Rumsfeld Exploits 9/11 To Defend Failed Iraq Policy
Rumsfeld Exploits 9/11 To Defend Failed Iraq Policy
In an interview last night, Bill O’Reilly asked Rumsfeld about the ongoing violence in Iraq and the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. has spent on the war. Rather than answer the questions, Rumsfeld shamelessly exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to deflect them:
RUMSFELD: And there’ve always been people who have looked at the problems and they’re real problems, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying it’s a pretty picture. It isn’t a pretty picture. It’s a tough business, and our guys over there [in Iraq] are doing an absolutely superb job and they’re proud of what they’re doing and they know that they’re making progress and they know they can’t lose over there.
O’REILLY: No, they can’t lose militarily, but it’s cost the United States taxpayer about $400 billion up this point.
RUMSFELD: Think of what 9/11 cost us. Wouldn’t you rather fight those people over there instead of fighting them here?
O’REILLY: Yes.
RUMSFELD: Think of what happened to our economy, think what happened to the stock market.
O’REILLY: Absolutely.
RUMSFELD: Think of what happened to the airlines here after 9/11.
Rumsfeld would have us believe the war in Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism. Actually, it has turned Iraq into “the training ground for the next generation of ‘professionalized’ terrorists,” according to the National Intelligence Council, an arm of the CIA.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Notice Dunsfeld didn’t ask: Think about what happened to our dead soldiers and dead Iraqis. Money in the theme.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:54 pmNo one’s buying anymore. None of it — the UN has demanded that we shut down out gulags.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:54 pmRumsfeld is a dirty war criminal and a pathological liar who must resign and be given a prison term for torture and murdering Iraqi civilians!
May 19th, 2006 at 2:55 pmAnd as the death toll rises in Iraq, think about how many lives could have been spared if we had continued to negotiate in stead of attack. Of course that wouldn’t make Bush look like a “big strong leader” and appearance is everything.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:57 pmThey cant make their minds up
First it was “We inherited a recession”
Now its “9/11 killed our econony”
And the airlines made out fine…AFTER TAXPAYERS BAILED THEM OUT TO THE TUNE OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
May 19th, 2006 at 2:58 pmI don’t need Rumsfeld to defend me. In fact, Rumsfeld makes me less safe. So he is my enemy.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:58 pmNo, O’Reilly (at al) would rather somebody else fight those people over there instead of fighting them here. He doesn’t want to fight them anywhere. (I guess he’s too busy fighting the good fight to defend Christmas). And he’d rather send somebody else’s kids somewhere else to fight them, because that way any collateral damage only lands on on the heads of furriners.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:00 pm#3
Exactly. What he means is 3000 American lives are worth tens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lives.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:01 pmRumsfeld kills for Jesus.
Rumsfeld kills for oil.
Rumsfeld kills for Bush.
There’s something fundamentally wrong with our system when Rumsfeld will only appear on a show like O’Reilly’s. I’m amazed Bill even brought up how much it’s cost financially so far.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:01 pmRumsfeld is a smug, tasteless, arrogant piece of garbage war criminal.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:03 pmHe knows we hate him.
He knows we hate his president.
And he actually thinks he knows what’s best for you and me.
When I see the Bu$h twins-all in field gear, and tryin’ to outrun terra flak, then I’ll listen to ‘em. When I see Cheney’s mouthy mole runnin’ a metal detecter ahead of the twins–then I’ll listen.
What are we up to now, 2,500 of our guys who’ve died needlessly? Maybe ten times that in Iraqui lives? Way to go, you sleeszey dickwads…it keeps Paris Hilton in a lower tax bracket, doesn’t it? I SURE hope so!
May 19th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI’m amazed Bill even brought up how much it’s cost financially so far.
I suprised Rumsfeld didnt correct him and say “its only cost 268 Billion Dollars ……so far”
How do these people live with themselves at the end of the day…..
May 19th, 2006 at 3:09 pmHow do these people live with themselves at the end of the day…..
Comment by lib4 — May 19, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
They pay someone to do it for them.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:16 pmBush could at least put his two worthless daughters on the Mexican border as guards, but they would probably get drunk on Tequila and various drugs > lol.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:18 pmWhat more can one expect when two babbling neocons sit down to chatter at each other. What, you expected intelligent conversation from these two? What you see is what they call intelligent conversation. Gimme a break!
May 19th, 2006 at 3:21 pmI just love the words and phrases they use…
“Pretty picture”
“Hard work”
“It’s a tough job”
“Heckuva job ______!” (fill in the blank with Bush cronie)
“I appreciate the work that _____ is doing.”
“I appreciate the friendship of ______.”
“I had a meeting with ______. It was a good meeting. Enjoyed it.”
(fill in any of the 3 blanks with foreign leader or Bush cronie)
These seem to be used over and over and over and over….
Simple words for the simple-minded, I guess. Even my 8 year old neighbor likes Bush for the way he talks.
Did I miss any?
May 19th, 2006 at 3:37 pmHe only looks at 9/11 as a financial loss and not in human terms ..? Wow I am so not surprised by his cold dark lying heart.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:43 pm#7
Hey…speaking of Christmas, isn’t it time for O’Reilly to strike up the War Against Christmas issue again? After all, we’ll have decorations popping up on store shelves in just 3 1/2 months.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:43 pmI would love to see someone do to Rumsfeld what Stephen Colbert did to William Kristol. Sit Rummy down and ask him how the Project For a New American Century is working out.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:58 pmOpen Question to Mr. Rummy:
If you really took your time, perhaps years, to oh so slowly torture, maim, and perhaps kill every man woman and child in Iraq, and if you watched a direct feed of this every morning, sort of to just put a smile on your face Mr. Rummy…
How the hell does that prevent anyone in the Middle East from somehow immigrating to Canada or Mexico and crossing either of our very porous borders in order to fight us right here? That’s like saying, if you’ve ever gotten mugged in an alley, you’ll never get mugged in a parking lot. Has God made human action in certain geographic regions mutually exclusive from the same action in a different region? Did I miss the memo or the commandment or some law of physics?
May 19th, 2006 at 3:59 pm9/11 is the event that the whole neocon house of turds is built upon. With all of the questions about the official version of 9/11, I’m wondering if the foundation is starting to get kinda shaky.
Look at it this way–before long, BushRumsfeld’s war will have killed as many Americans as “Osama” did on 9/11.
Lying bastards.
May 19th, 2006 at 4:00 pmIf we are fighting them over there, then why do they need to wiretap our phones. We all know why the gov’t is collecting our phone records. It’s another form of control of the citizens. The day you or anyone decide to speak up loudly against the establishment will be the day they gather all the information they will use against you, by using your phone records.
May 19th, 2006 at 4:06 pmRUMSFELD: And there’ve always been people who have looked at the problems (responsible citizens) and they’re real problems (yes they are), don’t get me wrong (you don’t need any help getting wrong). I’m not saying it’s a pretty picture (because it’s not). It isn’t a pretty picture (that’s right it’s not). It’s a tough business (emphasis on business), and our guys over there (Hallibuton) are doing an absolutely superb job (making money) and they’re proud of what they’re doing (proud of the money) and they know that they’re making progress (money equals progress) and they know they can’t lose over there (no bid contracts).
