases Within Range On 911:
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 pmhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/110903usafbases.html
Why were the SAM’s Disabled?:
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 pmhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/in_addition_to_jets_were_sams_stood_down_on_911.htm
Put Options not Investigated:
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:32 pmhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/german_firm_probes_final_world_trade_center_deals.htm
http://prisonplanet.com/suppresed_details_insider_trading_cia.html
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:32 pmhttp://prisonplanet.com/profits_of_death_insider_trading_and_9_11.html
http://prisonplanet.com/profits_of_death_part_2_trading_with_the_enemy.html
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:33 pmhttp://prisonplanet.com/profits_of_death_part_3.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/still_silence_from_911_stock_speculation_probe.htm
No Arabs in Official Autopsy Report:
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:33 pmhttp://www.physics911.net/olmsted.htm
Hijackers and their current status:
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:34 pmhttp://www.welfarestate.com/911/
Cell Phone Conversations:
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:37 pmhttp://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm
Cell Phone Experiment:
http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm
Found ATM Cards:
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:39 pmhttp://www.rense.com/general68/moremir.htm
FEMA arrived for issue on the 10th
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:40 pmhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/fema_clip.mp3
FEMA says they were not there on the 10th
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fema_deployment_pre_911.htm
Ohio Plane Landings:
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:41 pmhttp://www.rense.com/general68/says.htm
Original Link
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:41 pmhttp://web.archive.org/web/20030103155642/http://wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html
Current Link
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:42 pmhttp://www.wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html
Private jet crashes en route to pick up former President Bush
By JUAN A. LOZANO
Associated Press
HOUSTON (AP) – A private jet that was en route to Houston to pick up former President Bush clipped a light pole and crashed Monday as it approached Hobby Airport in thick fog, killing all three people aboard.
http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2004/11/22/build/nation/64-jet-crash_v.inc
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:58 pmFinally, why do satellite photos taken four days before 9/11 show a white marking on the front lawn, marking almost the exact trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon four days later?
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:03 pmNo Arabs in Official Autopsy Report:
http://www.physics911.net/olmsted.htm
Comment by RemoveBush — March 3, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Yeah, cause they were vaporized in the crash.
Now I get why you don’t consider STATICS to be a FACT, you didn’t know that they are Applied Structural Physics – things like understanding loads placed upon a structure…
What kind of engineer are you? Industrial? You guys are not really engineers – you’re managers.
And those two Pentagon photos, based upon the deatils (asphalt wear, grass phase, tree line growth) are not 4 days apart. More like years apart. And that “White spot” is not marking, it is the result of a long exposure of an electrical outdoor light.
Tracy, CZ-1, this is Remove Bush’s religion. He has blind faith in it, and there’s no fact or expert who can sway him away from it.
March 4th, 2006 at 5:27 pmTracy –
Since you have this hollier than thou attitude.
Your problem, along with unbelievable, is you have a narrow view of the evidence. You fail to look at everything of the day or events. You take one thing and run with it.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 2, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
Yep, we’re all wrong. Doesn’t matter how much education or experience – we are all smug and clueless. Well, expect for you.
Tracy is a conservative and I am a liberal, and CZ-1 is a liberal. It’s not a neocon conspiracy that’s against you. It’s the FACTS that are against you.
March 4th, 2006 at 5:31 pm“Yeah, cause they were vaporized in the crash.”
Your an IDIOT!!!!
So if they can identify all but 2 of the passengers on the plane by DNA, except the hijackers, then what the hell does your statement mean???? Everyone but these 4 people were not burned? I’ll say it again! IDIOT!
Your so freeking rediculous!!! You come here with ZERO evidence to anything!
Provide some evidence CVNT!
I’m tired of you calling me a conspiracy theorist, when you provide NO FACTS AT ALL!
If you want to dispute something, FINE. If not, shut the hell up.
“And those two Pentagon photos, based upon the deatils (asphalt wear, grass phase, tree line growth) are not 4 days apart. More like years apart. And that “White spot†is not marking, it is the result of a long exposure of an electrical outdoor light.”
First of all! I never claimed that the pictures WERE 4 DAYS APART! The statement is that a marking appears to align with the trajectory within 4 days.
Jesus Christ, your such an IDIOT! Again, if you want to debate something, then do it. Otherwise shut the hell up!
“Yep, we’re all wrong. Doesn’t matter how much education or experience – we are all smug and clueless. Well, expect for you.”
Well when you CLAIM to be an EXPERT with 14 years of experience, but REFUSE to provide ONE bit of evidence to your claim then I say I will disagree with you or anyone who cannot provide evidence to support your claim.
Your about as bright as a door knob. You continually make statements that are not supported of ANY FACTS, and you think your right. Your a fool, probably a 15 year old still in diapers.
