Saturday, November 18, 2006

On Native Soil

I got On Native Soil via Netflix the other day and finally got around to watching it. First of all, it is extremely critical of the 9/11 commission, both the Bush and Clinton Administration, and even the military. It is starts out as a movie about the 9/11 commission, but also adds to this in reviewing the problems that the government had responding to the attacks, as well as the problems it needs to fix in the future.

It is rather interesting overall though, as it involves several interviews with survivors of the attack, including one of the dog handlers for the bomb sniffing dogs at the WTC (who supposedly were pulled the week before), and a couple who talked on the phone to their son on one of the ill-fated planes, up until the moment he died. In my opinion, a legitimate argument can be made, as this movie does, that the government screwed up and things need to be changed, but this has nothing to do with the government pulling it off.

Maybe Kevin Costner is in on the coverup?

65 Comments:

At 18 November, 2006 09:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

Thanks for this post. It's the kind of positive bringing into focus related information that I respect this blog for.

 
At 18 November, 2006 09:35, Blogger Dog Town said...

Just like the supposed power down, I doubt there is any real proof, the bomb dogs were sent off the job, before 911! Like to see legit proof of either. Doubt it!
Scott " does he even exist" Forbes, ain't gonna cut it!

 
At 18 November, 2006 09:36, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

BG:

I am actually, at present date, an LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Incompetence). I have no doubt that the bumbling, stupid, arrogant BUSH admin were incompetent/ignorant in the events leading up to 9/11.

I have not been show, in any way shape or form, solid evidence to prove any active role the USG had in planning or carrying out 9/11.

TAM

 
At 18 November, 2006 09:49, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

COME ON!!
WAKE UP!!
TERROR STORM SAYS THE GOVERNMENT DID IT!!
SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!

 
At 18 November, 2006 09:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Artistic Macrophage,

I'm glad you reading and posting comments.

If I didn't have somebody debating / commenting, it wouldn't stimulate my mind or make this blog interesting.

 
At 18 November, 2006 09:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lying_Dylan,

I agree that one aspect of Terror Storm can be seen as a logically fallacy of saying just because it has been done before, it means they did it on 9/11.

I don't support that logic.

 
At 18 November, 2006 10:20, Blogger James B. said...

I worded this badly. The bomb sniffing dogs were not pulled from the WTC. The police officer was working that day, when the attacks happened, he put his dog in the kennel underneath one of the towers. He was later one of the few people to survive the collapse in stairway B. After being rescued he actually tried to get back to his dog, Sirius, who now has a statue dedicated to him.

 
At 18 November, 2006 10:29, Blogger Dog Town said...

No James, I got what you were saying. It just made me realise, that the dogs being pulled, was as bogus as the power down. Neither have any proof that they really happened. Yet twoofers always bring it up.

 
At 18 November, 2006 10:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TAM,

the idea that "9/11 was an inside job" is a product of realising that:

1) no plane or hijacker or any other identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for what happened to WTC 7.

2) no Commercial Airliner or other identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for what happened at the Pentagon.

3) no Commerical Airliner or other identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for "blowing up" wtc1, and wtc2

4) no identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for the suppressing of the arrest of most of the hijackers before 9/11 (note: Colleen Rowley, Minneapolis, for example)

5) no identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for the Kangaroo Court prosecution of Moussiaui

This is just a start.

 
At 18 November, 2006 10:56, Blogger Dog Town said...

This is just a start.

You should quit now, before falling even furhter behind!
Those are the five strangest points, I have seen in a while. As in, none of them make sense.
Try again?

 
At 18 November, 2006 11:00, Blogger Alex said...

that the dogs being pulled

OH MY GOD, they BLEW UP THE DOGS?!?! That's SO cruel!


On a different note:

James, ofcourse the government screwed up. It's a case of apathy. I can't remember who said it, but it's an excellent quote:

"Civilizations fall because people bitch and complain when the electricity is off for fifteen minutes, and never give a thought to the fact that it has been on for their entire lives."

People get used to not getting attacked; to having the government protect them. Then they complain about this and that, they pull funding from government programs, they slowly degrade the security blanket that they've grown accustomed to it. The politicians go along with it because it helps them get elected. Until one day, the security blanket lies in tatters, and then you get attacked. After which people automatically look to pin the blame on someone.