May 19th, 2006 at 4:10 pmI Think America has turned the corner we are no longer a free country.. We are inbed with Tryants,Dicators and Corp Facism.Are we having fun yet?
May 19th, 2006 at 4:19 pmJust how stupid does Rummy think we are?
May 19th, 2006 at 4:23 pmI enjoy a good comedy show. Can’t get enough actually. I think this one needs to be nominated for an emmy myself.
May 19th, 2006 at 4:23 pmshoot. someone just told me it isn’t a comedy show. my bad
Wow, even a few minutes ago there were still actual posts by ‘plunger’, although I saw many “deleted by admin.” ones, too. Now they’re all gone. Hmmm…wha’ happened?
May 19th, 2006 at 4:43 pmWow, plunger’s having a bad day.
May 19th, 2006 at 4:56 pmGotta love BO’s one-word interview style. Used only for the Kiss Ass Club.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:00 pmAnyone know what the H.E. double hockey sticks ol plunger said?
Man - he got a hat-trick plus two… very very impressive!
May 19th, 2006 at 5:01 pmWow, plunger’s having a bad day.
Comment by Zookeeper — May 19, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
He’s still a long way from Santo’s 100+ deleted comments yesterday. :)
May 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pmAnyone know what the H.E. double hockey sticks ol plunger said?
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — May 19, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
No, but if anyone repeats it, I’m sure it won’t be around long enough to read it :)
May 19th, 2006 at 5:05 pmHe’s still a long way from Santo’s 100+ deleted comments yesterday. :)
Comment by unbelievable
I hope he doesn’t try to beat Santo’s record. Yikes…
May 19th, 2006 at 5:09 pmplunger had more info about 9/11. I printed the pages before they got deleted (as I suspected they would). Nothing offensive or anything as bad as some of our trolls here post. Just not the kind of tie-in to 9-11 that TP wanted to have us all get worked up about.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:12 pmI hope he doesn’t try to beat Santo’s record. Yikes…
Comment by Zookeeper — May 19, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
You think he’s that insane? :)
She posted something she got via email about being asked to stop posting or her IP provider would be contacted. If it was from TP (it dodn’t say), then she clearly does not care as she’s in the front forum right now. Hope she doesn’t try to break her own record eiher :)
May 19th, 2006 at 5:13 pmJust not the kind of tie-in to 9-11 that TP wanted to have us all get worked up about.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — May 19, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Well, you know how I feel about that stuff, and why (if you got the message I posted for you the day your car was being worked on). I don’t blame them for not wanting it. It’s become a religion for many people and a spot of much contention. Tends to clog the threads and make TP look like it endorses it.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:17 pmunbelievable,
I’m glad you brought that up. Can you direct me to the thread (and rough comment number) of that response you’re talking about? I can only access the internet from work, and by the time I got back into work after that, there were other topics and I never could find it again. I really want to know what you had to say because I am interested in a professional opinion.
I agree that TP would prefer that no thread get hijacked by 9/11 stuff. If they wanted to, I’m sure they can put up a separate thread for nothing but 9/11 conspiracy talk. But I am also sure that they don’t want TP dismissed by the conservatives as just another “whackjob” site.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:40 pmI think for every terrorist killed over in Iraq another 10 are bred. I think one reason this war will go on for 20 years is there are too many defense contractors making too much money to allow it to end.
May 19th, 2006 at 5:43 pmBut I am also sure that they don’t want TP dismissed by the conservatives as just another “whackjob†site.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — May 19, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
Or the moderate liberals.
I don’t remember specifics. It was two weeks ago, I think? In a Thnk Fast forum. Maybe do a search on Google? Sorry, I don’t have the energy today to repeat it.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:08 pmFair enough, unbelievable. I will check it out and look for it when I get some spare time after work next week. Good night all.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:12 pmThanks Rummy for tying the conquest of Iraq to 9/11. Somehow, somewhere I got the crazy notion that some Saudi CIA asset by the name of Osama bin Laden was involved. Thanks for setting me straight.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:29 pmRumsfeld is less stable than IRI and IRI is less stable than Cheney and Cheney is less stable than W. No room for brains for those who are in?
May 19th, 2006 at 6:43 pm#21. I hope that their house of cards is about to fall. You mention 911 as the genesis for the fiasco. Do you also mean to imply that Rummy and Bush were complicit in some way? The pentagon tapes clearly show that a very fast moving thing hit the pentagon.
Where were our fighter jets? Could it be that the pentagon didn’t know that the WTC towers were hit? If only someone could have turned on the news. I would think that the pentagon has got to have more video cameras than a casino. You’d think that they would have multiple images of the object that hit the pentagon. Could it be that Bush and Co don’t want the images released?
May 19th, 2006 at 7:04 pmJust for Grins;
Numerology for Donald Rumsfeld for 5/19/2006
May 19th, 2006 at 7:05 pmIn Your Public Life…
Words that embody things that may be a part of you are “Chameleon, Fiction, Guitar, Ice, Master, Pentacle, Revenge, Ripple, Rodent, Scholar, Skunk, Victim”.
Oh brother, Rummy and O’Ragbag sucking each others toes.
How disgusting.
May 19th, 2006 at 8:04 pmWow plunger, I’m sorry I missed your comments. Don’t tell me Thinkprogress is being pressured by the right and are caving in to the scum.
Thats why I don’t lump myself with any group such as the progressives, liberals or democrats, they are not tough enough for me.
May 19th, 2006 at 8:08 pmI looked at some of the responses to the deletes and my guess is that you posted proof that 9-11 was an inside job.
Millions of Americans believe it was so whats the problem? Bubble boy is insane, everyone knows that.
I”m confused.
If this gets deleted I know you showed proof of my above guess.
May 19th, 2006 at 8:16 pmThese are the people that have constantly seen 9/11 as an “opportunity” to take “advantage” of and even called it “godsend”.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:29 pmThat’s not odd either…they got their new Pearl Harbor.
-Comment by WC — May 19, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
Yes: “In a few years me and _____ will be sittin’ on the porch at the ranch sippin’ lemonade and thinkin’ about the good-old days.”
May 19th, 2006 at 10:46 pmThe campaign for progressive legislation
political forums, links, products
http://www.zazzle.com/maximus7*
May 19th, 2006 at 10:59 pmWouldn’t it have been great if when Ronald Dumsfeld - er, Donald Rumsfeld - said look what happened to the stock market on 9/11, O’Reilly asked, “speaking of that, how is that investigation going into who made hundreds of millions of dollars with inside tips to short the airline stocks just before the hijackers slammed their planes into the WTC?” Rummy would have his “homina, homina, homina…” moment.
