I don't need reliable sources! I spoke to this strange dark shadowy figure in a parking garage last night codenamed Hearsay. He passed me an unsubstantiated weblink that told me all I needed to smell, Agent 0406304068419484818 - if that is your real name.SMOKING GUN PROOF THAT ILLUMANATI PLAN 9/11
[url=http://www.takebackthemedia.com/flash/bushnonazi1.swf][size=20]sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!![/size][/url]
Huh...Wow.
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
- Video interview 6/28/09:
General Stubblebine: I am Major General Albert Stubblebine. I am retired Army Major-General. In my last assignment -- my last command -- I was responsible for all of the Army's strategic intelligence forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence. They all belonged to me, in my last assignment. …
I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That's Intelligence, OK, before the fact. So, we always -- always -- rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple and the more pieces of data that you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going on. …
So I have had a lot of experience looking at photographs. I have looked at many, many different kinds of photographs, from many, many different platforms on many, many different countries, around the world.
Interviewer: OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon?
General Stubblebine: I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.
Interviewer: What made you believe that?
General Stubblebine: Well, for one thing, if you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel -- vehicle, or whatever it was -- have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.
One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off." But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off -- there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don't have that evidence. …
-- the stories that were told -- all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside...
Every once and a while I waste my time and look up one of these truther "authorities":
The recently cited "Björkman" I hadn't heard of.
Apparently he has posted his wisdom on the Randi site under the name of "Heiwa" the following claims are linked in the post, here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135609
Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.
Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.
Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.
Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.
Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again. However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.
Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.
Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.
Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.
Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."
Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.
Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.
Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of lemons.
James Randi, Contrarianna? Seriously?
Where are the sources for his claims? I mean, if you're going to quote James Randi, you better check out his claims... otherwise you're just regurgitating, aren't you?
I don't need reliable sources! I spoke to this strange dark shadowy figure in a parking garage last night codenamed Hearsay. He passed me an unsubstantiated weblink that told me all I needed to smell, Agent 0406304068419484818 - if that is your real name.SMOKING GUN PROOF THAT ILLUMANATI PLAN 9/11
[url=http://www.takebackthemedia.com/flash/bushnonazi1.swf][size=20]sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!![/size][/url]
Huh...Wow.
[size=2]Pre-emptive disclaimer: We're not saying that the thread gladios are pro-Bush or even pro-NAZI. So don't even think about saying that. [/size]
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
- Video interview 6/28/09:
General Stubblebine: I am Major General Albert Stubblebine. I am retired Army Major-General. In my last assignment -- my last command -- I was responsible for all of the Army's strategic intelligence forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence. They all belonged to me, in my last assignment. …
I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That's Intelligence, OK, before the fact. So, we always -- always -- rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple and the more pieces of data that you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going on. …
So I have had a lot of experience looking at photographs. I have looked at many, many different kinds of photographs, from many, many different platforms on many, many different countries, around the world.
Interviewer: OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon?
General Stubblebine: I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.
Interviewer: What made you believe that?
General Stubblebine: Well, for one thing, if you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel -- vehicle, or whatever it was -- have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.
One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off." But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off -- there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don't have that evidence. …
-- the stories that were told -- all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside...
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
* Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day.
Wait a second. YOU'RE PART OF THE NEO-CON CONSPIRACY. YOU, FIDEL, JAS. I knew it! You guys know all of this because you're plugged right into the Gladio power and just trying to throw us off with your bizarre ramblings and deflective two oldline party arguments! You were all al-CIA'duh plants on babble all along!....
You're not the first to have that Conspiracy Theory, therefore, using Geometric Logic, it must be true:
THE LOW POST: I, Left Gatekeeper
Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the "Left Behind" sci-fi series read like Shakespeare
MATT TAIBBI
Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:14 PM
I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.Secondly, it's bad enough that people in this country think Tim LaHaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost. Our best hope is that the Japanese take pity on us and allow us to serve as industrial slaves in their future empire, farming sushi rice and assembling robot toys....
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hop...
I don't need reliable sources! I spoke to this strange dark shadowy figure in a parking garage last night codenamed Hearsay. He passed me an unsubstantiated weblink that told me all I needed to smell, Agent 0406304068419484818 - if that is your real name.SMOKING GUN PROOF THAT ILLUMANATI PLAN 9/11
[url=http://www.takebackthemedia.com/flash/bushnonazi1.swf][size=20]sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!![/size][/url]
Huh...Wow.
Yea-ah, that was convincing. It's difficult to argue against such logic. Hitherto we haven't known what we were up against - someone trained by the Jesuits.
[url=http://www.takebackthemedia.com/flash/bushnonazi1.swf][size=20]sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!![/size][/url]
Huh...Wow.
Yea....don't set him off. You'll get him to act up in his usual way and get suspended and then where would these threads go?
[url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/say_it_aint_so_randi.php]James Randi the climate science and 9/11 truth denier whacko![/url]
Hey Fidel, Contrarianna is quoting James Randi and the Rolling Stone. Now we know where they get their scientific information. Rolling Stone magazine!
O dear, why does one bother? The citations are Bjorkman not Randi.
=========
From the Rolling Stone post above. Now, althoughhough the writer here seems skeptical of The Plan, I have it on Good Authority that he's faking his contempt--its the only way he could release the Actual Recording without being targeted by Space Beams and "Dustified", (c) Judy Wood.
BUSH: So, what's the plan again?CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.
RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.
CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.
RUMSFELD: We won't?
CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.
RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?
CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.
BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!....
Read the rest of the Cunning Plan here, it gets evenmore fiendishly cunning
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hop...
Rolling Stone's as good a Pop'lar Mechanix anyday.
Jennings Interview describing explosions in WTC7 occurring before collapses of WTC 1 and 2.
.
Read the rest of the Cunning Plan here, it gets evenmore fiendishly cunning
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hop...
Ah, yes. The peer-reviewed popular music journal.
Artificial Symmetry
The symmetry of collapse struck Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E. (licensed Professional Engineer in Wisconsin). Kollar was troubled by the collapses’ “totality and uniformity” and the fact that the mass of debris remained entered on the building core all the way down. The towers should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” writes Howard Pasternack, P.E. These systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously,” but also “in sequential order,” wrote Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and ...small, short-duration fires.”
And here I thought you'd be positively gushing over Taibbi. Or at least not be so quick to deride a publication that has put forward some brilliant pieces of journalism over the years.
In the old days of 9/11 arguing, they used to demand evidence. Now the tables have turned, and all they can cite are articles from Rolling Stone. Pathetic.
You are right boys, dripping irony isn't generally displayed in peer reviewed journals--you spotted it right away, I'm very impressed.
I cite a quote from Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, retired U.S. Air Force, former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, who also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System, and who was an eyewitness at the Pentagon crash for fuck's sake, who says that the 9/11 story vs. the evidence is not believable. They cite Matt Taibi from the Rolling Stone magazine.
They don't want the evidence any more. There's too much of it. They can't handle it. They don't even read it. They're like that moronic interviewer on, is it Fox or CNN, who, when he doesn't like what they're saying, shouts down his guests with "Shut Up!" "Shut the fuck up!"
I cite a quote from Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, retired U.S. Air Force, former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, who also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System, and who was an eyewitness at the Pentagon crash for fuck's sake, who says that the 9/11 story vs. the evidence is not believable. They cite Matt Taibi from the Rolling Stone magazine.
But you've discounted thousands of personal eyewitness accounts from NYC and probably countless eyewitness accounts from the Pentagon which DISAGREE with your position.
In fact, why would you trust a Lt. Col in the US military. How do you know that they're not running a counter-intelligence op? Maybe they are part of the conspiracy and trying to mislead you.
I notice that the more evidence that is produced on the evidence-based side (aka the "truther" side) the less is produced on the amateur debunker side (aka the cartoon physics side) and the more vitriolic and rhetorical the attacks from them become. I think this is what happens when one side knows they've lost the argument on credible grounds. The shouting down then begins.
I've come to expect this from the likes of Snert, Trevor and al-Q, (and to some degree Heywood, although he at least has tried to engage the argument on scientific grounds) but I am a little surprised at Contrianna. I thought she had more intelligence, or at least integitry, than that.
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!....Read the rest of the Cunning Plan here, it gets evenmore fiendishly cunning
Now this is just buck passing and placing the onus on truthers to explain why in the minds of war criminals that they did what they did.
But we can have a go anyway. Without the planes it would have just been a straightforward demolition. Larry Silverstein didn't claim in court that his buildings were brought down by bombs but with terrorists flying planes into them. There was no investigation into the possibility that terrorists used bombs or even military grade nano-thermite, which one scientists says there is evidence that this was the case - more evidence than for NIST's wild list of assumptions that become more unbelievable the more of them there are. Larry's $15 million dollar initial investment was transformed into a $7 billion dollar insurance claim not because there was a real investigation into the true causes of building collapse but because there was a coverup to make it look more like a modern day Pearl Harbor attack(as described by the PNAC cabal in their own pre9-11 report on the state of the military) and not just a run of the mill [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident][color=red]Gleiwitz incident[/color][/url] copy-catted from Himmler's SS used as a false flag pretext for invading Poland in 1939.
But you've discounted thousands of personal eyewitness accounts from NYC and probably countless eyewitness accounts from the Pentagon which DISAGREE with your position.
Where are these accounts, PB?
And the source I cite is not just from one lieutenant colonel, it's over 200 accounts from different military and intelligence personnel. You would know that if you had bothered to look, but you don't bother, and then you make this shit up completely out of your head.
Why are you even here?
jas, I have an RSS feed dedicated to JFK conspiracy news - if I post up every link that refers to reptoids that pops up with a little blurb, it does not mean that I have won any argument. It just means that I have flooded a message board with links from disparate sources that are often like corroboration, citations (beyond the self-reinforcing world of conspiracy lit.) and are often contradictory.
I'm just surprised by the self-righteous ways of the twoofer, the defensiveness, and their total lack of understanding that the conspiracy that they so duly believe in started out as nothing more than an anti-semetic email chain.
Why are you even here?
In general or specific to this thread? If it is in general it is probably because I joined this board before you...
Where are your eyewitness accounts, PB? Your claim isn't credible unless you can produce the source, you know that. Produce some intelligent evidence or get out of the thread.
You're just here for the gang-bang, and flinging shit around because you like handling poo, apparently.
Another thread trashed by poo-smearing from the amateur, anti-science debunkers.
You are not progressives. And you definitely cannot claim to defend science here. You don't appear to even understand what it is.
One of the most amazing phenomena related to the 9/11 truth movement, jas, is the nature of modern information. I'll take you as an example. You've posted dozens of links - most of them unsourced and decidedly unreliable. Eventually, so much of that happens because of the internet zealots that it begins to dilute the actual information sitting out there. Basically, the information pile up leads to high traffic, multiple-return hit sites like '911 truth' 'what really happened' or 'loose change'. This build up makes it so that it is very easy for you to find one of the proliferated links and blindly link to it after reading a synopsis. The sheer amount of information is primarily recycled (as I mentioned earlier, it all links together and forms its own web).
As for eye witnesses? I think I saw enough people who weren't part of a conspiracy, couldn't have been coached and all of that in the minutes and hours after the planes crashed into the buildings. If there were things that were so odd, why wouldn't they have come to light almost immediately? Why didn't thousands of engineers as they saw the towers crumble stand up and say 'AH HA!'? How could all of those rescue workers been kept quiet for so long? How can everyone have been kept quiet for so long? I mean, its almost a decade after the event. I've seen it mentioned before that this is very different than the Kennedy assassination. There, the conspiracies popped up really fast because it was such an intimate event. 9/11 was an a whole other scale, but yet it took years for the worms to come out of the wood. Given that information proliferated very quickly, without the information technology of today, during the Kennedy shooting (I wasn't even alive then, I just have friends and family that still love the old conspiracy theories), why didn't that happen after 9/11?
Apparently calling the cornballs who propagate these "no-planer" theories "Truthers" is a bit of a misnomer. The in-crowd calls them "pod-people."
At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact, and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web.
But if you think about it, common sense tells you their claims are just plain silly. After all, if the passenger jet didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go? And since the people behind 9-11 had to get rid of the passenger jet and its contents anyway, there was no reason for them NOT to ram it into the Pentagon. Why risk a swap? Why complicate matters even further?
Lately, in their efforts to plant more bogus information on the web for the media to use to ridicule doubters of the official story, the shills have used over-processed and blurry photos of the 9-11 planes to claim that they carried "pods" on the outside (which the ground crews at all the airports somehow never noticed). For that reason, the government shills have come to be known as the 9-11 "Pod People".
I've come to expect this from the likes of Snert, Trevor and al-Q, (and to some degree Heywood, although he at least has tried to engage the argument on scientific grounds)...
And al-Q spends his days looking for the most outlandish theories on the internet and pretending that that is what we're arguing here, because he can't actually engage what we're arguing. And you call yourself a "progressive".
Another thread trashed by poo-smearing from the amateur, anti-science debunkers.
You are not progressives. And you definitely cannot claim to defend science here. You don't appear to even understand what it is.
Here is an example of what in boxing is called the "bob and weave."
Actually I spent 30 seconds on this ten minutes ago. And no, I don't call myself a progressive, not that one's "progressiveness" has anything to do with the issue.
You've posted dozens of links - most of them unsourced and decidedly unreliable.
Un. fucking. believable.
You haven't looked at a single source, you haven't cited any sources of your own, and yet you make this statement.
You're a joke.
The logic keeps getting piled higher...
[url=http://freedomisforeverybody.blogspot.com/2007/08/james-quintiere-phd-is... Quintiere, Ph.D. is on Poplar Mechanix list, of Experts[/url]
Quintere disassociates himself from Bush's denier whackos
I guess you forgot the article I posted from a real peer-reviewed engineering journal.
I guess you forgot the four articles that I produced in response that debunk that article.
[url=http://freedomisforeverybody.blogspot.com/2007/08/james-quintiere-phd-is... Quintiere, Ph.D. is on Poplar Mechanix list, of Experts[/url]
Quintere disassociates himself from Bush's denier whackos
Oops, the "Bush denier whackos" no doubt say his statements were taken out of context--but it looks like they have got to him with their mind-bending Z-rays anyway:
Critics questioned why the investigation took so long, saying early on there were signs pointing to a fire-related collapse.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/22/september11.usaJames Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, questioned how NIST was able to definitively rule out explosives, a longtime theory.
"They don't have the expertise on explosives, so I don't know how they came to that conclusion," said Quintiere, a frequent critic of the agency, where he formerly worked as chief of its fire science and engineering division.
Quintiere stressed, however, that he never believed explosives played a role. He said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.
And it looks, (from the troofers perspctive) like the "Bush Whackos" Z-rays have got to MS K, because more recently she is talking now as if it was an intellegence failure used by the neoconservatives to execute their agenda:
Feb 2010
American Military Policy and the War on Terrorism
by Karen Kwiatkowski
Had our government not seized the opportunity that the 9/11 crisis presented, and had the Bush Administration spent that political capital on a serious legal and criminal approach to catching and punishing the 9/11 terrorists – by now, almost nine years later – in the very worst case scenario, we would be in the same place we are today. Lots of bad guys picked up, some convicted in trials, others held with trials pending. Certainly, many people would have been released, as we have done with a good number of those who had been held without charge or evidence in Guantanamo. Best case, this whole episode would be behind us, and the money not spent on security might have gone to reduce the deficit or support tax cuts.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski244.html
Here's also what Karen Kwiatkowski said in that article:
Instead, even though we had a so-called conservative president, we did not proceed as conservatives. We did not hold accountable or fire anyone in our government, or our defense and intelligence institutions. We did not closely examine our own foreign policy or our extensive intelligence and military activities overseas, particularly the Middle East. We did not even devote sufficient time and energy to investigating the crimes committed and the people behind those crimes. Instead, our so-called conservative president, with the backing of so-called conservative people, reacted pretty much as that other party we have been rightfully criticizing here at this conference.
Sometimes you have to argue from the fact situation that is accepted in the mainstream in order to make a different point, even though you may not believe it yourself. This is what the scientists writing their critiques of the NIST report have to do as well.
But thank you for at least engaging the arguments here.
Believing is not proving. Quintiere has called for a new investigation, because he says NIST's investigation was so slip-shod and inadequate.
[url=http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.ht... text of Dr Quintiere's statement made to the science committee[/url] And he does say that a new investigation is needed because NIST did a slip-shod job of things while ignoring legal evidenciary procedures for investigating a federal crime scene.
They didn't mention any of that in the Poopular Mechanix propaganda piece - a propaganda fluff piece published in a magazine owned by a family of notorious warfiteers and daddy warbucks.
===
Another refutation of the NIST-Bazant collapse hypothesis
[url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf]The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis(pdf)[/url]
There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high winds—and gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind. The lower block was not weak, nor (excluding stories 93-98) was it damaged by plane impact or fire. The weight of the upper block posed no threat to it. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from the momentum of the upper block. But momentum is a product of mass and velocity, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity. Since NIST’s theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on the lower structure. So it is no surprise that the NIST authors, however shy they are about affirming it, eventually come out in favour of the falling of the upper block. [...]The NIST Final Report does not tell us what happened to RB-12+ after its impact with the two structures beneath it. Did it fall through them all the way to the ground (that is, to the rubble heap on the ground), maintaining considerable mass and rigidity the whole time--as Bazant argued in 2001 and has continued to argue?
On this the NIST authors are silent.
Poopular
LOL. I like it! Very appropriate for these threads...
"Wow, man, your, like, collapse initiation physics is, like, totally poopular!"
Karen Kwiatkowski is right. They don't want a real investigation, but they still want to wage real wars and commit actual war crimes as a result of the fuckups. Not many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations have been acted upon. This shit could happen again, and there would be no accountability or transparency all over again.
And that's a large part of the problem with crazy like foxes government operating at arm's length from the deliberate fuckups in the CIA, FBI and the Pentagon who reap great financial rewards as a direct result of their own incompetence and criminal negligence. It's called corruption in government, and there should have been a real war crimes trial. As an ardent follower of Naomi Klein's comments, I think that at some point after a group of warmongering plutocrats produce so many monumental fuckups, people have to ponder whether the fuckups are not really fuckups at all.
And I hate to say it but things are at the stage when it would probably take a Stalinist figure to clean out the decay and rot from the halls of power in imperialist Amerika with show trials, cement walls at dawn's rising and the whole nine yards.
[url=http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.ht... text of Dr Quintiere's statement made to the science committee[/url] And he does say that a new investigation is needed because NIST did a slip-shod job of things while ignoring legal evidenciary procedures for investigating a federal crime scene.
This is an interesting read.
Something else I noticed in there:
Over and over, firefighters who had left the building in those final minutes, bewildered by the sudden retreat, the ruined lobby, the near-empty street, mentioned a chief covered in the dust of the first collapse, standing just outside the north tower on West Street.
9/11 Firefighters Told of Isolation Amid Disaster
BY JIM DWYER AND MICHELLE O'DONNELL
THE NEW YORK TIMES
SEPTEMBER 9, 2005
Every once and a while I waste my time and look up one of these truther "authorities":
The recently cited "Björkman" I hadn't heard of.
Apparently he has posted his wisdom on the Randi site under the name of "Heiwa" the following claims are linked in the post, here:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135609
Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
I'm extremely confused about this reference. First of all, the target in your link is not the same as your link address; secondly, I cannot find these statements that you quote; thirdly, you're taking as legitimate some anonymous person posting on James Randi's forum who claims that another poster named "Heiwa" is in fact Bjorkman. Do you really think the real Bjorkman would post these statements about himself?
What's the deal, Contrarianna? What exactly are you citing here? Do you even know?
I don't think research is your forte. Maybe you should go back to reading Rolling Stone...
I guess we'd call it poopular research...
where do I think the towers ended up?
Ah. That wasn't what I asked. We all know where they ended up.
No, the question I asked was "where do you think they should have collapsed". You keep reiterating that they "collapsed into their own footprint" like it is an unexpected result. So......where do you think they should have collapsed?
Shit happened that shan't have. Collapsed? More like imploded, demolished, vanished, vapourized. I don't have a word for what happened to the towers. But, to answer your question...
No collapse would have happened: The towers would have remained standing.
So then why do you go on about footprints at all? Does it matter where they collapsed if you believe that they shouldn't have collapsed at all?
It might have been a smallest footprint had it not been for ejectiles found blocks away that damaged everything from cars to other buildings. WTC buildings 3,4,5&6 took the worst of the debris fallout from WTC1&2 but steel framings were all still left standing for the most part. WTC7 was the least damaged, and yet it fell to the ground at breakneck speed due to apparent gravitational forces of worry.
It doesn't have to be obvious for it to be true, does it?
- no it doesn't - but take a stab at explaining to me how those 75/90 floors can be on the verge of total global collapse and not showing any signs of it?
When was that photo taken relative to when the towers collapsed? There are other photos which show giant explosions, sagging floors, the upper sections leaning, etc.
- you're duckin and dodgin, Heythere, as people tend to do when they know they are throwing marshmallows and getting hardballs in return. I explained the point of this picture was that the pics you refer to of big explosions and sagging floors etc, all taken before this, were closeups that gave the impression of great destruction - the pic I have included here gives some perspective on all that. Sure there was great damage where the planes hit - but in the context of the whole building, it becomes obvious that that damage, although severe in a limited sense, in the context of the huge WTC towers was quite contained, and in no way severe enough to lead to the 'global collapse' we are soon to see, wherein the thousands of tons of serious structural steel in all of those floors are going to suddenly crumple like a stepped-on beer can - and the OCT people are going to try to make us believe (successfully, unfortunately, in some cases) that all that steel crumpled because it was all weakened by those little tiny fires up top. If you have longer perspective pics that show the bottom parts of these towers leaking smoke and sections of the outer steel columns falling off like toothpicks because, of course, all that steel is being weakened by the blazing fires that have now spread (or are spreading) throughout the building (according to the OCT) prior to their complete collapse - show em. Or explain why we can't see anything from fires long and hot enough to weaken the steel all through that building (according to the NIST "experts").
Can't be done, Heythere, can't be done. As the complete lack of anything even pretending to be 'objective rational discussion' from the OCT-defenders since your comment clearly shows. Quite pathetic, the brainless schoolyard name-calling on what at least some people probably try to use as an 'adult' discussion board.
Every once and a while I waste my time and look up one of these truther "authorities":
The recently cited "Björkman" I hadn't heard of.
Apparently he has posted his wisdom on the Randi site under the name of "Heiwa" the following claims are linked in the post, here:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135609
Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.I'm extremely confused about this reference. First of all, the target in your link is not the same as your link address; secondly, I cannot find these statements that you quote; thirdly, you're taking as legitimate some anonymous person posting on James Randi's forum who claims that another poster named "Heiwa" is in fact Bjorkman. Do you really think the real Bjorkman would post these statements about himself?
What's the deal, Contrarianna? What exactly are you citing here? Do you even know?
I don't think research is your forte. Maybe you should go back to reading Rolling Stone...
I'm extremely sorry you are "extremely confused", but the link is fine.
Try counting down 14 lines (that's 10 fingers + 4 toes) till you get the bulleted entries which I pasted (without the bullets).
Unlike my entries, the original linked posts take you to the many individual "Heiwa" (Bjorkman) posts.
Obviously "Heiwa" (Bjorkman's marine company) is not "posting these things about himself", as reading comprehension would reveal. The links are to HIS statements in HIS posts--unless someone in the CIA is impersonating him.
(Possible, I suppose, but unlikely given the posts on this page):
http://boards.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=7140&page=2
Post #23
Me, Anders Björkman, a.k.a. Heiwa mad? Sorry, after having graduated from Chalmers University of Technology 1969 with high grades in structural design and analysis I have had a very successful 40+ years career.Only fools (like NIST) believe that a structure A can be crushed down by a little top piece C of A dropping from above on A! Actually little C can never apply sufficient force/energy on A to crush A. C will just bounce on and be arrested on top of A!
Quite basic actually. I have explained it at my company web page several times - http://heiwaco.tripod.com
also
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm
Though it hardly matters.