Want someone to blame? Look in the mirror. The government can't accomplish anything without it's citizens.

 
At 18 November, 2006 11:08, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

- No one said a plane or terrorists hit WTC7.

- a guy with little training hit the Pentagon 3 times in 3 efforts on a flight simulator in a Dutch documentary.

- wtc1, and wtc2 were not "blown up"

- no one said a terrorist was resposible for not arresting hijackers.

- no one said a terrorist conducted the prosecution of Moussiaui

You sure love strawman arguments don't you?

Tell us more about the 9/11 Beam Weapon, BG...

 
At 18 November, 2006 11:15, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Tam:
I see that BG didnt answer your question but used the old "but of course it wasnt a terrorist" arguement.
When I was a child I used that same arguement with my brother whenever I farted:
"but of course it was you".

 
At 18 November, 2006 11:16, Blogger Alex said...

"Who smelt it dealt it!"

Proof positive that BG demolished WTC7.

 
At 18 November, 2006 12:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dog_town,

The only two reasons that I can think of to explain why you haven't seen these points before are:

1) You haven't studied 9/11

and / or

2) There really are disinfo agents who destroy the credibility of honest voices.

 
At 18 November, 2006 12:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

You wasted comment space with:

1) no good arguments against my contentions,

2) a lame baiting about the Judy Wood's beam weapon proposal.

Take your consolation prize. Come and try again when you can make a better shot.

 
At 18 November, 2006 12:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lying_Dylan said...

Tam:
I see that BG didnt answer your question but used the old "but of course it wasnt a terrorist" arguement.


I would contend that I answered TAM's question elegantly, honestly, and conclusively.

 
At 18 November, 2006 12:17, Blogger Dog Town said...

The only two reasons that I can think of to explain why you haven't seen these points before are:

Never said I did not see them before. I said they were strange, as in make no sense. Jeeze.. try and keep up. Try the other pills, gotta be better than the ones you are taking now!

 
At 18 November, 2006 12:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dog_Town,

Do you have any insight into what happened to WTC 7 or are you just waiting for that amazing NIST report to come out?

 
At 18 November, 2006 12:28, Blogger Alex said...

We all know roughly what happened to WTC7, and we've explained it to you before. That you're not willing to listen is your own damn problem; just don't pretend you haven't already been answered.

 
At 18 November, 2006 12:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a Link to last night's BBC Video "News Night"

This is perfect example of how mis-direction (in the sense of a magic trick) is used to hide the truth about state sponsored terrorism.

 
At 18 November, 2006 12:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

About wtc 7:

How is it that hot fires and severe damage to parts of a building rig it for a perfect controlled demo complete with a obvious "dropping" of part of the Penthouse a few seconds before the rest is dropped?

 
At 18 November, 2006 12:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah i see u are accusing others now also about not studying 9/11 properly BG.

So can u plz enlighten us dumb folks how u studied 9/11 and how u came to the conclusion that it was all dome bt the American government.

So can u give us sites and/or movies uve seen that u have studied about 9/11. And be specific.

Maybe u watched things we might have missed...

 
At 18 November, 2006 13:00, Blogger Alex said...

*sigh*

For the five billionth time, the building was cantilevered over a power plant. When the center of the building collapses first, you'd rather expect the penthouse to dip, now wouldn't you?

I swear, I'd have more luck talking to a wall.

 
At 18 November, 2006 13:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay said...

Ah i see u are accusing others now also about not studying 9/11 properly BG.

So can u plz enlighten us dumb folks how u studied 9/11 and how u came to the conclusion that it was all dome bt the American government.


No one has said that I'm aware of has accused the whole American Govt. for 9/1. I think, pending an investigation, the words "an inside job" are more appropriate.

Do I think some specific behavior of FBI Managers is extremely incriminating? Of course.

 
At 18 November, 2006 13:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex said...

*sigh*

For the five billionth time, the building was cantilevered over a power plant. When the center of the building collapses first, you'd rather expect the penthouse to dip, now wouldn't you?