May 19th, 2006 at 11:33 pmOur MAINSTREAM MEDIA never brings up the fact that all the info on this was available to the government INSTANTLY on 9/11. Who shorted the stocks, and how much, their addresses, the dates, everything is permanently recorded. Yet THEY NEVER TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ANYTHING, and of couse, the Republican Congress and the “independent” 9/11 Commission ignored the issue.
Wonder if the SAUDIS AND THOSE CONNECTED TO BUSH WERE INVOLVED?
SCREWbUSH’S OPEN QUESTION TO RUMMY IS EXCELLENT. ISN’T IT AMAZING THAT FOR MORE THAN 3 YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN FED THIS LINE OF BULL, AND THE TV “NEWSPEOPLE” JUST PARROT THIS GARBAGE UNCRITICALLY.
May 20th, 2006 at 12:00 amSo we had to invade Iraq, which had no connection to what happened on 9/11 01, in March of 2003, because of the MONEY that was lost? Oh. My. Gawd. So it was all about recouping the loss of the MONEY?!? Great. Why didn’t they just submit a bill for the ‘damages’, to Saudi Arabia, and the UAE?
May 20th, 2006 at 12:24 amI enjoy a good comedy show. Can’t get enough actually. I think this one needs to be nominated for an emmy myself. shoot. someone just told me it isn’t a comedy show. my bad
Comment by oldtree — May 19, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
I couldn’t agree more, oldtree! Say all you want about Hollywood and network television, there is nothing more entertaining than watching this so-called “administration” go for broke, bumbling its way from one scandal to the next. It is desperation, stupidity, back-pedalling, and non sequitur circular Nazi logic at its finest (Rumsfeld is a master at this!).
May 20th, 2006 at 1:18 amWhen has this administration NOT exploited 9-11? They have used 9-11 for nothing BUT political gain since 9-12. Shameful.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:08 amRUMSFELD SPEWED TYPICAL BUSH ADMIN BULLSH*T: Think of what 9/11 cost us. Wouldn’t you rather fight those people over there instead of fighting them here?
I’m going to puke…
May 20th, 2006 at 3:44 amMillions of Americans believe it was so whats the problem? Bubble boy is insane, everyone knows that.
Comment by Stupid Republicans — May 19, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
Not millions. Thousands. The same amount of people who think the sun revolves around the earth still. Or that it (Earth) is flat.
Most people with an understanding of logic do not believe it was an inside job. It makes the left look insane because the hypothesis is not very intelligent. And we already have enough people who think that as it is. Let’s not encourage them.
I’m sure there are other places you all can go post your thoughts on this issue instead. It’s not like you do have alternative forums for those thoughts.
May 20th, 2006 at 7:51 amCyra,
I keep asking that very same question. That if 9/11 was staged as a means to invade Iraq, then why were there ZERO Iraqi hijackers? The whole alternative hypothesis has no valid motive and is a very complicated explanation of some rather simple stuff (just stuff that happens not to be mainstream - such as engineering principles). All I get in response is insults to my intelligence and integrity as an American. No better than the responses of the far-right when their religious conviction to something they’ve adopted on faith has been called into question.
They truly have no valid motive - the necessary platform to credibility. Just volumes of convoluted conjecture. Not much different than the Moon Hoax Theory that can be easily defeated by anyone who knows an inkling about the moon’s minimal gravity (i.e. that it’s not strong enough to pull wrinkles out of the American flag that was erected - which conspiracy theorists are calling ‘waves’ and say proves that it couldn’t have happened).
While I strongly believe negligence on the part of the Bush Regime allowed the events of 9/11 to unfold, logic suggests that that is the extent of their participation in the matter. The King couln’t find oil drilling in Texas. We are to expect he staged an elaborate hoax after just 9 months in the oval office (especially going on vacation for the majority of that time)? Clearly it is not our intelligence the conspiracy folks should be questioning…
May 20th, 2006 at 8:03 amUnbelievable: Granted “W” was only in office for a short while. However, Rummy and Cheney have had power for years.
We are now entering the age of peak oil. 60% of the world’s remaining resources are…. in Iraq. There is your motive.
“Conspiracy theory” effectively neutralizes any thesis that begins to question the unimpeachable motives of our leaders. I ask questions. Why didn’t the administration do anything on 911. They had ample warning. Where were our jets? Why do the terrorists “hate our freedom”? That is ridiculous. The pentagon certainly has more video cameras than anywhere in the universe. Why can’t we see what hit the building. Why wasn’t the pentagon defended?
Why are we imprisoning people without charging them? Why are we torturing people? Why is the NSA collecting our phone records? Why is the man who oversaw the NSA wiretapping, (General Hayden) being appointed to the head of the CIA? Why are the rich getting more tax cuts? Why are the oil companies making record profits? What is the real purpose of NCLB?
Why haven’t we done anything to be energy independent? Brazil has.
Personally, I think the powers that be are happy that “W” is an idiot. He is the fall guy who allows them (Cheney etc…) to run things from the wings. Hold on tight.
May 20th, 2006 at 8:59 amWe are now entering the age of peak oil. 60% of the world’s remaining resources are…. in Iraq. There is your motive.
Comment by Cynical — May 20, 2006 @ 8:59 am
Still not valid. There were ZERO Iraqis involved in the attack. How do you get from zero Iraqis attacking us to attacking Iraq? We attacked Afghanistan first because the Taliban aides and abetted Osama, the Mastermind of the Attack. Iraqi didn’t come in until later and has still not been linked to it. Therefore, the motives for oil and money are not valid in regard to 9/11 without Iragi perpetration or involvement.
May 20th, 2006 at 9:34 amUnbelievable: I agree that no Iraqis were involved. I agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. So… why are we there? Can you tell me?
May 20th, 2006 at 9:54 amSo… why are we there? Can you tell me?
Comment by Cynical — May 20, 2006 @ 9:54 am
When you remove 9/11, then it’s another issue. Clearly, the Bush Regome was gungho to start that conflict without following the protocaol or the proper procedures (Congressional Declaration of War). There was an irrational urgency predicated upon the fear of terrorism that they used like a blank check. After all, we have the most advanced military in the world (ask any neocon), yet we couldn’t get better surveillance or confirmation of the Iraq arsenal? I don’t believe that one either.
Money and oil are definitely valid motives for the Iraqi Invasion (sans the 9/11 mumbo jumbo). Among other megalomanical ones.
May 20th, 2006 at 10:07 am“As a rule, dictatorships guarantee safe streets and terror of the doorbell. In democracy the streets may be unsafe after dark, but the most likely visitor in the early hours will be the milkman.”
—Adam Michnik
May 20th, 2006 at 10:19 amConnect the spin, guys and gals:
May 20th, 2006 at 10:20 amWith Thomas E.Ricks of the Washington Post, May 18th, 2006:
“Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he cannot guarantee that there will be substantial withdrawals of U.S. troops from Iraq this year, and warned instead that leaving that country precipitously could create a sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other terrorists.â€
With Bill O’Reilly, May 19th, 2006:
RUMSFELD: “Think of what 9/11 cost us. Wouldn’t you rather fight those people over there instead of fighting them here?â€
So Mr. Master Planner just acknowledged that our foray into a neutral country, re: Iraq and fundamentalist terrorism, has created an environment where the ultimate foe now has been able to infiltrate a very large and fractured country and hold a tactical edge that must be resisted. So instead of a known entity, we now have multiple fronts. Good for the Pentagon and their Central Command down in Tampa et. al., bad for the Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers in the crossfire.
