Nation building

wrote:
Terry Morse wrote:
wrote:

You will recall how even the press ridiculed anyone who expressed
doubt about the collapse of Bldgs 1 & 2 and 7 with was not hit by
anything.

Building 7 was indeed hit. It was severely damaged when one of the
towers fell nearby.

Occam's Razor.

In addition, nothing in this administration's near-flawless
record of hubris, incomplete execution, and incompetence
suggests that they are even remotely capable of successfully
carrying out and subsequently concealing an enterprise
so large as a concocted 9/11 attack.


The most likely scenario is the guilt of complacency. They'd had a
hardon for invading Iraq since day one, get a briefing calling an
attack a 10/10 possibility, and do a little "get funky with the rhesus
monkey" dance--as an attack on American soil is a green card to do
pretty much whatever you want militarily. I don't see how there could
have been such an "incredible" amounts of failures on that day
otherwise. What they didn't predict was the severity of the attack.
They likely thought it would be one bomb or one plane, and had a
holy**** moment when they found out about the magnitude of the
operation.

The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but that's
outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig the building.

Mark Hickey wrote:
"Bill Sornson" wrote:

Right. Jobst posts a 9-11 conspiracy theory on a cycling newsgroup -- not
once but twice -- and we're deranged. (And, since he used the Commission
Report in his mad rant, I commented on it. Shocking.)

I'll take being "deranged" over being "hopelessly naive" I suppose.
;-)

Can you even imagine the level of secrecy it would take to plan and
install explosive charges capable of collapsing a skyscraper? Can you
imagine working it out so that they'd be at the same level that some
novice non-pilots would hit? Can you even imagine how hard it would
be to sneak in, demolish the interior of the office space to get to
the support structure, then patch it up before anyone saw evidence of
the "work" being done?

I can't.

One could also question "why". Would there really be a huge
difference in our reaction if the buildings had not collapsed?
Thousands of civilians would have still died, including all those we
saw leaping from the top when the flames were simply causing too much
pain to endure.

But I suppose it's just more proof that logic and fact have little
place in political discussions these days.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark:

since you bring up logic, I feel compelled to respond. I am not sure of
what brought the towers down. However, logically, the official
explanation alone does not account for how neatly they felt down,
defying the laws of physics. While I don't necessarily buy the
alternative models proposed, I do want an explanation that is more
logical. The reason all these conspiracy theories are emerging and
dipersing is exactly because the given explanations do not make that
much sense. The same holds true for the crash in the pentagon. The
damage and debris do not correspond to a jumbo jet. Empirical evidence
of large airplanes crashing show that debris and bodies and stuff gets
dispersed over a large radius and cause considerable damage.

Andres

On 07 Oct 2006 18:53:45 GMT, wrote:

R Brickston writes:

Technically speaking:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=911+mysteries

What is your exact position on the premise of the video?

My inexact, non-personal opinion is:

It is more credible than any explanations for the chain of events put
forth in the 911 Commission Report. I shows many events for which the
report has no reasonable explanations. The immediate destruction and
removal of all structural evidence is the final straw. Demolition
experts could in one glance recognize the results of explosive effects
on the core structure. It was such dangerous hazardous material that
only the wrecking crew could see and touch it, if you believe that.

This event is so sensitive for our nation that no one wants to face
its origins and purpose. It rattles at the fundamentals of our nation
and its government. The alternative is denial and to ignore it.
There have been other nations where similar but smaller events were
perpetrated for similar ends. We are at war and getting deeper so
every day.

Jobst Brandt

heh.

Ron

Landotter who? writes:

You will recall how even the press ridiculed anyone who expressed
doubt about the collapse of Bldgs 1 & 2 and 7 with was not hit by
anything.

Building 7 was indeed hit. It was severely damaged when one of the
towers fell nearby.

Occam's Razor.

In addition, nothing in this administration's near-flawless record
of hubris, incomplete execution, and incompetence suggests that
they are even remotely capable of successfully carrying out and
subsequently concealing an enterprise so large as a concocted 9/11
attack.

The most likely scenario is the guilt of complacency. They'd had a
hardon for invading Iraq since day one, get a briefing calling an
attack a 10/10 possibility, and do a little "get funky with the
rhesus monkey" dance--as an attack on American soil is a green card
to do pretty much whatever you want militarily. I don't see how
there could have been such an "incredible" amounts of failures on
that day otherwise. What they didn't predict was the severity of the
attack. They likely thought it would be one bomb or one plane, and
had a holy**** moment when they found out about the magnitude of the
operation.

The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but
that's outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig
the building.

I see you have not seen how large structures are laid flat by well
placed charges. Seeing the buildings come down immediately raises
questions for anyone who has done such things. I learned all about
this in the US Army Corps of Engineers where we cut steel beams and RR
rails with trivial amounts of TNT and primachord. Plastic explosive
did an even cleaner job.

In these courses, movies of charge placement and demolition were shown
before performing field work on similar steel beams. Explosive
charges placed at the base of main girders in such a building would be
less conspicuous than a mop bucket left by janitors. I do not claim to
know that this is what was done but saying it isn't possible is
sticking ones head in the sand.

Jobst Brandt

wrote:
Landotter who? writes:

You will recall how even the press ridiculed anyone who expressed
doubt about the collapse of Bldgs 1 & 2 and 7 with was not hit by
anything.