I swear, I'd have more luck talking to a wall.


Alex,

I either have to fault you for your reasoning ability (thinking the unique aspect of the construction of wtc 7 can account for what we see on 9/11) or you allegiance (meaning you are helping with the cover up).

I don't want to attack you movtives, so that leaves your reasoning ability.

 
At 18 November, 2006 13:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, so u say it was an inside job. Do u have any proof at all about that, since u obviously studied it, it shouldn't be that hard to present us with that evidence.

Remember, we didn't study it as u said, so plz enlighten us with your evidence.

 
At 18 November, 2006 13:34, Blogger Manny said...

"Civilizations fall because people bitch and complain when the electricity is off for fifteen minutes, and never give a thought to the fact that it has been on for their entire lives."

Yep. And the fact that the political class (including bloggers, etc.) have decided that "screening" equals "accuastion" or at least "investigation."

Because of the specifics of 9-11, most people today wouldn't object to the government screening for, say, "foreigners from Arab countries who are taking flight lessons." But imagine if, even today, the New York Times reported that the FBI had run a screen for "devout Muslims who receive advanced self-defense training (say, brown belt or above) and who have received money from overseas." The politigensia would have a cow! There would be congressional hearings and pious calls for resignations and indignant snorts about preserving rights. And the people would either stay silent or agree with the indignation.

We got attacked because we chose to get attacked. Our political class values their self-satisfactory smugness over lives, and the American people agree. I won't argue here whether that was or is the right choice -- people make all kinds of decisions which cost thouands of lives all the time. But let's not pretend that the people of the US were crying out for protection from the people waging war on us and their representatives were ignoring them.

 
At 18 November, 2006 13:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay,

The first book that I would recommend to get your bearing on what happened on 9/11 is Tarpley's "9/11 Synthetic Terror". There are excerpts in pdf form from previous editions. Would you like a url?

 
At 18 November, 2006 13:48, Blogger James B. said...

BG, I am not sure why you are so excited by this documentary, the entire premise of it is that 19 Arabs carried out the attacks. It even features the families of the victiims who were on the other side of the phone calls. They didn't seem to think they were fake. The movie doesn't even hint at a government conspiracy.

 
At 18 November, 2006 14:12, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

He got excited because he had a pre conceived notion that it would show that the government was inept and according to the Tin Foil Hatters that is a clear sign that they were in on it.

Either that or was off of his meds.

 
At 18 November, 2006 14:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...

BG, I am not sure why you are so excited by this documentary, the entire premise of it is that 19 Arabs carried out the attacks. It even features the families of the victiims who were on the other side of the phone calls. They didn't seem to think they were fake. The movie doesn't even hint at a government conspiracy.


James,

It's not a matter of me being excited by this documentary.

My praise is a matter of what I consider to be "fair play" and intellectual honesty.

You and Pat have shown what I considerable an admirable tolerance for various viewpoints in the way you have handled comments here as well as other issues.

The fact that you allowed me to post about "9/11 Eyewitness" showed good faith.

I don't believe the path to truth about 9/11, on this blog and other "free speech" platforms, requires anything else.

Lately, from my perspective, you have fallen into posting mocking or ad hominem attacks as posts. Perhaps that is what your audience appreciates.

In any case, I'll continue to praise any posts you make which steer clear of defamation disguised as argumentation.

 
At 18 November, 2006 14:27, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Lately, from my perspective, you have fallen into posting mocking or ad hominem attacks as posts. Perhaps that is what your audience appreciates.

LOL!!

The 9-11 denial movement on A REGULAR BASIS paints a picture that 100 ir not thousands of people were complicate to mass murder.
The 9-11 demial movement on COUNTLESS OCCASIONS mocked the passengers of flight 93.

Now you come along and about the only thing you can say is that you feel "mocked"

BOO HOO HOOO

 
At 18 November, 2006 14:36, Blogger ConsDemo said...

"There really are disinfo agents who destroy the credibility of honest voices."

What honest voices? The Denial movement is a religion of hatred for America. America is evil, ipso facto, it killed its own citizens on 9/11,despite ample evidence it was done by Islamic militants. They believe this because they want to believe, it is convenient to their world view. Still no video of the "CIA demolition team" that supposedly placed explosives all over the WTC while no one saw them. There are no "honest voices" in the denier "movement."