“Tracy is a conservative and I am a liberal, and CZ-1 is a liberal. It’s not a neocon conspiracy that’s against you. It’s the FACTS that are against you.”
You have not provided ANY FACTS to counter anything. At least Tracy has provided some fairly convincing peices of evidence. You have brought SH!T!
March 4th, 2006 at 6:24 pmBy the way…..
So all the firefighters and police officers who heard secondary devices going off are conspiracy theorists as well? Provide some fact to counter their statements “biatch”.
See post #326
March 4th, 2006 at 6:32 pmHere is the actual web page, that has the pictures. Now try and refute the evidence!!!!!
Notice that there are no “electrical outdoor light” near the spot!
Provide some evidence! Provide some evidence! Provide some evidence!
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/Pentagon/Pentagon_9_7_01.jpg
March 4th, 2006 at 6:55 pm“And I don’t have to prove that”
Check and Mate!
That’s because you are a teen with no experience in anything and therefore can’t!
Maybe when you grow up little girl/boy, you will understand how the real world works!
Try telling your boss that your opinion is the way that a project direction should move toward, without providing any supporting evidence.
Run to your parents and ask them what I am talking about, maybe they can explain it to you.
Here is an example for your little child…..
Unrealistic Version (your version)
YOU: Mr/Mrs boss, we need to buy this 1 million dollar peice of equipment.
BOSS: OK, let’s buy it.
Real World Verion
March 5th, 2006 at 6:57 pmYOU: Mr/Mrs boss, we need to buy this 1 million dollar peice of equipment.
BOSS: What benefits does this equipment bring and why do we need it?
YOU: Because I say so, and because I feel that it it needed.
BOSS: You need to provide data that shows me why we need this equipment.
YOU: No I don’t, I told you why.
At least Tracy has provided some fairly convincing peices of evidence. You have brought SH!T!
Comment by RemoveBush — March 4, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
Now I know you’re a raving lunatic – Tracy has said the exact same things that I said earlier. Exact same convincing “peices” of evidence.
You just can’t stand that a woman has proven you to be a conspiracy nut with nothing to stand on but a lot of theories and zero facts.
And so now you sound like the conspiracy freak that you are – screaming incoherently, trying (unsuccessfully) to insult me, because your “facts” can’t speak for you and you have to resort toname calling like a tempermental four year old who needs a nap.
So what kind of engineer are you? You keep avoiding that question as well… domestic engineer would be my guess… or sanitation engineer, perhaps. And I bet you’re short and bald to boot. Figures. What a joke you are. Poor baby.
March 5th, 2006 at 7:33 pmBOSS: You need to provide data that shows me why we need this equipment.
YOU: No I don’t, I told you why.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 5, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Would that be statistically or statically derived? ah ha ha ha! “I work with statistics every day”… statistics?… oh ha ha ah ha! Stop, really, you’re cracking me up. And could you do that burning bush trick again? That one was really side splitting…
The report my 15 year old student gave me on this was so much better prepared than yours, and he’s far more mature. It’s still a silly teenager’s fantasy, but he’s a much better sport than you shorty.
March 5th, 2006 at 7:41 pm“Tracy has said the exact same things that I said earlier. Exact same convincing “peices†of evidence.”
Once again your wrong wench!
Tracy has provided link after link and discussed the counter evidence I provide, and he does that in a coherent way.
You provide sh!t. You provided a couple of links, which I provided more than one link countering yours, and you cannot provide one bit of support beyond one link.
Nice try though. Now go and play with your dollies!
“And so now you sound like the conspiracy freak that you are – screaming incoherently, trying (unsuccessfully) to insult me, because your “facts†can’t speak for you and you have to resort toname calling like a tempermental four year old who needs a nap.”
Now thats a funny one!! I have provided FACTS AFTER FACTS, while you have provided SH!T!!!! Saddly, when adult conversations don’t work for a child, I sometimes have to lower my standards and talk in a way that the child I am talking with might be able to comprehend.
“So what kind of engineer are you?”
Well since you can’t provide any data or evidence in a debate, why would I even tell you? You are obviously not a teacher or in the field for 14 years, as you don’t understand the basic principal of debate and providing evdience to support your opinion.
March 5th, 2006 at 7:50 pm“You just can’t stand that a woman has proven you to be a conspiracy nut with nothing to stand on but a lot of theories and zero facts.”
Oh, and finally. It’s not a woman/girl thing….. I have worked with many women, but the big difference is that they were able to talk without a sucking sound. You have not provided any FACTS! You have privided an opinion from a person who does not have any evidence to support his theory. No one has evidence to support any theory, as it was all destroyed, but you would not know that because you live in your own little world.