The physical cowardise of these hawks is a whole other question.
KB
69 & 73
The revelation of Operation Northwoods in 1997 (see Wikipedia for a good breakdown), planned in the early 1960s, proves that our own government can, and would, conspire against its own people to achieve a military objective.
Now, as to whether Bush & Co. was involved in the planning of 9/11, well, as we’ve seen there are many arguments that will likely go on for many moons. At the very minimum, I think it’s plausible to suggest that the administration knew “something” was coming down the pipeline, maybe even before the August 6 PDB, and they saw an opportunity.
Look at what we got in return. Bush, who I think would otherwise had been gone in 2004 due to incompetence, rode to victory on the War on Terror (Ohio and other voter issues notwithstanding). Invading Iraq for a long term occupation virtually guaranteed his re-election. I don’t think he’d have a second term if finding Bin Laden had been our only military effort running up to the 2004 election. And then you have to look at Halliburton’s gains in all this.
Just my 2 cents.
May 20th, 2006 at 10:35 am#68 I’m sure there are other places you all can go post your thoughts on this issue instead. It’s not like you do have alternative forums for those thoughts.
When did you become the TP police Unbelievable?
I’m sure you can find places where freedom of speech is denied. Go there or mind your own business.
Normal thinking, intelligent people who have the gift of sight know for a fact that the Twin Towers where detonated from the base. Normal thinking, intelligent people with the gift of sight know for a fact that those palnes did not take down the Twin Towers.
I will repeat this when necessary.
May 20th, 2006 at 1:57 pmAnybody see the recently released videos from the pentagon attack? You can’t see a damn thing! MSM just shrugs and says you can make out a wing here or there. No you can’t! We’re suppose to believe that these videos that don’t show anything, are proof a plane hit the pentagon. How many cameras does the pentagon have? alot I would think. Bullsh*t!!! Look what Bush and cronies have gained since 9/11. Obvisiously the lives of twenty five hundred people don’t mean jack to them.
May 20th, 2006 at 2:38 pmOne question that I have is when will our military crack under the strain the Bush Administration have put on the men and women that serve our country?
May 20th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#78 Yes buzzbomb I saw the video and it is a joke. For the record though, I wouldnt put it passed Bubble boy to kill a few of his own (Pentagon employees) to get what he wants.
Notice how you don’t hear anything about the passengers on the plane that hit the Pentagon? Notice how you don’t hear anything about the people who died in the Pentagon?
We practically know the names of everyone who was killed in PA and NYC.
Am I suspicious? Absolutely.
And lets not forget NIck Berg, his father is not convinced that his son is even dead let alone does he believe the sick and twisted story that the public was fed.
May 20th, 2006 at 4:18 pmSTFU you A-hole!
May 20th, 2006 at 4:33 pmWhen did you become the TP police Unbelievable?
I never said I was jerk. But go ahead and post it. It will get deleted. I was just pointing that out and the alternatives, since this is not a site sponsored with public funds.
I’m sure you can find places where freedom of speech is denied. Go there or mind your own business.
Take your own advice. I have every right to refute the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. And those posts DON’T get deleted. What does that tell you Einstien? STFU?
Normal thinking, intelligent people who have the gift of sight know for a fact that the Twin Towers where detonated from the base..
No, they don’t. I studied and practiced commercial architecture for nearly two decades. I assure you, normal thinking people in the building design profession think you guys are a bunch of fruitcakes. And a good number of us are liberals.
The planes could and mostly likely did cause the collapse of those towers. But, what do you know? How many degrees and years of practical experience in those fields do you have?
I will repeat this when necessary.
Comment by Stupid Republicans — May 20, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Your prerogative to make s fool out of yourself. And TP’s to delete your comments. Don’t blame me that they and most of the rational world thinks you guys are irrational.
May 20th, 2006 at 4:34 pmHow many cameras does the pentagon have?
Comment by buzzbomb — May 20, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
You might want to find another source capable of slowing them down further. I saw a couple - one was actually CNN. Another was a liberal website.Just Google it.
May 20th, 2006 at 4:38 pmUnbelievable:
The trouble is, the conspiracy theory is so full of holes it doesn’t hold up to the ultimate tester for plausibility, common sense. Why waste the planes? Why Afghanistan first, when it has basically nothing to offer anyone but cave enthusiasts? Why the lack of Iraqi hijackers?
I mean, a bomb traced to an Iraqi bomber working for Osama, who was trained in Northern Iraq say, would have been a lot cheaper, for much the same effect.
May 20th, 2006 at 5:01 pmI mean, a bomb traced to an Iraqi bomber working for Osama, who was trained in Northern Iraq say, would have been a lot cheaper, for much the same effect.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — May 20, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
And considering the lengths the neocons go to to keep possible every dime in their own pockets, you know they wouldn’t spend a nickle more than necessary to pull it off.
Plus, explosives and planes are redundant. It defies Occum’s Razor to suggest both, since either on its own was enough to collapse them. And the terrorists had already tried explosives in the past. That would have been plausible.
I want the Bush Regime removed from office as much as the next progressive, but I’m not willing to stoop to their level to do it. Especially when the Inside Job Theory is already startingto fall apart and those who support it will look just as foolish. Just look at what’s happening to Truth Out and its story on Rove being indicted by yesterday - at the latest…
May 20th, 2006 at 5:10 pmUnbelievable, use the brain you have. 100s of millions of people viewed Farhenheit 9-11 and became extremely angry at the administration. You know why? Because it implied that Bubble boys relationship with the Saudi’s (you know the ones who attacked America) was the reason the attack was allowed to happen.
Are you saying that 100s of millions of people are wrong to have come to the conclussion that Bubble boy assisted the Saudi’s in attacking America?
I guess you’ll come back with “don’t associate me with Michael Moore
Bury your head in the sand, thats your perogative.
Unlike you, I am not afraid of TP. If they do not want my participation so be it, I will just label them as a forum who squashes the right to free speech.
Remember, I’m not a wimp, I will survive.
May 20th, 2006 at 5:13 pmActually, mofo, the airline industry was in a funk the summer of 2001. Another lie from the expert.
May 20th, 2006 at 5:16 pmFace it Bruce and Unbelievable, once Bubble boy is out of office, TP will no longer exsist.
On the other hand, forums that seek to prove will continue on.
May 20th, 2006 at 5:18 pmOnly on FOX could Rumsfeld get away with that recycled crapola. “Fighting them over there” indeed.
May 20th, 2006 at 5:59 pmRemember, I’m not a wimp, I will survive.
Comment by Stupid Republicans — May 20, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
You don’t offer anything but opinion. And conservative-style insults for those who dare question your silly little religion. Grow up.
I’m far from ignorant. As I stated, and you seem to be missing, I have degrees and professional experience in building design. That makes me an expert.
I’d be happy to debate you on the issues. But I’d bet the ranch that you’d do like all other conspiracy nuts - cut and paste some obscure minority-opinion engineer’s words that you don’t even understand.
May 20th, 2006 at 6:08 pmFace it Stupid (your chosen moniker, not my word) - TP will last longer than you will be alive.
And the Inside Job Conspiracy nonsense will be over by the end of the year - except for a few of you fools who always hold out because you can never admit you were foolish.
May 20th, 2006 at 6:10 pmStupid Republicans
Maybe TP will cease to exist, maybe it will carry on. The future isn’t set in stone, but I will say this, you are right, there will always be a 9/11 conspiracy theory, it will always exist, and will get blended any which way you can imagine. Conspiracies, after all, make for great story telling. That doesn’t mean that the 9/11 conspiracy is the truth however, and the truth is worth more, then a good story.
May 20th, 2006 at 6:10 pmUnbelievable, when you call me names who’s level are you stooping to?
Hey George W. Bush has a degree too. He’s also the President of the U.S. which makes him an expert. Are you comparing yourself to him? Don’t feel too good about yourself do ya? Sad.
You sound awfully republican to me. I know you live in GA, stupidity is bound to rub off on ya a bit.
P.S. you have a real knack for defending TP, who’s getting lucky in return? Please share.
May 20th, 2006 at 7:56 pmThe 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
http://www.911truth.org/ article.php?story=20050523112738404
It’s time for a real investigation. Our Republic is in danger
May 20th, 2006 at 8:53 pmHey George W. Bush has a degree too. He’s also the President of the U.S. which makes him an expert. Are you comparing yourself to him? Don’t feel too good about yourself do ya? Sad.
You really are desperate. My father didn’t get me into college. I got in myself. And graduated myself. Sounds like you’re just pissed off because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You sound awfully republican to me. I know you live in GA, stupidity is bound to rub off on ya a bit.
You sound like the Republican - nasty and ignorant.
P.S. you have a real knack for defending TP, who’s getting lucky in return? Please share.
Comment by Stupid Republicans — May 20, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
So, that’s how you operate? Pay people to get to them to talk to you? Not surprising. You have zero people skills and seem to be making foes all over this blog. Had to change your name from what? Why are you losers always using multiple identities? Well, Stupid fits you.
Sad little sheep you are Stupid. No wonder why all you have are really bad insults and moronic conspiracy theories.
May 20th, 2006 at 10:01 pmI am sure the Bush administration’s detailed plans to destroy the WTC towers are stored in Area 51, in the same warehouse that stores the remains of the alien spacecraft that crashed in Roswell. I am guessing a few Illuminati are making sure the truth is never known.
And Jim Morrison stopped by my house yesterday…
May 21st, 2006 at 12:16 amGregor -
You are a riot! Thanks for the laugh… Oh, and Elvis said to tell you hello! :)
May 21st, 2006 at 8:48 amWouldn’t you rather fight those people over there instead of fighting them here?
May 21st, 2006 at 11:45 amHow is a war in Iraq stopping “those people†from coming here? Those people that Rumsfeld refers to I assume are terrorist. With our porous borders anyone can sneek across the border if they really want to. We see it on TV everyday with Mexicans sneeking across our border. Why aren’t terrorist sneeking over our border to kill us here? You here it comimg from the Bush administration all the time, the terrorist want to kill inocent Americans because they don’t like our life style. Does anyone elese believe like I do, that the terrorist thing is blown why out of proportion?
Whatever conspiracy theory you adhere to, a conspiracy did take place, by persons unknown. The head of the F.B.I., Mueller, said immediately following the event,that there was no paper trail that could identify the hi-jackers; that all the identification papers were false or stolen. That ‘we’ had no idea who they really were. My impression of the whole thing is that it was planned as a movie would be planned.All the vital ingredients were ‘found’ under miraculous or highly unlikely circumstances.Undamaged passports discovered at or near ‘Ground Zero’.Rental cars with Arabic Flight manuals and Korans etc. Photo ID of the purported assailants. Miraculous cell phones that defy the laws of Physics. Amazing scenes of destruction and so-on. But what bothered me most was how ‘perfect’ the title of the movie( After all only a few saw it ‘live’ while the rest of us saw it on TV.)The title of course is 911. Short,snappy,instantly recognizable and advertised on every phone handset,fire engine,ambulance and police car.Imagine what it would sound like if it took place on July 11th, 711! . Regards Denis Foley.
May 21st, 2006 at 5:40 pmIn a nutshell: It is all about oil. We are at Peak Oil. The population will crash soon after oil is too scarce or too expensive. 4 billion people will die. (Oil = fertilizers and efficient farming, etc…)
Whoever controls the remaining oil resources will decide who will live and who will die.
Terrorists were allowed to attack us. Bush used their attack as the excuse to park our military in the middle east.
Other interesting events:
1. We re-established diplomatic ties with Libya (which haas oil). What they failed to mention was that we also loaned them $300 billion to reconstruct their oil infrastructure.
2. Venezuela was placed on a list of countries “Not cooperating with our anti-terrorism policies” in the world. Possibly setting the stage to accuse them of supporting terrorism and thereby justifying an invasion. (The have oil and have kicked out Exxon).
Any thoughts?
May 21st, 2006 at 8:02 pmThink Progress! *deleted by admin* Think Progress! *deleted by admin*
May 21st, 2006 at 8:14 pmI just know that this govt. lies. If you believe anything they say you are stupid. What is said, the opposite is the truth.
If you believe 9-11 happened the way they say, then you are stupid. Don’t get mad, get even.
May 21st, 2006 at 8:22 pmIf you believe 9-11 happened the way they say, then you are stupid. Don’t get mad, get even.
Comment by Deep Throat — May 21, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Gee, did they teach you that logic at Harvard? Sheesh. Stop calling people stupid who disagree with your crackpot theories. No one said anything about agreeing with teh government. It isn’t an either or choice. You can believe in something else all together.
May 21st, 2006 at 8:46 pmIt’s THEIR countries! Maybe if we weren’t oppressing and occupying there, we WOULDN’T be fighting anyone except OUR own oppressers here!