 
At 18 November, 2006 15:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BG, why is it so hard to believe that terrorists took over multiple planes at the same time? It has happened before, so why couldn't it have happen now?

 
At 18 November, 2006 15:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay said...
BG, why is it so hard to believe that terrorists took over multiple planes at the same time?


My thought process about accepting or not accepting the govt. story has nothing to do with thinking that it is unlikely for 4 hijackings happened at the same time.

You really have a lot to learn, Jay.

Here's one chapter, VI: THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 1, 2, AND 7 of Tarpley's book.

 
At 18 November, 2006 15:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ConsDemo said... ...


Have you paid any attention to David Ray Griffin, ConsDemo?

 
At 18 November, 2006 15:45, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 18 November, 2006 15:47, Blogger pomeroo said...

So Tarpley continues to distort Louis Cacchioli's words? Now, if this latest liar is recycling all of the fraudulent quotes that have been repudiated by the firemen who felt themselves to be exploited and misrepresented by the fantasy movement, why should we pay attention to his other falsehoods?

3:45 PM

 
At 18 November, 2006 15:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a lot to learn??

Are you for real?

U got your nose so high up your own ass that its frightening.

About those firefighters that heard explosions. I have a few 100 transcripts from the same firefighters that only hear rumbles when the towers come down.

And the fires were out of control to put those out, so it was only rescue operations.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110142.PDF

But i guess they are full of shit.

 
At 18 November, 2006 16:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay,

I am completely in the dark as to what this link:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110142.PDF

that you provide is supposed to prove or disprove.

I have reviewed this file and others carefully.

I find that nothing in this pdf has any bearing on the evidence showing WTC 1 and 2 were "blown up" by something.

 
At 18 November, 2006 16:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uhm, you give me some link to a fucking idiot named Tarpley who comes with the claim that FIREMEN WERE CONFIDENT OF EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE

Which is a complete lie.
The whole paper is a collection of lies.

 
At 18 November, 2006 16:29, Blogger ConsDemo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 18 November, 2006 16:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well i'm glad u studied the 9/11 attacks by reading reports like these. That means we don't have to take u seriously anymore, if someone over here already took you serious that is.

 
At 18 November, 2006 16:56, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Bj, Griffin claims America orchestrated an attack on itself to achieve world domination. He offers no evidence, he merely asserts it is so. Exactly how does is not fit my description of the Denier movement.

 
At 18 November, 2006 16:58, Blogger ConsDemo said...

erratta: I meant to say "how does this not..."

 
At 18 November, 2006 17:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ConsDemo,

Two things,

1) You characterization of Griffin is not accurate.

2) The approach you seem to be taking to this is a form of "foregone conclusion" or begging the question.

It seems to flow as follows;

1. Anyone who thinks that 9/11 was made to happen for US Empire is crazy.

2. Crazy People shouldn't be listened to.

Therefore;

9/11 could not have be caused to happen for US Empire.
=================================
Welcome to being another person in denial that insults us all as thinking human beings.

 
At 18 November, 2006 17:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talking about being in denial....

Your replies are getting more funnier everytime :)

 
At 18 November, 2006 17:37, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

It must be close to his evening dose.

 
At 18 November, 2006 17:53, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

BG:

I didn't really ask a question anyway, but what I did say was that I have been shown NO, NONE, NADDA, in terms of proof that 9/11 was anything but a terrorist attack by al-qaeda on the USA. Could it have been prevented, perhaps, could the govt done more, likely, but did they have a hand in its orchestration or planning...not from what has been shown me as of todays date.


the idea that "9/11 was an inside job" is a product of realising that:

1) no plane or hijacker or any other identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for what happened to WTC 7.


Directly, no terrorist was responsible for WTC7. It fell as the result of fire and collateral damage from the 9/11 attacks. Noone has proven to me otherwise. i believe the results/conclusionsof the NIST Interim Report on WTC7.


2) no Commercial Airliner or other identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for what happened at the Pentagon.