I have provided 2 PHD’s who say the opposite and provide very detailed information as to why the Governments claim is incorrect.
March 5th, 2006 at 8:44 pm#334
“We don’t, but how are the terrorists going to perform this on 3 different buildings? Actually 4 if we count WTC6.”
Timers, remote controls, cell phones, ect… take you pick.
“Well, in the original Bin Laden tape he claimed that he had nothing to do with the attacks.”
Oh, yeah he was telling the truth!
That is one BS lame theory:
“2) Given that planes were being injected into the ATC radar that day by a convienent war game, it would not be hard to switch air craft.”
Where did the people that were on those planes go, i.e. the one that died when the planes hit?…including those on flight 93? All those cell phone conversations between passangers of flight 93 and their famlies were fake?
“There is NO WAY that there was not one plane that could be sent up to even investigate the issues.”
At what time were these planes confirmed to be hijacked?
“Why did the Secret Service (SS) do their job and force the VP into a bunker, but the SS did nothing for the president when he was sitting in a building that was being broadcast live?”
The SS and his staff thought it was necessary for the president to make the announcement about the attacks.
“Why is it that Pentagon officials report smelling Cordite? Cordite is a type of gun power, or explosive material.”
Cordite is use in gun ammuntion propellant…about 100 years ago. It’s no longer produced.
“Why is it that the light posts that were sheered off by the plane at the pentagon did not damage the plane and why did it not crash before hitting?”
At the speed the plane was traveling the distance from the light poles to the building wouldn’t have made any difference in it’s trajectory or top of the fact that the poles. They we basically twigs as far as the aircraft was concerned.
“There was an FBI informant that was housing 2 of the hijackers.”
What? Before the planes hit?
“I can’t answer the security video,…”
Sure you can, it WAS Atta.
“One of the planes actually landed in Ohio, and it was delayed for over 2 hours with only about 40-60 passengers but a plane with over 200 people was evacuated in just 20 minutes.”
What is the relavance?
March 6th, 2006 at 11:31 am#336
There aren’t any SAM sites in the U.S. any more…not like back in the 1970s.
March 6th, 2006 at 11:47 am#354
“So all the firefighters and police officers who heard secondary devices going off are conspiracy theorists as well?”
They probably don’t know exactly what they heard…they are describing what they THINK they heard.
March 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#310
The people at Controlled Demolition says you are full of crap. This is the response to my e-mail I sent:
My question was as follows:
To whom it may concern:
Yes, I have heard that your company has claimed the explosives had to have been used to take down the WTC towers on 9/11/02. Is this true? I have heard of no structural engineering firm make this claim. What is your company’s position regarding how the WTC towers collapsed on 9/11/02? Thank you.
Here is their representative’s response:
Tracy,
No, of course, this is NOT true…nothing more than the inane ramblings of a bunch of conspiracy theorists with nothing better to do with their time.
Don’t always believe what you read.
Regards,
Stacey
======================
Stacey S. Loizeaux
The Loizeaux Group, LLC
Controlled Demolition, Inc.
2737 Merryman’s Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland 21131 USA
+1-410-667-6610
+1-410-667-6624 fax
Please Visit CDI’s Web Site !! ===> http://www.controlled-demolition.com
This email, including any attachments, is intended for the receipt and use by the intended addressee(s), and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient of this email, you are bound to confidentiality and are hereby notified that any unauthorized use or distribution of this email is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:39 pm“So what kind of engineer are you?â€
Well since you can’t provide any data or evidence in a debate, why would I even tell you? You are obviously not a teacher or in the field for 14 years, as you don’t understand the basic principal of debate and providing evdience to support your opinion.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 5, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
In other words, you’re NOT any kind of engineer. That was pretty evident when you couldn’t use your own words – and had to use other people’s.
And I don’t have to post a million links to provide evidence. Tracy and I are saying the same stuff. You just like him better because you like men… That’s obvious, psycho.
March 6th, 2006 at 6:35 pmI have provided 2 PHD’s who say the opposite and provide very detailed information as to why the Governments claim is incorrect.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 5, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
That’s your problem. You think a PhD trumps everything. It doesn’t. And besides, just because you can find two PhDs to say anything doesn’t make it true.
You can’t even debate any of this in YOUR OWN WORDS.
Everything you’ve posted is nonsense. You take a bunch of obscure and rare case scenarios and try to piece them together to look like a conspiracy. Throw in mass hysteria, which is never reliable, and you think you’re some genius.
You obviously have no life. Go get one. And then you’ll laugh at yourself as much as the rest of the country.
March 6th, 2006 at 6:42 pm4. If the temperature on the 93 thru the 98th floor of the north tower is factual, then why didn’t any of the survivors who passed those floors get burned alive by it??? Human flesh does not do too well at 800 degrees Celsius, but hundreds of people waded right through it.
The stairwells of skyscrapers are required to be fire rated at higher ratings than the rest of the building. I hope, for obvious reasons. As a result, they are generally made of concrete or concrete block, which is resistant to fire. The reason they could pass through this area was a combination of the concrete block, the fire rating of the structure and the water from the fire sprinklers.
Comment by unbelievable — March 1, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
same as:
“If the temperature on the 93 thru the 98th floor of the north tower is factual, then why didn’t any of the survivors who passed those floors get burned alive by it???â€
The passed thru the concrete core!… i.e. the FIRE PROTECTED stair wells the were designed to have at least 2 hour rating even if the sprinkler system was cut….which many MEP engineer suspect it was.
Comment by Tracy — March 2, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Oh no, we’re not saying the same things, over and over and over. Of course we are, it’s logic. You just don’t wanna hear it.
That’s the problem, we’re not quoting other people but actually debating an issue on its merits from our years of professional expertise!!!
March 6th, 2006 at 6:50 pmWell Dickhead…..
Perhaps you should first check your facts before you go calling people liars?
I NEVER ONCE said that they claimed that explossions broght the towers down.
Let’s recap:
#308
“I have several engineers, including the very firm that does this for a living that says that if they were going to bring down a building they would take out the structure at the baseâ€
Great and make sure you provide some contact information so that I can call them and ask them to provide some real evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers. As a licensed architect I would love to hear their claim.
#310
racy – the company is Controlled Demolition. Feel free to contact them and ask them what they ment by: “if I was going to bring down a building I would remove the base supportâ€
Note that NO WHERE do I state that they said explossives were involved. You were the one who pushed the issue that they stated that there were explossives used. This is contrary to what I stated!
Now try and ask them what I said.
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc
March 6th, 2006 at 6:50 pmLoizeaux said, “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”
Hey Wombat,
“Oh no, we’re not saying the same things, over and over and over. Of course we are, it’s logic. You just don’t wanna hear it.”
FIrst of all, I never said anything about the people not being able to get through the stair wells. Jesus Christ!
You will twist things until you THINK you have made support for your case.
Show me where I EVER said anything about the stair wells. You have me confussed with someone else trying to make a point about something that is not even related to what I am pointing out.
Now go ask mommy what I’m talking about little girl!
March 6th, 2006 at 6:57 pmHey Tracy,
Did you even read the web site you provided me with your evidence that the things I am pointing out are not factual?
You might want to go back and review the web site because they support the theory that I have been talking about.
http://911review.com/report.html
This conspiracy theory was accepted without question despite the lack of any verifiable evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence contradicting it. The page ‘9/11′ Anomalies on 911Research lists a series of facts about the attack that are difficult or impossible to reconcile with the official story.
http://911review.com/myth/crumbling.html
But even ignoring the dust clouds or the thoroughness of destruction, since when do steel structures disintegrate in seconds?
Progressive Collapse
Enter progressive collapse , the “theory” that explains how steel buildings can self-destruct.
Progressive collapse describes the process by which a structure destroys itself in a chain reaction of failures. The phenomenon can be demonstrated using loose elements, such as dominos or cards, but has not been demonstrated for structures where the elements are fastened to each other, except in terrorist incidents.
http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html
A perusal of some excerpts of these accounts containing recollections of the sights, sounds, and immediate observations of the destruction of the Twin Towers suggests the reason the city fought to keep them suppressed: the witnesses consistently describe loud bangs at the onsets of the events, and explosive features characteristic of controlled demolition.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:03 pmRich Banaciski — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
… and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Brian Becker — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
The collapse hadn’t begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like — it was like that — like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.
Greg Brady — E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard — I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
Timothy Burke — Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.
Ed Cachia — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.
Frank Campagna — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.
Craig Carlsen — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
… you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn’t realize what it was.
Jason Charles — E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
… and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I’m dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
…
I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that’s when I saw the tower coming down.
Frank Cruthers — Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
.. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Kevin Darnowski — Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.
Dominick Derubbio — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion …
Karin Deshore — Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.
Brian Dixon — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
… the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see — I could see two sides of it and the other side — it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.
Michael Donovan — Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.
James Drury — Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive – bombs were going off inside the building.
Thomas Fitzpatrick — Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
Some people thought it was an explosion. I don’t think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.
…
My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
Gary Gates — Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I’m looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.
Kevin Gorman — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
… I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.
Gregg Hansson — Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off.
Timothy Julian — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]
You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
John Malley — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off.
James McKinley — E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so we’re running.
Joseph Meola — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn’t realize it was the falling — you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Kevin Murray — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 18]
When the tower started — there was a big explosion that I heard and someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all the windows domino
Janice Olszewski — Captain (E.M.S.)
I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet — plane exploding, whatever.
Daniel Rivera — Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
At first I thought it was — do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear “Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop”? That’s exactly what — because I thought it was that.
Angel Rivera — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
That’s when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook.
Kennith Rogers — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in ‘93.
Patrick Scaringello — Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up above.
Mark Steffens — Division Chief (E.M.S.)
Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder …
John Sudnik — Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy.
Jay Swithers — Captain (E.M.S.)
I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn’t see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
David Timothy — E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.
Albert Turi — Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.
Thomas Turilli — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
… it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came.
Stephen Viola — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
… that’s when the south tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions.
William Wall — Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47]
At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down right on top of us …
So the information you provided is disputed numerous times within the same web page.
So is this evidence you provided from this site factual or not? It can’t be untrue in a majority of the web site, but factual in only a handful of articles.
Can you provide support to the documents you provided as being evidence to your claim when the web site actually agrees with my, and many other peoples, opinion that the towers were demolished?
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/b6_explosion.html
March 6th, 2006 at 7:14 pm“This conspiracy theory was accepted without question despite the lack of any verifiable evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence contradicting it.”
Accepted by which structural experts?
“…the witnesses consistently describe loud bangs at the onsets of the events, and explosive features characteristic of controlled demolition.”
In any of those witness accounts were there any acounts of people being injured by the demolition explosions on multiple floors that had to occur in order for the building to collapse one floor after another?
March 6th, 2006 at 7:31 pmTracy, if you are open minded then you should watch this video.
This was filmed by a citizen and is not censored, as far as I can see.
Note how there are many loud booms and a mysterious cloud by WTC6, or at least where it would have been.
Getting hit by spam filters, so just reconstruct the link below by removing all _:
h_t_t_p://video_.google_.com/_videoplay_?docid_=-3498980438587461603_&q_=eyewitness_#More
March 6th, 2006 at 7:37 pmTracy, this is your web page proving your evidence. Don’t ask me you provided this web site as support for your case.
I’m pointing out that the site which you provide does not agree with your claim. Only a small number of articles provide any support, otherwise they provide support for the “Conspiracy Theory”.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:55 pmBy the way….
So called experts are all saying that the metal would have melted….
“Sheila Barter
“It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning.†aid structural engineer Chris Wise.
“The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted ”
See post #373. Which of course even I know that they would not have, which is my arguement. So what kind of experts do we have here? So your telling me that people who are suppose to be experts are saying that the steel would melt, is a valid expert?
Cumon! As I have stated, I’m no structural engineer, but even I know the steel would not have melted.
March 6th, 2006 at 8:00 pmFIrst of all, I never said anything about the people not being able to get through the stair wells. Jesus Christ!
Show me where I EVER said anything about the stair wells.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 6, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Of course not – you haven’t actually SAID anything – you’ve just cut and pasted a bunch of stuff someone else said.
Worfeus got the quote off one of your links, so in essense, even you don’t know what you’re talking about. How can you expect anyone else to side with you?
Plus, the stairwell issue is just as absurd as the rest of the crap you’ve posted. You may as well have “said” it…
March 6th, 2006 at 8:25 pmCumon! As I have stated, I’m no structural engineer, but even I know the steel would not have melted.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 6, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
You don’t have to state thatyou’re no structural engineer… it’s quite obvious. Yet, you want to argue with structural engineers and people in the building profession with years of experience.
So, you have a choice between hiring someone with a PhD in math and zero practical or applicable experience in steel building design or someone with a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering and 25 years structural engineering experience to design your skyscaper – who do you choose? That’s what you’re asking people to believe. A Theorist over experts.
You’re not just a conspiracy theory nut, you’re just plain nuts.
March 6th, 2006 at 8:29 pm“Of course not – you haven’t actually SAID anything – you’ve just cut and pasted a bunch of stuff someone else said.”
And neither have you!!!! You have done the exact same thing, so put that in your hole and smoke it.
“Worfeus got the quote off one of your links, so in essense, even you don’t know what you’re talking about. How can you expect anyone else to side with you?”
Yeah, that’s some great logic! You are certainly NOT a technically inclined person. You definately have to be 14 to 16 years of age.
“Yet, you want to argue with structural engineers and people in the building profession with years of experience.”
No I bring debate and point out what other people, with PHD’s, as well as professionals who worked 9/11 and provided first hand knowledge. While you bring….. Oh that’s right NOTHING!
March 6th, 2006 at 10:04 pm#376
“I’m pointing out that the site which you provide does not agree with your claim.”
My claim, when I provided the link, had to do with how WTC was damaged.
BTW where in the web site does it claim that the U.S. government was involved in the attack? I can’t quite remember if you claimed this…which is the really the real crux of the debate here.
BTW I believe that it was a conspiricy theory also…Al Qaeda pulled off the biggest terrorist attack in the world’s history.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:00 am#372
“Regardless of whether the top of either tower was tipping, there is no explanation for the destruction of the cores, which would have survived the pancaking of the floor diaphragms.”
Who said that the cores could have survived the pancaking of the floor diaphragms?
BTW all of those so-called experts in that link are all academia types, i.e. they aren’t practicing professional structural engineers. Again I have yet to see ONE professional structural engineering firm put their stamp on the demolition conspiracy theory. All we have is a bunch of speculators, including the one pushing the demolition theory, that didn’t actually do an indepth and comprehensive and ON SITE analysis of the collapse.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:41 am#373
“It can’t be untrue in a majority of the web site, but factual in only a handful of articles.”
Why not?
March 7th, 2006 at 11:43 amAnd neither have you!!!! You have done the exact same thing, so put that in your hole and smoke it.
What… you claim I only posted one link of supporting evidence and now claim the exact opposite… which is it?
Yeah, that’s some great logic! You are certainly NOT a technically inclined person. You definately have to be 14 to 16 years of age.
Again – huh? You posted the quote. Worfeus pulled infomation off of it. I disputed the infornation. Thhat IS logic. You are a fruitcake with no sense of reality.
No I bring debate and point out what other people, with PHD’s, as well as professionals who worked 9/11 and provided first hand knowledge. While you bring….. Oh that’s right NOTHING!
Comment by RemoveBush — March 6, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
I bring college education, diplomas, and professional experience. Three things you do not have. Just the ability to cut and paste.
March 7th, 2006 at 1:16 pmHey unbelievable, if I want a blow job I certainly would not ask you. Although you probably have more experience at that than you do in your so called 14 years experience and your teaching experience.
Then again, you probably don’t know anything about a blow job, after all you have to have a man and WHO IN THE HELL WOULD BE WITH YOU? Now go and ask your mommy what a blow job is.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 6, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
I know the intent was to offend me, but what you ACTUALLY did was embarrass yourself.
If that’s the best you have, you’re not even up to pathetic.
March 7th, 2006 at 1:17 pmBTW all of those so-called experts in that link are all academia types, i.e. they aren’t practicing professional structural engineers. Again I have yet to see ONE professional structural engineering firm put their stamp on the demolition conspiracy theory. All we have is a bunch of speculators, including the one pushing the demolition theory, that didn’t actually do an indepth and comprehensive and ON SITE analysis of the collapse.
Comment by Tracy — March 7, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Yep. Not one of them would be experts in court. Yet that’s what the Conspiracy Freak who thinks he’s offering sex to children thinks are facts. Not gravity, not Statics, not experience.
Guess that’s why they call it Conspiracy “Theory”… there’s no proof.
March 7th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#385
Unbelievable, I know that you and I don’t agree on just about every social issue, but you and I will probably both agree I that none of those college professors could or would be called to the stand in a court of law. They write their OPINIONS but aren’t liable in anyway. As for all of the eyewitness accounts of “explosions” not one of them were qualified to make a educated guess as to what they really heard or saw. Again, Remove Bush STILL hasn’t brought any evidence about WHO was responsible for those “explosions”…if they occured at all. The main crux of the conspiracy theory is that the U.S. government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and again…no evidence that is the case.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:22 pm“I bring college education, diplomas, and professional experience. Three things you do not have. Just the ability to cut and paste.”
Really? You sure don’t act like it. You bring ZERO evidence to counter my claim. You evidence consists of the above statement with ZERO PROOF! You have not demonstrated it at all by providing ANY debate, or proof to support your claim.
“Again – huh? You posted the quote. Worfeus pulled infomation off of it. I disputed the infornation. Thhat IS logic. You are a fruitcake with no sense of reality.”
Again! You might want to check your facts!!!!! I NEVER once quoted or placed a quote that said such a thing. Yeah, your really technical you can’t even get who posted what correctly.
“Yep. Not one of them would be experts in court. Yet that’s what the Conspiracy Freak who thinks he’s offering sex to children thinks are facts. Not gravity, not Statics, not experience.
Guess that’s why they call it Conspiracy “Theoryâ€â€¦ there’s no proof.”
Since you have YET to provide any FACTS, it is about as clear as a empty pond that you are in this feild at all. You probably are not anything you try to indicate you are. You must be part of the Bush Administration! You keep saying the same thing over and over, but you do not provide ANY supporting evidence to anything you say.
“Just the ability to cut and paste.”