May 21st, 2006 at 9:15 pmhey unbelievable,
just wanted to ask you a couple of questions (since you are an expert on the subject)…your favorite subject, of course:
it’s a matter of record that significant amounts molten metal (most often described as molten steel) were observed in the remains of wtc1 & 2. how can you explain the existence of molten metal, given that the fire never burned hot enough (or for long enough) to melt steel — and that jet fuel (or office materials) can’t possibly burn that hot?
also, how do you (or experts in your field) explain the remains of wtc 1&2 burning and smoldering for more than 5 weeks after 9/11, even after being doused with large amounts of water?
i’m looking for all explanations here! i just haven’t found one that is indisputable…
May 21st, 2006 at 10:07 pm…and maybe indisputable is the wrong term. perhaps ‘most plausible’ is more appropriate.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:10 pmi’m looking for all explanations here! i just haven’t found one that is indisputable…
Comment by Progressaurus Rex — May 21, 2006 @ 10:07
Sorry, I need to go to bed - but here’s a good place to start:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html
http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html
Keeping in mind that there were enough combustibile materials to keep a fire going. Jet fuel wasn’t required. The plane crashes started the fires but jet fuel was not necessary to maintain them once started.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:44 pmok, so as one of the sources you’ve linked to states, “Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)”.
another source you link to, nova, interviews one scientist, dr. thomas eager, who says, “The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It’s impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F”
He also goes on to claim, “no one has reported finding melted steel,” which is categorically untrue. see the following statements to the contrary:
the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”
One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.
“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”
Bronx firefighter “Toolie” O’Toole stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were “dripping from the molten steel.”
there are numerous other statements that verify the claim of molten steel in the wtc remains, including those by the presidents of two companies responsible for removing the rubble. so why would dr. eager claim that “no one” had reported it?
also a matter of record is that for up to two weeks after there were hotspots deep in the rubble exceeding 1300 degrees fahrenheit. well, dr. eager also says he thinks the wtc fire on the day “was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F”. so this scientist expects me to believe that, although the remains were almost continuously doused with water for those two weeks, the fire maintained that temperature for the entire time?
the fire continued to burn for almost 12 weeks after 9/11, making it the longest-burning structural fire in history.
so my questions remain unanswered. the sources you have linked to do nothing to explain how a jet fuel and office materials fire burned hot enough to produce molten metal (most often identified as steel); or how, even if it didn’t burn that hot and the molten metal was just a figment of many imaginations, the fire maintained an almost constant temperature for two weeks despite being continuously doused with water; or how the fire burned for almost 3 months.
i also realize you’re probably gone by now, but hopefully tomorrow you can come back and address these issues.
or anyone else is welcome to take a shot at it!
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:39 amanother quote from one of the workers at the wtc site:
“You have two 110 story office buildings.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:03 amYou don’t find a desk.
You don’t find a chair.
You don’t find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad,
and it was about this big:
(makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter)
The building collapsed to dust.”
Liability Provisions of the Airline Bailout Legislation
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress enacted airline bailout legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush. An integral part of the package was a compensation program for victims that limited any potential liability of the airlines. Public Citizen’s analysis of the law’s provisions is below:
I. Victim Compensation Fund/No-Fault Program
In lieu of filing suit, a victim or victim’s estate may submit a claim for compensation with a Special Master, appointed by the Attorney General. Victims include those present at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, or Pennsylvania crash sites who suffered physical harm or death, or anyone on board the crashed planes (except for the hijackers or conspirators). The claimant may file a claim for economic and non-economic losses suffered as a result of the attacks and does not have to prove negligence. Punitive damages are not recoverable. Claimants must file within two years. The Special Master cannot consider any contributory or comparative negligence of the victim.
Within 120 days of filing, the Special Master must make a determination on the claim; this determination is final and not subject to judicial review. If the claimant is entitled to an award, that compensation is reduced by any collateral source compensation the claimant may have received (this includes life insurance, pension funds, death benefit programs, and payments made by federal, state or local governments). The federal government is responsible for paying all awards.
The lack of any appeal process will give the Special Master the de facto power to reject the mandate to award damages “to the extent recovery& is allowed under state law,” and adopt a less generous schedule of damages.
While earlier versions of this proposal included limits on attorney fees, no such limitation was included in the final statute.
A claimant cannot file more than one claim, nor file a claim and a civil action. A claimant with a lawsuit pending must withdraw the lawsuit. Practically speaking, given the uncertainty surrounding liability issues, the only people with incentive to sue may be those whose collateral source proceeds exceed damages.
The program is intended to pay costs beyond the limits of the air carriers liability coverage, believed to be between $3 billion and $6 billion according to various news reports that are in dispute. In the event that insurance money remains, there are provisions for it to be turned over to the government voluntarily, or the government may sue the airlines under a subrogation theory. (The airlines and their insurers may have already pledged to do so.)
II. Civil Actions
Plaintiffs may sue only in federal court, and the substantive law applied is from the state where the crash occurred, unless that state s laws are inconsistent or preempted by federal law. All cases are heard in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. While Public Citizen has in the past expressed concerns about damage trials being held before an MDL judge when it is inconvenient to an individual plaintiff, it is likely that the only plaintiffs here will be people who already received large life insurance payments and so the impact will be de minimus.
III. Temporary Government Indemnification Program for Airlines
Over the next six months, airlines will benefit from a special insurance cost relief program. In the event of another attack during this 180-day period, the Secretary of Transportation may certify that an air carrier was a victim of terrorism and therefore is not responsible for losses suffered by third parties that exceed $100 million, in the aggregate, for all claims brought against it. See new 49 U.S.C. § 44303(b)(2). If an air carrier is ultimately liable for more than $100 million, the government will cover the remaining costs. This provision prohibits punitive damages in any action against air carriers in the event that the Secretary so certifies.
IV. Potential Costs to Taxpayers
The compensation program is probably the largest element, in terms of cash, of the bailout for the airline industry granted by Congress and President Bush.
If the Special Master applied past aviation jury verdicts as the benchmark for no-fault awards, as the text of the legislation seems to require, the potential exposure for the government is huge. For example, these are awards from the Pan Am 103 trials:
· $9,225,000 was awarded to the Pagnucco family;
· $9,000,000 to the Bainbridge family;
· $1,735,000 to the Porter family.
(Decedents Pagnucco and Bainbridge were Pepsico attorneys; decedent Porter an electrician and part-time musician.)
The Pan Am damage awards included damages for loss of society and loss of parental care to adult children. No award for survival damages sought by plaintiffs was made because the jury found the passengers had suffered no conscious pain and suffering before their deaths. Obviously, the 200 or so victims on the 9/11/01 planes suffered extreme terror during the last 20 minutes of their lives. Two years ago a court awarded 12 passengers $150,000 each for the fear they suffered for 28 seconds when their plane went into a steep dive, causing them to anticipate imminent death. (All survived.) Needless to say, the experience of the 9/11/01 victims was far worse. We project potential damages of $3 million times 200 passengers for $600 million.
There were nearly 6,000 victims on the ground, many of whom were affluent professionals like the typical air passenger. If each is awarded between $1 and $3 million, these claims are potentially worth between $6-$18 billion.
The ultimate cost to the government will be decreased by charitable donations to victims families. It could be increased substantially in the event that litigation depletes the insurance coverage. Insurance companies covering property damage losses may elect to file a subrogation case against the airlines which, if successful, could exhaust this coverage.
May 22nd, 2006 at 2:35 amProgressaurus Rex:
It is also my understanding that all of the structural steel was removed from the collapse sites and shipped overseas to be recycled as scrap, removing any chance of examining it. Why? And why not recycle it here in the U.S.? Couldn’t get a fair enough price for scrap metal?
