babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Activists & Alternative Media v 9/11 Truth Movement? III

102 replies [Last post]

Comments

Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Why The Facts of 9/11 Must Be Suppressed John McMurtry on Guns and Butter kpfa radio

Quote:
"Why The Facts of 9/11 Must Be Suppressed - Understanding the Ruling Group Mind Behind the War Without End" with Dr. John McMurtry. Dr. McMurtry was one of the first academics to analyze 9/11 and the 9/11 wars. He is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of of Guelph, Ontario.

A very good analysis of the overall situation for anti-war activists. Just before 9/11 there were anti-globalization protests in Genoa. Peaceful protesters were deemed terrorists by security forces and beaten. The 9/11 wars are market crusades for market supremacy and market fundamentalism. Any countries pursuing alternative economies are deemed evil, and like the religious inquisitions of history, opponents of neoclassical market fundamentalism are automatically labelled heretics and must be destroyed according to group think behind the war without end. Our modern day Nazis wage wars of aggression under the guise of self defence, and it's a similar psychopathic self-centred big lie. America and the national security state are one and the same and have become indistinguishable for most people.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

VIDEO: Was 9/11 an "Inside Job"? 
9/11 Truthers attend "Treason in America" Conference

ABC tabloid reporters attend, inquire about WhiteHouse gunman not truth


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Snert wrote:
This all reminds me of a case study from my first year Psychology elective, concerning a man whose hippocampus had been damaged,

Is this your new theory as to what's wrong with crazy George dubya and neocon cheerleader-drones? - that they're all cokeheads who were trampled on campuses by crazed herds of hippos and are now suffering compounded trauma to their pea-size brains? Plausible I suppose but far fetched and kinda like the,  'Yes, Al-CIA'duh was once with us but then suddenly turned against us' phony baloney.


A_J
Offline
Joined: Aug 12 2008
Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Too funny, A_J.  Award winning news journalist John Pilger wrote:

Quote:
In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand over bin Laden for trial, reported Pakistan’s military regime, and were ignored. Even Obama’s mystification of 9/11 as justification for his war is false. More than two months before the Twin Towers were attacked, the Pakistani foreign minister, Niaz Naik, was told by the Bush administration that an American military assault would take place by mid-October. The Taliban regime in Kabul, which the Clinton administration had secretly supported, was no longer regarded as “stable” enough to ensure America’s control over oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. It had to go.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

US government agencies cover up evidence of a conspiracy in the wake of El Sayyid Nosair’s assassination of controversial right-wing Zionist leader Rabbi Meir Kahane (1990s)

Quote:
As one FBI agent will later put it, “The fact is that in 1990, myself and my detectives, we had in our office in handcuffs, the people who blew up the World Trade Center in ‘93. We were told to release them.” The 47 boxes of evidence collected at Nosair’s house that evening are stored away, inaccessible to prosecutors and investigators. The documents found will not be translated until after the World Trade Center bombing. Nosair will later be acquitted of Kahane’s murder (though he will be convicted of lesser charges), as investigators will continue to ignore all evidence that could suggest Nosair did not act alone. (ABC News, 8/16/2002; Lance, 2003, pp. 34-37)
District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who prosecuted the case, will later speculate the CIA may have encouraged the FBI not to pursue any other leads. Nosair worked at the Al-Kifah Refugee Center which was closely tied to covert CIA operations in Afghanistan . (New Yorker, 3/17/1995)

How the FBI (and RCMP) protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer The U.S. government’s intimate on-going connection to al-Qaeda and a chief 9/11 plotter

9/11 Commission told not to 'cross a line' during investigation

Quote:
A recently released letter shows that members of the former Bush administration urged panelists on the 9/11 Commission not to probe too deeply into the events of the terrorist attacks that occurred on that morning.
In a letter obtained by the ACLU and addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George Tenet on Jan. 6, 2004, the members of the Bush administration cautioned the 9/11 Commission of not to further investigate into the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Iows, don't look too deeply into this, because 9/11 was a US Army-Al-CIA'duh false flag op. Occam says they're looking good for 9/11.


Sineed
Online
Joined: Dec 4 2005

LMAO!

Quote:
"Talking to you is like talking to a goat."


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Who is Al-Qa'eda? Have deniers ever actually met one of crazy George's bogeymen? Are they under your bed waiting to ram the Koran and CIA manual for terrierism down your throats? Quick! Duck and cover!

LMAO!

Too funny


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Fidel wrote:

Jas, at some point they might even figure out that this thread isn't about 9/11 denial and start one that is.

If they do, it would be awesome if they could explain to us that pesky little lack-of-resistance problem. I might even be willing to believe their kooky progressive collapse theory. Until then, I guess we should get out the tin foil hats.

Hey! Wait a minute! Maybe this is the 'collapsing progressives' theory!


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

jas wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Jas, at some point they might even figure out that this thread isn't about 9/11 denial and start one that is.

If they do, it would be awesome if they could explain to us that pesky little lack-of-resistance problem. I might even be willing to believe their kooky progressive collapse theory. Until then, I guess we should get out the tin foil hats.