Let’s recap on just how much you cut and paste:
“The building fell, in the opinion of numerous independent architects and engineers because of three things. Plane, fire and weight of the top portion of the building falling (at the speed of gravity).”
“This is wholly possible by the conditions that ocurred.
Here is a liberal university related report in lay-man’s terms:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/ news/ 2001/ december5/ wtc-125.html”
Post #231 was mostly quoting some report.
End of items you posted that contained any type of supposed support for your opinion.
“The jet fuel burns hotter than the point at which steel melts. It was enough to weak the steel.”
I just caught this one….. You do realize that jet fuel is simply a form of karoseen? It burns “Cold”. It does not burn hot and therefore would not even come close to reaching the melting temperature of steel.
Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.
It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.
It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 – C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.
It has a flash point within the range 42° C – 72° C (110° F – 162° F).
And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).
Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:
(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O
(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O
(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O
Reaction (1) only occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.
Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.
“Yep, we’re all wrong. Doesn’t matter how much education or experience – we are all smug and clueless. Well, expect for you.”
Even to this point you have failed to support your opinion with any evidence, other than your GREAT knowledge.
So let’s count the number of posts you actually provided any supporting evidence:
#228, and #231
Whew! I hurt my fingers typing all those numbers.
Now lets just see how many places I posted to support my stance on the matter:
#200, 205, 224, 234, 265, 290, 291, 294, 311, 312, 321, 326, 331, 332, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 355, 356, 371, 372, 373
Yeah! It looks like you really provide supporting evidence for your stance. Your proffessionalism really shows! I hate to see what kind of job you really do when you can’t even provide supporting evidence for your stance.
Your logic of the evidence is not supported! So a handfull of people believe what you think? There are now Millions of people who believe otherwise. Many of them are professionals and though they might not hold degrees in architecture, many do deal with things like this in their everyday jobs. Certainly more than you! If you provided any ounce of support for your stance, perhaps people would take you seriously! Until you can prove you have ANY experience, NOBODY will take you seriously!
Finally:
“I’m just posting an alternative explanation and you’re the one who is yelling (that’s what all caps means)”
You really must be a teenager! Because any professional would know that many times emphasis is provided by caps! Since teenagers don’t really know this simple fact, this clearly indicates that you can’t be a teacher or hold a degree. CIA – so I guess now I’m yelling at you because all these letters are all in caps?
Get a clue and sooooo long!
March 7th, 2006 at 8:19 pmTracy – this web page explains how the government “might” perform this attack.
It’s a theory, not a fact but is VERY PLAUSIBLE!
http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html
March 7th, 2006 at 8:32 pmAgain, Remove Bush STILL hasn’t brought any evidence about WHO was responsible for those “explosionsâ€â€¦if they occured at all. The main crux of the conspiracy theory is that the U.S. government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and again…no evidence that is the case.
Comment by Tracy — March 7, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Tracy,
Social issues are subjective, but this is about as subjective as it gets. I agree with everything you’ve said 100%. We are wholly on the same page on this.
I initially started a discussion with RB on another forum. He refuses to accept anything anyone says expect some PhD conspiracy theorist who, like you said, qualifies for little of substance in the real world. He wants a theory. Forget gravity, Statics, experience, common sense… Nothing matters but him being right. It’s like talking to the wall, but not as much fun :).
At this point, I’m just curious to see how far he will go. People thought I-RIGHT-I was bad and had him banned for a few off color remarks… But this guy has just, well, dropped a couple of towers lower than anything IRI even thought of saying.
No way our government did this. No way. I might not like George Bush as a President, but no way would he plan or allow this. Especially not 6 weeks into office. Wasn’t enough time to plan it. And Clinton – no way either. Both men love America. They would not have allowed this. It just simply does not make sense – just like Remove Bush, who still has not established a valid motive.
Other issues aside, I don’t disagree with you Tracy on this at any point. Who would’ve thought that! :)
March 7th, 2006 at 8:35 pmSocial issues are subjective, but this is about as subjective as it gets.
Oops – meant this is about as objective as it gets.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:37 pmYour logic of the evidence is not supported! So a handfull of people believe what you think? There are now Millions of people who believe otherwise.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 7, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
I didn’t think gravity required proof any more, but hey, you flat earth people debate heliocentricity, so go educate yourself. I’ve told you I have zero inclination to write a dissertation on basic structural physics (i.e. Statics). But it doesn’t make them any less factual.
No one emphasizes every word. More than two or three and you are yelling…. especially when Judd was kind enough to furnish you with bold and italic capabilities that alternatively allow more socially acceptable forms of emphasis. Not that a guy living in an underground shelter would be current on such etiquette.