Building 7 was indeed hit. It was severely damaged when one of the
towers fell nearby.

Occam's Razor.

In addition, nothing in this administration's near-flawless record
of hubris, incomplete execution, and incompetence suggests that
they are even remotely capable of successfully carrying out and
subsequently concealing an enterprise so large as a concocted 9/11
attack.

The most likely scenario is the guilt of complacency. They'd had a
hardon for invading Iraq since day one, get a briefing calling an
attack a 10/10 possibility, and do a little "get funky with the
rhesus monkey" dance--as an attack on American soil is a green card
to do pretty much whatever you want militarily. I don't see how
there could have been such an "incredible" amounts of failures on
that day otherwise. What they didn't predict was the severity of the
attack. They likely thought it would be one bomb or one plane, and
had a holy**** moment when they found out about the magnitude of the
operation.

The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but
that's outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig
the building.

I see you have not seen how large structures are laid flat by well
placed charges. Seeing the buildings come down immediately raises
questions for anyone who has done such things. I

I've seen plenty of buildings leveled both on the telly and a couple in
real life. That's sure what it looked like. I know those charges are
small, and could be set off by remote--but to rig an entire building
would be pretty hard. I used to work as a bike messenger in Chicago, so
I've been in and out of many many skyscrapers, and with my experience
of security, it's obviously only possible as an inside job...Marvin
Bush *did* run Securacom, which handled WTC security...but only till
2000.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:06:53 GMT, R Brickston
rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote:

The loon's video referenced by Jobst is total crap.

[snip]

Dear R.,

A non-bicycling friend just emailed me to ask if I knew of any on-line
parody that debunks the alleged Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

He's looking for something along the lines of "Awfully convenient that
the supposedly sunken ships are out of sight underwater."

Do you know of anything humorous like that, perhaps something from the
Onion or the Weekly Standard?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On 8 Oct 2006 14:14:28 -0700, "landotter" wrote:


The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but that's
outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig the building.

The WTC towers are not built like any other building, that's why bin
laden chose them. Had these planes flown into two steel girder
buildings, such as the Empire State, the results would have been
different.

On 8 Oct 2006 14:27:20 -0700, wrote:


since you bring up logic, I feel compelled to respond. I am not sure of
what brought the towers down. However, logically, the official
explanation alone does not account for how neatly they felt down,
defying the laws of physics.

The WTC towers are not built like any other building, that's why bin
laden chose them. Had these planes flown into two steel girder
buildings, such as the Empire State, the results would have been
different.

While I don't necessarily buy the
alternative models proposed, I do want an explanation that is more
logical. The reason all these conspiracy theories are emerging and
dipersing is exactly because the given explanations do not make that
much sense. The same holds true for the crash in the pentagon. The
damage and debris do not correspond to a jumbo jet. Empirical evidence
of large airplanes crashing show that debris and bodies and stuff gets
dispersed over a large radius and cause considerable damage.

The Pentagon bs has been thoroughly and completely debunked:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

On 08 Oct 2006 21:44:11 GMT, wrote:


I see you have not seen how large structures are laid flat by well
placed charges. Seeing the buildings come down immediately raises
questions for anyone who has done such things. I learned all about
this in the US Army Corps of Engineers where we cut steel beams and RR
rails with trivial amounts of TNT and primachord. Plastic explosive
did an even cleaner job.

In these courses, movies of charge placement and demolition were shown
before performing field work on similar steel beams. Explosive
charges placed at the base of main girders in such a building would be
less conspicuous than a mop bucket left by janitors. I do not claim to
know that this is what was done but saying it isn't possible is
sticking ones head in the sand.

Jobst Brandt

Jobst, really, you should know better, because as an engineer and
pretty smart person, I'm sure you researched and know the real reasons
for the WTC towers coming down.
-------------------------------------------

It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition

What else is a large building collapse going to look like?

Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings
was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast
towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building
starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the
initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled
demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse
of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it
looked just like a landslide caused by explosives.

One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled
demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the
weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high
in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a
radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade
Center?

Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition
theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and
World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of
Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in
controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.

Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the
televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck.
But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away
what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower
was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would
follow," remembers Mark.

Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders
streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and
unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was
called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for
demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly
damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux
family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply,"
says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know
how we would have done it."

So according to the world experts on building demolition:

* It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
* They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in
a controlled demolition.

Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the
plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later
being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly
proves something. Or other.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

R Brickston wrote:
On 8 Oct 2006 14:14:28 -0700, "landotter" wrote:


The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but that's
outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig the building.

The WTC towers are not built like any other building, that's why bin
laden chose them. Had these planes flown into two steel girder
buildings, such as the Empire State, the results would have been
different.

Really? Bin Laden wasn't the mastermind behind the attack, Khalid Sheik
Muhammed was. Did you speak to him personally about his strategy? Did
ya'll have sweet Arab tea and discuss engineering? What part of
designed-to-survive-a-707 didn't you understand?

The likely reason these two buildings were chosen is their prestige,
the fact that there were two of them, and being on the edge of
Manhattan, they were easy to hit. The ESB's location in Manhattan would
have made it significantly harder to hit. Duh.