There is ample evidence that the hijackers were adequately trained to fly the planes they did, once airborne. The teacher at the school where Hanjour trained stated that while he was not a good pilot, that he could have flown the plane into the pentagon once airborn.


3) no Commerical Airliner or other identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for "blowing up" wtc1, and wtc2


Atta was a college trained man. he had his pilots licence. He managed to land his practice plane on a highway, no small feat for a "shitty" pilot. I think he could control a plane, through autopilot, or not, enough to run it into the WTC, same with Marwan Al-shehhi


4) no identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for the suppressing of the arrest of most of the hijackers before 9/11 (note: Colleen Rowley, Minneapolis, for example)


Clarification as to your point here. Are you saying that the FBI (1) knew these terrorists were in the USA (I am not convinced, but have seen some documentation), and (2) that they knew they were going to pull off 9/11 but allowed them to remain free? (seen NO evidence to indicate this)


5) no identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for the Kangaroo Court prosecution of Moussiaui


No terrorists were responsible for the trial. Moussaoui was part of the planning of the "planes" mission for al-qaeda, but obviously did not actually carry out the attacks. KSM was the mastermind, as he has confessed. He will see his day on trial.

TAM

 
At 18 November, 2006 18:48, Blogger James B. said...

BG, we have written over 800 posts in the last 6 months, many of them address specific issues, others just make fun of people. It is freedom of speech, you have the right to say stupid things, and we have the right to call you stupid for saying them.

I have read Griffin's first two books. The idea that he is some exalted scholar is a joke. He is dishonest to the point of being delusional.

Griffin on planes at the Pentagon

 
At 18 November, 2006 22:55, Blogger ConsDemo said...

"1. Anyone who thinks that 9/11 was made to happen for US Empire is crazy.

2. Crazy People shouldn't be listened to."

BJ, you used to word "crazy", not I, perhaps it is a freudian slip on your part. I said you and your ilk hate America and believe 9/11 was an inside job because you want to believe it. In a sense you Deniers are much like a religion although at least the major religions are largely based on good intentions, your "movement" is based on hate.

"Welcome to being another person in denial that insults us all as thinking human beings."

Drop the self-pity, you Deniers are the champion mudslingers and engage in outrageous slander. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 
At 18 November, 2006 22:58, Blogger ConsDemo said...

A comment on the topic of the thread. I think I saw this on A&E awhile back and it was narrated by Costner and Hillary Swank. It is in no way an endorsement of the conpsiracy theories but rather a history of the drive to get the 9/11 commission started. It also does reveal numerous mishaps up to 9/11.

 
At 18 November, 2006 23:23, Blogger Yatesey said...

I don't post much, but I have to say it's really amusing when these people(NESNYC, P'Doh, Swing and BG) come in here all self important and talk as if their thoughts or opinions have any sort of bearing on this blog, or those reading it.

BG, thanks for the amusing posts. People like you are one of the main reasons I read this blog.

 
At 19 November, 2006 09:04, Blogger CHF said...

You wasted comment space with:
1) no good arguments against my contentions,


I showed that your arguments are based on strawman arguments, you stupid fuck.

2) a lame baiting about the Judy Wood's beam weapon proposal.

Which you believe!

BG, were you off in some alley doing Crystal Meth while you were away?

 
At 19 November, 2006 12:03, Blogger Alex said...

I'm surprised none of you bothered ripping BG a new a$$hole over this:

I either have to fault you for your reasoning ability (thinking the unique aspect of the construction of wtc 7 can account for what we see on 9/11) or you allegiance (meaning you are helping with the cover up).

Yes, you're absolutely right BG. Every building, regardless of design, load, or damage, should fail exactly the same way. WTC7 coming down should look exactly the same as that time when your crappy little tree house fell down, right?

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself BG. Explain, in one short paragraph or less, WHY the center of a building usually dips down first during controlled demolition. I doubt that you know the answer right now, but I figure if you research it for yourself you might actually keep your mind open to new things, whereas if I give you the answer you'll just accuse me of being a Zionist agent again.

I'll be waiting for your answer.