Hey! Wait a minute! Maybe this is the 'collapsing progressives' theory!

Even more damning than their leap of faith anti-Occam physics,  I think, was the US Government's intimate on-going connection to al-Qaeda and a chief 9/11 plotter who nobody knows where he is and was only briefly mentioned in the official government conspiracy report. And there are lots n lots of whistleblowers.

In crazy George they trusted for a non-transparent and non-accountable invextigation. They were lied to, and they know it.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Not a new article, but well worded: 

Quote:

Let's assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same
degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire
floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to
drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then
combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns
evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten
seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases. Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed, as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.


Quote:
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the
messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message rather than provide investigative
reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an
"investigation" into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's
investigation also didn't include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include
an investigation into the "unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7
collapsed.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

 

Quote:

Saturday, February 27, 1993

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."


A_J
Offline
Joined: Aug 12 2008

Quote:
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

The towers were hit by 767's, which are larger and heavier than the 707. I believe the 767 also has greater fuel capacity too.

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Just a bit more sheet metal and airframe and little more fuel had the tanks been full. Roughly similar in size and weight though.

I think there are issues with the speed of the planes on impact. Pilots for truth are saying they were going too fast for what the planes are designed for at such low altitude. The Pentagon plane was doing some very fancy flying considering the hijacker was an amateur.


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

Don't bother A_J. Ask them to produce the analysis. Or any of the analysis' that have been claimed to be completed.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Ding-dong! Time to check under the stairs for Al-CIA'duh.


Salsa
Offline
Joined: Dec 14 2008

Yes, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707

A 707 that was cruising around just above stall speed, possibly lost in the fog, landing gear and flaps down.... And the towers did withstand the impact of a slightly larger plane going over twice as fast as the design parameters specified. As we all  know, it wasn't the impacts that brought the towers down, it was the fires and those types of fires weren't planned for in the impact scenario. Why does the truth movement constantly leave this information out ? Maybe you don't believe me. How about in the words of the lead structural engineer on the WTC towers project?    
Quote:
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
Source

Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

The impact of the planes was so great that funny-strange vibrations knocked off all the insulation cladding structural beams, and then WTC7 fell down from sheer forces of worry. Pfff!

I just checked under my bed, and there were no Al-CIA'duhs there just a few dust bunnies. Honest.


Salsa
Offline
Joined: Dec 14 2008

Fidel, Do you ever add anything revalent to these threads, or are you a one man PSYOPS!!! operation ?


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

Fidel wrote:

Ding-dong! Time to check under the stairs for Al-CIA'duh.

Is this version pointless edit 3 or 4?


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

Salsa wrote:

Yes, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707


While I agree with you on this, it is important to note that no actual studies have ever been found and we don't know what methodoloies were used.

jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Interesting. We have the word of the chief structural engineer against one of the chief engineers.

Anyway, from the same link, here's essentially what Leslie Robertson has written about the jet impact:

Quote:

The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. 

Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. 

What isn't mentioned here is that the Empire State Building didn't collapse.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Quote:
The Crash
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...


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.


Salsa
Offline
Joined: Dec 14 2008

And the dinky little 10 ton bomber had how much fuel on board ?

Compared with the 150+ ton jet liner?

The Empire State building and the WTC towers used the same methods of construction ?


HeywoodFloyd
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2003

jas wrote:

Interesting. We have the word of the chief structural engineer against one of the chief engineers.

 

 

Lets not take them at their word, as you are so wont to do. Show me the reports.


A_J
Offline
Joined: Aug 12 2008

jas wrote:
What isn't mentioned here is that the Empire State Building didn't collapse.

Alright, I know I shouldn't bother, but are you seriously trying to claim that since the Empire State Building (a completely different building with a completely different structure) didn't collapse when struck by a B-25 bomber (a completely different airplane about 1/10th the mass of a 767, carrying less fuel and making a landing approach), then the World Trade Centre could also not have collapsed when struck by an airplane?

One instance of a building not collapsing when struck by an airplane proves that no buildings collapse when struck by airplanes?

That's silly.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Heywood, keep up. I was referring to posts upthread excerpting John SKilling and Leslie Robertson respectively.

AJ, the WTC didn't collapse when struck by planes. It didn't even collapse when hit with bombs.


A_J
Offline
Joined: Aug 12 2008

That's right.

The towers collapsed due to the burning fuel, more of which was carried by the 767's than the tiny (in comparison) B-25 and to which the unique design of the WTC (largely steel, with most of the structure supported by a steel and concrete core) was particularly vulnerable.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Yes, steel and concrete are susceptible to fire.... They should consider making highrises out of wood perhaps.

Wow. Okay, we're definitely going around the mulberry bush on this one.


A_J
Offline
Joined: Aug 12 2008

jas wrote:
Yes, steel and concrete are susceptible to fire.

Well, concrete not so much but steel, yes, definitely susceptible to fire. You're finally starting to make sense.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments