Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Alex Jones Losing It

Alex Jones, caught on video in a couple of Youtube posts, from the recent Austin 9/11 nutjob conference continues to entertain, if only because he has become a parody of himself as a paranoid conspiracy theorist. This part is about a minute into the second link:

They were like some mid-level Capo carrying out orders from the Don, the big corporate board rooms, who had all of their top think tanks draw up plans. Not just PNAC, but scores of think tanks saying, giant terror attack, huge catalyzing event, We gotta have it, or we are going to lose control, the New World Order is failing, we have spent hundreds of years building this, we gotta have something bad! We have to unify the people, we have to unify the emperium, we have to launch the war. We gotta have something! We gotta have something! YOU UNDERSTAND WE GOTTA HAVE SOMETHING! EXECUTE IT! EXECUTE IT! LOOK THE STOCK MARKET IS GOING DOWN! EXECUTE! EXECUTE! It is all a desperation tactic because their system is imploding, their system is failing! (applause)

Well I have to get to class, we have a lecture today on improving after tax returns on investment through the use of poisoned vaccines and chemtrails. Did you know that you could get a tax credit for media shills?

Labels:

111 Comments:

At 18 April, 2007 13:35, Blogger CHF said...

We have to unify the people, we have to unify the emperium, we have to launch the war. We gotta have something! We gotta have something! YOU UNDERSTAND WE GOTTA HAVE SOMETHING! EXECUTE IT! EXECUTE IT! LOOK THE STOCK MARKET IS GOING DOWN! EXECUTE! EXECUTE!

Sorry, I didn't catch your plan.

What are you gonna do?

 
At 18 April, 2007 13:45, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

If they've been working on it for hundreds of years then it's hardly a "new" world order now is it?

 
At 18 April, 2007 14:29, Blogger Triterope said...

Alex Jones has got to be driving himself absolutely insane.

He's convinced himself that he's this tremendously important source of information about crucial world events. He lives in constant fear of being murdered, tortured, or worse by the evil network he struggles to expose. His radio show puts him under pressure to produce hours of new information every week, not only for the cause, but for his own livelihood.

Meanwhile, in reality, he freely walks around Austin, Texas, completely ignored. His fervent pleas about the future of the human society are met with with an tsunami of indifference from the very people he wishes to save. He's forced to live for confrontation, because people getting pissed off at his bullhorn antics is his only proof that he actually exists. He lives in a vacuum. His life's work is to talk to no one about nothing.

If I was Alex Jones, I'd have a bigger blow habit than the entire roster of the 1986 New York Mets. How he gets through the day, I really don't know.

 
At 18 April, 2007 14:37, Blogger sggw said...

And all these people have kept their mouths shut for the last 5-6 years LOL

 
At 18 April, 2007 14:43, Blogger James B. said...

BTW, if you think I was exaggerating with all the capital letters and exclamation points, watch the video.

 
At 18 April, 2007 15:11, Blogger tripntraveler said...

In all fairness,AJ lost it, "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away!"

Dog Town.

 
At 18 April, 2007 15:18, Blogger Brian said...

Didn't "9/11 Press For Truth" shut you guys down already? Give me a break. Anyone who spends this much time looking into 9/11 and does not notice the cover-up is a true 9/11 Denier!

 
At 18 April, 2007 15:31, Blogger James B. said...

Huh? How would they shut us down? 911 PFT isn't even LIHOP, much less MIHOP.

 
At 18 April, 2007 15:35, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Didn't "9/11 Press For Truth" shut you guys down already?

Are you advocating censorship?

 
At 18 April, 2007 16:15, Blogger sggw said...

Hey Brian
How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts? If you can do this maybe someone other than lunatics might believe you.

Where is your list of experts that will back up what you claim?

 
At 18 April, 2007 16:17, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Brian:

9/11 - press for truth? oh, you mean that video that basically said we want some questions answered, and made no MIHOP claims at all, and was barely even LIHOP?

That film...ya ok.

TAM:)

 
At 18 April, 2007 16:45, Blogger Edmund Standing said...

If I was Alex Jones, I'd have a bigger blow habit than the entire roster of the 1986 New York Mets.