It would seem to me that engineers would want to study the steel and apply any findings towards better construction techniques. I mean, after all, how often do you get a chance to study the remains of a collapsed building on the scale of the WTC…one that is not brought down on purpose (wink, wink) by explosives?
Oh, and one more item regarding the steel…I have read that there was no bent or twisted steel removed from the site. Shouldn’t there have been some? If I am mistaken and there were extensive studies applied to the steel, and if there was indeed bent or twisted steel in the remains, please, someone, direct me to a valid source.
And no, the questions I am asking in no way implies a conspiracy theory. Most people see the crashes and collapse of both towers as an open-and-shut case. But I think there are valid questions.
One more question regards the tape recordings the air traffic controllers were required by policy to make detailing how events unfolded on 9/11. Not long ago, all of these tapes were mysteriously destroyed. Just another “oops” moment I guess.
Now, about those holograpic emitters that showed the “jets” flying through the air…
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:40 amProgressaurus Rex:
It is also my understanding that all of the structural steel was removed from the collapse sites and shipped overseas to be recycled as scrap, removing any chance of examining it. Why? And why not recycle it here in the U.S.? Couldn’t get a fair enough price for scrap metal?
It would seem to me that engineers would want to study the steel and apply any findings towards better construction techniques. I mean, after all, how often do you get a chance to study the remains of a collapsed building on the scale of the WTC…one that is not brought down on purpose (wink, wink) by explosives?
Oh, and one more item regarding the steel…I have read that there was no bent or twisted steel removed from the site. Shouldn’t there have been some? If I am mistaken and there were extensive studies applied to the steel, and if there was indeed bent or twisted steel in the remains, please, someone, direct me to a valid source.
And no, the questions I am asking in no way implies a conspiracy theory. Most people see the crashes and collapse of both towers as an open-and-shut case. But I think there are valid questions.
One more question regards the tape recordings the air traffic controllers were required by policy to make detailing how events unfolded on 9/11. Not long ago, all of these tapes were mysteriously destroyed. Just another “oops” moment I guess.
Now, about those holographic emitters that showed the “jets” flying through the air…
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:41 amComment by Progressaurus Rex — May 22, 2006 @ 12:39 am
I also posted a link on composites. Structural metals are generally composed of other metals. Pure steel is very expensive because it has such high melt temperatures. Mix it with other stuff and you don’t have to spend as much money making it. And you know that we are all about money (also why we send stuff to China where labor rates are dirt cheap). Aluminum also has a low melt rate. It’s possible that it was melted aluminum. Or a steel-aluminum alloy.
I think it did get hot enough in the basement where they tend to store chemicals - weren’t there cars parked down there with gas in their tanks - to create an oven of sorts. Much like a campfire that has burned down to the really hot embers and will continue to smolder no matter how much you spit on it (fire was too big for fire fighting means to really impact it).
A lot is speculation because there’s nothing left to go look at now - and to work through the various hypotheses. I would look to the Corporate companies wanting to rebuild (in the name of money) for expediting the clean up. I work for the government. Speed has never been a part of their reputation.
Sure, there are enigmas. But they don’t automatically mean conspiracy. In fact, I haven’t seen anything that could unequvically point to a conspiracy. It’s all been stuff that could have a variety of interpretations - with conspiracy beingthe long-shot in most cases. The most plausible explanations are just not the conspiracy ones.
‘Eye witnesses’ during a traumatic events are not wholly reliable, because the thinking portions of the brain instinctually turn off and revert to ‘reptilian flight or flight adenaline processes’. When in survival mode, memory is not very good.
Again, thanks for being polite about this. We probably won’t agree. But I appreciate the reciprocal courtesy.
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:35 amThe building collapsed to dust.
Comment by Progressaurus Rex — May 22, 2006 @ 1:03 am
Just because a couple of people didn’t find something doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. A lot of things burned, were smashed into unrecognizable pieces of things, were taken, or were mixed into a jumble of other things. I don’t think this means conspiracy. No one would have gone through the trouble of removing that kind of stuff. There wouldn’t have been a point in doing so.
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:41 amIt’s been said that in the last days the devil will take off his mask and walk among us and we will be surprised at who he is?
Know anybody who fits the description?
You all take real good care of yourselves.
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:44 pmFor unbelievable:
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:32 pmIf US conspirators had falsely claimed Iraqi agents were involved in attacks, the Iraqi govt. would have been able to deny it + provide proof of some kind. By using ‘Al Quaeda’ operatives (read CIA patsies) there was no chance that ‘Osama’ would say ‘who, me?’
And why did WTC building 7 collapse, then?
And why did WTC building 7 collapse, then?
Comment by impeachblair — May 22, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
Not necessarily would the Iraqi government been able to refute it was their people (besides Bush got away with a much bigger lie - WMD)
A combination of seismic (earthquake like forces) loads from the collapse of the twin towers could have - and seems did - damage several other buildings in the area including 7 which might have had construction flaws or something like rusty connections that were suspectible to seismic forces because of a roof leak. It’s been known to happen before - could happen again.
May 22nd, 2006 at 6:28 pmi’d like to address your contention about the need for participating iraqis in the event. i don’t believe that’s a necessary requirement at all, if you’re taking the conspiratorial view. “just” having an iraq war doesn’t give us the endless coldwar-like spectre of the war on terror, which truly benefits the administration. we know where iraq is. it will always be right there in the middle east, half a world away. al qaeda, however, can be anywhere, lurking in the shadows, ready to strike at any time. it’s the perfect boogeyman, if you happen to be an administration that values that sort of thing.
if 9/11 is all about iraq, then a lot more has to be done in the way of manufacturing evidence that supported iraqi involvement, and saddam’s regime had already sufficiently proven extremely difficult to infiltrate (do you remember the story about american cia agents getting calls from their plants in iraq, just to hear them being killed by saddam’s security forces? pretty gruesome stuff). it’s much simpler, and much more effective in terms of manufacturing fear, to have an amorphous, transitory enemy that isn’t connected with a specific geographic area. i think that trying to manufacture blame against iraq was deemed too risky and difficult (and to back up that assertion, i present the non-existent wmd’s — one would think that we could’ve planted something there, even immediately after the invasion, couldn’t we? or was it operationally too difficult to ‘create’ events in iraq?)
besides, as far as iraq is concerned, we always had saddam to blame. seriously, he was so iconic that he had been portrayed in pop culture as ‘the ultimate bad guy’ (think south park - even the devil is saddam’s bitch). after 15 years of saddam being our arch-nemesis, all they had to do was create the right atmosphere for people to get behind overthrowing the guy. call it saddam-fatigue, if you will. throw in some wmds, a vague 9/11 connection, and the war is on. iraq was just proof that the populace (and the press) were that malleable after 9/11. which i think was the point.