 
At 19 November, 2006 12:40, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I would still like to hear the CT answer to why a building that they allege had "little damage" done to it, and only "small minor fires" (WTC7), was leaning significantly for hours prior to its collapse, as testified to by multiple witnesses.

TAM

 
At 19 November, 2006 18:02, Blogger R.Lange said...

Re: Firefighters and WTC7...

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
--
Hayden: [...] By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. [...]
--


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
--
Boyle: [...] So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

[...] We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. [...]
--


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/claes.html
--
We were kept away from building 7 because of the potential of collapse.
--


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html
--
Some stuff was burning. Buildings were burning, 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved.
--


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html
--
Norman: [...] From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn't really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
--


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/pfiefer.html
--
Pfiefer: Dennis Tardio was coming down the C stairs in building 7. At about the 9th or 10th floor, he met my brother Kevin, who told Dennis, you can't get down these stairs, there was all sorts of debris. He directed him to the B stairs and, according to Captain Tardio, they got out of the building and 30 seconds later it started collapsing. [...]
--

 
At 20 November, 2006 15:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TAM,

I only now realized when reading this that you asked me questions that I haven't addressed. Will work on tonight.

 
At 20 November, 2006 15:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

You asked me,

WHY the center of a building usually dips down first during controlled demolition

My answer, without any googling is as follows:

1) I don't know how common "dips" like what we saw in bldg 7 are.

2) I think what you are calling dips are a sign of critical inner supports being blown.

3) If I'm right the reason for destroying critical inner support structures does several things:

a) weakens the general structure
b) takes away resistance of the rest of the building against falling in on itself

In closing, the reason for believing that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition go far beyond whether or not one sees dips or otherwise.

Furthermore, it does seem like you are giving any credit to part of the "penthouse" at WTC7 dropping two or three seconds before the massive collapse.

 
At 20 November, 2006 15:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

R.Lange said...

Your listing of all those stories, and your idea that those stories disprove controlled demolition in any way shows your complete lack of still with video evidence and applied physics.

 
At 20 November, 2006 15:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yatesey,

Glad I can be of service......

 
At 20 November, 2006 15:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TAM,

4) no identified "terrorist" could have been responsible for the suppressing of the arrest of most of the hijackers before 9/11 (note: Colleen Rowley, Minneapolis, for example)

Clarification as to your point here. Are you saying that the FBI (1) knew these terrorists were in the USA (I am not convinced, but have seen some documentation), and (2) that they knew they were going to pull off 9/11 but allowed them to remain free? (seen NO evidence to indicate this)


I am saying that the whole of the story points directly to the idea the some in the FBI was protecting the "patsies".

If all of the hijackers had been rounded up by law enforcement, there's nobody to conveniently blame 9/11 on.

It would have only taken a few "inside moles" in the FBI.

No satisfactory explanation has been provide for why Rowley (and others who were pushing for action) were ignored.

 
At 20 November, 2006 18:02, Blogger Alex said...

1) I don't know how common "dips" like what we saw in bldg 7 are.

What the hell? 5 posts back you were telling me that this dip is "a clear sign of demolition". Now you're saying you don't even know how common it is? Which one is it???

2) I think what you are calling dips are a sign of critical inner supports being blown.

Wow, your first time getting something right. Congrats. Now let's see where you go with it.

In closing, the reason for believing that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition go far beyond whether or not one sees dips or otherwise.

Well where the fuck are they??? The only thing you mentioned was the penthouse dipping! Not only that but you've just admitted to not even knowing whether the penthouse dipping is normal in a CD! So you've actually made your own assertion irrelevant, while not providing ANY additional evidence.

Furthermore, it does seem like you are giving any credit to part of the "penthouse" at WTC7 dropping two or three seconds before the massive collapse.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't even a real sentence. At least, the grammatical fault contained within your statement have made it impossible for me to parse it. In any event, you've just told me that you don't know whether it's normal for the penthouse to dip like that, so why are you bringing it up AGAIN?

 
At 20 November, 2006 18:05, Blogger Alex said...

Your listing of all those stories, and your idea that those stories disprove controlled demolition in any way shows your complete lack of still with video evidence and applied physics.

You know, you would have made a more valid point if you had just said "yo mama!".

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home