Go ahead, cut and paste another immoral act you’d like a 15 year old child to do to you. That kind of shit really makes you sound sane…
March 7th, 2006 at 8:46 pm“Especially not 6 weeks into office. Wasn’t enough time to plan it. And Clinton – no way either. ”
You do realize that he gained office in 2000?
Yeah, your right on top of things!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:36 pm“Especially not 6 weeks into office. Wasn’t enough time to plan it. And Clinton – no way either. ”
OK, he didn’t “gain” office, but he was in by the next year and it is certainly longer than “6 weeks”. So, not to bright about the facts? Your what kind of professional? One that does not even know when Bush took office and that he was elected in 2000, not 2001.
DUH!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:47 pm#394
Bush was “in office” starting January 20, 2001 and the WTC attacks were on September 11, 2001…a little over seven months. Are you suggesting that the Bush administration planned and executed the entire 9/11 attacks in that time frame? The man is a freeking genius then!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:13 pm#389
First Clue:
“You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists?”
Short passenger lists are a clue to what?
Second Clue:
“What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description — most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane”
This woman obviously doesn’t know the sound difference between a private and a commercial jet. As for what she described what she saw…there is video showing BOTH airliners crashing into the north and south WTC towers. This woman is obviously clueless.
Third Clue:
“If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon.”
Again a plane traveling that fast and low…those witnesses probably didn’t know what kind of airplane it was.
Fourth clue:
“After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry — limestone — not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage. But there was none.”
A plane traveling that fast, i.e. 400+ mph, would have been obliterated even if it hit water in a nose dive! LOL! The wings would have been ripped off? How does the moron who wrote this crap know what would have become of the wings? Has he seen a video of an experiment that shows what would happen to a large airliner if it hit a building like the Pentagon? I HAVE seen slow motion videos of a bunker buster JDAMs penetrating multiple walls of solid concrete and their guidence winglets were still in tact right before the detonation of the warhead AFTER it passed thru the walls! BTW the destruction pattern at the Pentagon is in NO WAY is reflective of an internal explosion or a missle hitting it.
Fifth clue:
“…the flying instructors who trained the “suicide” pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless. “It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car …” The flight instructors called the two, “dumb and dumber,” and told them to quit taking lessons.”
This is the only one of the instructors the trained these guys. BTW the suicide flight path of Flight 77 was initally thought to be heading for the White House comming in from the west. There are reports that the hijackers decided to turn to the south toward the Pentagon because they couldn’t get a good approach on the White House. The impact on the Pentagon WAS on the west side. BTW do you know where the speculation that Flight 77 made a 270 degree turn after passing over the White House came from? Where there any accounts of seeing a plane fly over the Mall area? It seems to me that if the pilots couldn’t fly over the Potomac and hit the White House they could much easier peal toward the south and hit the Pentagon…on the WEST side.
Sixth Clue:
“Why would the “hijackers” shut the transponders off, you asked?”
Transponders are MUCH more accurate at tracking a aircraft than a land based radar. In fact the FAA uses transponders to track aircraft all over the country.
Seventh Clue:
“As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes.”
That’s what happens to aircraft when they get below a certain altitude. BTW the FAA only has approach radars for the airports and have limited ranges and again the use transponders to track aircraft.
Eighth clue:
“The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner”
So the pilot that hit the second tower didn’t quite hit his make flying at over 400 mph!
As for the rest of the web site…that is a great movie script, not to mention the biggest bunch of made up fictional garbage I have ever seen. LOL!
March 8th, 2006 at 4:08 pmOK, he didn’t “gain†office, but he was in by the next year and it is certainly longer than “6 weeksâ€.
Comment by RemoveBush — March 7, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
I meant ‘months’, but hey, since typos and faux pas are all you’re able to refute in my posts, then you must be right!!!
Not even close Peter Pan.
Try arguing with me about Statics. You can’t. You’ll just go cut and paste someone else’s words. You wanna talk about not knowing anything – go look in a mirror. You’re the only one not arguing in his own words…
March 8th, 2006 at 5:26 pmAre you suggesting that the Bush administration planned and executed the entire 9/11 attacks in that time frame? The man is a freeking genius then!!!
Comment by Tracy — March 8, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Yep, that’s EXACTLY what he’s suggesting, and does not see the lunacy in it. Not even a little.
There’s an interesting psychological optical illusion known as mass hysteria, and it tends to make experts take most ‘eye witness’ reports with a grain of salt, because trauma does weird things to memory… and mass publication of people’s accounts tend to color or flavor other people’s memories until the truth is pretty hard to decipher…
In other words, ‘eye witness accounts’ in these situations aren’t very reliable… like most of RB’s ‘evidence’…
March 8th, 2006 at 5:31 pm