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:36 pmI understand what you’re saying. I just don’t agree that 9/11 was necessary to attack Iraq. It’s as you said - he was already a villian here and in Europe. A lot less could have been done. And if you’re gonna stage it - then it makes more sense to connect Iraq. Just one person. One financier. One something.
I do think the Bush Regime was arrogant enough to either either rhink that an attack wouldn’t happen on American soil - or that they could use it to fabricate a connection to Iraq. I just can’t buy into them setting it up. It just, to me, does not logically play out because of too many variables.
And there’s always the risk in a scenario like this - which would have taken hundreds of people to plan - that someone would have talked by now.
Besides, really - we’re in such a mess as it is right now, I do think there are more important issues to be addressing. It’s partly why i get frustrated with this subject sometimes when the other person is being religious about it and calls me stupid for disagreeing. There are just so many variables and so much speculation from all hypotheses that we might not know what really happened in every case.
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:56 pmwell, we do already know that the steel used in the wtc was certified to the standard ASTM E119 by underwriters’ laboratories. according to underwriters’ labs, “the time temperature curves for this standard [ASTM E119] require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours.”
and getting back to the composite metals, i did look at all of your links, including reading the entire nova section. aluminum has a melting point of 1200F. the melting point of steel is listed from your last link as anywhere from 1100-1600 degrees celcius (2000-2900 degrees F). the low end of that scale is for impure steel, of the nature that would imply poor manufacture (or ‘cheap’ steel). nevertheless, there would have had to be alot of aluminum in a steel alloy to lower the melting point to around 1700F, which, as we have already seen, dr. eager claims, “The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It’s impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air.â€
as to your second point, sure it could have been like an oven, and perhaps there were extra sources of fuel (although, having worked with chemicals before, i would think building codes would forbid the storage of large amounts of poisonous or flammable chemicals in the buildings - certainly not enough to induce steel-melting fires. neither plastics nor jet fuel or kerosene will burn that hot). but there are other things to consider. when you scatter a fire, it disappates. i would think that a weakening fire (because that’s what it was — black smoke indicates an oxygen-starved fire that is losing intensity) that then fell 70-80 floors to the ground, in the process being buried by a veritable mountain of rubble and concrete dust, would become an even weaker fire, wouldn’t you?
and even if it wasn’t weaker, once again referring to dr. eager, he estimates that the hottest the fire got on the day of the event was 1200-1300 degrees F. and yet two weeks later, after continuously dousing the remains with water, there are still hotspots registering over 1300F?
i’m still looking for any plausible explanation for these anomolies.
and yes, i know it’s late again. hopefully someone will read this and care enough to give an answer.
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:23 amsorry so long in my response i had a business meeting! maybe you’ll be around tomorrow…
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:25 amThis argument about “wouldn’t you rather fight those people over there instead of fighting them here” makes as much sense as my saying, “I don’t want to fight my enemy in my yard; I’d rather fight him in my neighbor’s yard.” Why should I then be surprised that my neighbor comes to hate me fighting there, especially upon seeing that I despoil his property and attend to and mourn my own losses much more than his.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:08 amThis argument about “wouldn’t you rather fight those people over there instead of fighting them here” makes as much sense as my saying, “I don’t want to fight my enemy in my yard; I’d rather fight him in my neighbor’s yard.” Why should I then be surprised that my neighbor comes to hate me fighting there, especially upon seeing that I despoil his property and attend to and mourn my own losses much more than his.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:08 amdr. eager claims, “The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It’s impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air.â€
Comment by Progressaurus Rex — May 23, 2006 @ 12:23 am
So then maybe there wasn’t any molten steel. Maybe it was something else that melted. Or perhaps there was something else in the basement to fuel the fire - like I said earlier. The latter seems more likely.
There are plausible and realistic possibilities and as long as they exist I will consider them more likely. In this and any scenario. Until inconclusive proof of a conspiracy exists, which it doesn’t yet, I consider one unlikely and not probable.
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:07 amalthough, having worked with chemicals before, i would think building codes would forbid the storage of large amounts of poisonous or flammable chemicals in the buildings
Comment by Progressaurus Rex — May 23, 2006 @ 12:23 am
You can store anything in a building if it is labeled (the building construction) for that use. And in certain cases, minimal quantities of chemicals are just put into standard janitor’s closets.
Not that maintenance people always use the building in accordance with the building permit either. :)
And a car bomb allowed the terrorists to strike the first time. So there was obviously the ability to park cars below the building - adding to the temperatures that could exist down there. I wouldn’t rule out that at all - because it makes sense and isn’t unrealistic. Gas is explosive - perhaps that could also explain some of the explosions peope heard. Have you read anything about cars in the subterranean parking garages?
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:12 amand even if it wasn’t weaker, once again referring to dr. eager, he estimates that the hottest the fire got on the day of the event was 1200-1300 degrees F. and yet two weeks later, after continuously dousing the remains with water, there are still hotspots registering over 1300F?
Comment by Progressaurus Rex — May 23, 2006 @ 12:23 am
Think of it more like a campfire - you don’t get the hottest temperatures until after the fire has died down and the internal temperatures of the combustibles are also heated. There’s a lot to consider.
But, it occurs to me - explosives wouldn’t have melted steel either… They are an instant burst of energy meant to explode - not melt. So this doesn’t give any assistance to the explosives portion of the theory. Therefore there must be a plausible explanation based on what was in the building that could melt steel - OR there was no melted steel as Dr. Eager pointed out.
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:20 amComment by HadaNotion — May 23, 2006 @ 3:08 am
Good point. Most slogans are just propaganda and rhetoric anyway…
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:21 amhey unbelievable, let’s continue this in a different thread…
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:10 pmhey unbelievable, let’s continue this in a different thread…
Comment by Progressaurus Rex — May 23, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
I think Judd tolerates it a bit more than normal when it’s in a dead forum than when it’s front page. And I can’t blame him. Some of the stuff the hard core conspiracy theorists are saying isn’t good for business. It makes the Left look bad.
Frankly, I’m kinda burned out on talking about it. Maybe a little later? When it’s not going to turn into a raging inferno - because you know that some of thr fringe sees the conversation and begins jumping in and turning it into a three ring circus. I really don’t want to contribute to that. I’m sure you understand… :)
May 24th, 2006 at 8:57 amErica
I could not believe the amount of quality material on this site. The site is extremely eyecatching and pulls the reader straight it, the articles are great quality and are very professionally written. I have seen too many of these sites where it looks…
March 17th, 2008 at 12:55 amHannaj
This is one thing I definitely agree on
March 18th, 2008 at 4:38 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 4:05 pmVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:25 pmbernard hills
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:48 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 9:18 amUs Bankruptcy Court Northern District Of Ohio
Please keep these excellent posts coming.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:52 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 10:23 amhot middle eastern girl
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 amarabic celebrity
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 amInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 amwc metal
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok. do you know what is the first? i`ve the new album at my blog
March 24th, 2008 at 9:57 amair ambulance crash
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:23 amEric
Great post. I have added you to my digg bookmark
March 27th, 2008 at 1:57 am