I remember hearing the WING TV duo discussing the notion that Alex has a long history of cocaine use. Of course, they are 9/11 whackos too. However, more than just those two have noted how AJ looks way older than his claimed age; drug use will do that to you, of course. He actually sounds like a crackhead to me.

 
At 18 April, 2007 17:28, Blogger Brian said...

Press For Truth proves that the 9/11 Commission was nothing more then a cover-up. They ignored the Atta-Pakistani connection, as well as Norman Minetta's testimony, which clearly contradicts the official timeline.
How it is possible that you 9/11 deniers are satisfied with a white-wash commission, headed by a Bush administration insider, Philip Zelikow, who co-wrote a book with Condaleeza Rice, is truly beyond me. As executive director of the commission, he decided what evidence would be considered and what wouldn't. The 9/11 Family Committee called for his resignation. They were ignored. How is this acceptable? The White House essentially ran the investigation through Zelikow. Why did Bush and Cheney insist on testifying together, behind closed doors, NOT under oath? Is this not utterly ludicris?? I'm sorry, I forgot. This behavior is entirely normal and acceptable in the wierd world of 9/11 denial. Why was William Rodriguez's testimony omitted from the report? Why would they only hear him behind closed doors? Why did they ignore numerous survivors and first responders who contradicted the official story? Likewise, how is it acceptable that only 30% of the questions submitted by the Family Steering Committee were even addressed in the final report? These facts alone should be enough to warrant a new investigation.
Why do you continue to ignore 9/11 family members such as Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Donna Marsh O'Connor? Why are you so adamantly opposed to their message? Are you really dedicated to the truth??

 
At 18 April, 2007 17:45, Blogger shawn said...

Press For Truth proves that the 9/11 Commission was nothing more then a cover-up.

You must've got some kind of secret version of Press For Truth that the rest of us didn't have access to.

 
At 18 April, 2007 18:38, Blogger Alex said...

How it is possible that you 9/11 deniers are satisfied with a white-wash commission, headed by a Bush administration insider, Philip Zelikow, who co-wrote a book with Condaleeza Rice, is truly beyond me.

Simple. Because if he really wanted to turn the report into a "whitewash", he would have found a way to pin the whole thing on the Democrats. Bush wasn't in office long enough to do anything about the problems which allowed 9/11 to occur. Any government/military incompetence or negligence would have been present during the Clinton administration too. It would have been simple to say "hey, guess what, during his 8 YEARS in office, Clinton destroyed our security so badly that we couldn't respond to this attack". The fact that the bush admin, and the authors of the 9/11 report, DIDN'T do this tells me that the report is honest and as accurate as was possible at the time.

 
At 18 April, 2007 18:40, Blogger James B. said...

ignored the Atta-Pakistani connection

Yeah, because a single anonymous report in an Indian newspaper overrules the investigation of thousands of FBI, CIA and agents from other agencies, as well as the testimony of hundreds of witnesses. In fact they should have just saved money and scrapped the commission and just based the whole report on the headlines at rense.com.

as well as Norman Minetta's testimony, which clearly contradicts the official timeline.


So you are suggesting they should have ignored all of the rest of the evidence behind the timeline, the dozens of other people and official documents that prove Mineta's timeline was wrong, and just gone with Mineta's version? Or should they have just made fun of him for his version and pointed out all the problems with it?

 
At 18 April, 2007 18:41, Blogger James B. said...

And what the hell does any of this have to do with Alex Jones accusing many US corporations of being behind the attack?

 
At 18 April, 2007 18:50, Blogger MetroidStar890 said...

If the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up, then it was a piss-poor one at best. If the 9/11 Commission was really a cover-up, to further some mysterious NWO agenda, then I'm sure it's suggestions for how to keep us safe would've been absolutley Orwellian, and the Commission would've pinned the blame squarely on opponents of the Bushies.

 
At 18 April, 2007 20:04, Blogger Brian said...

The Pakistani-connection report was credible enough to appear in the Wall Street Journal and to this day it has not been addressed by the commission. And your excuse is that the FBI and CIA would have investigated it? Uhm, not if they were in on it, obviously. If the Pakistani ISI is an arm of the CIA and you have the head of Pakistani Intelligence wiring $100K to the lead hijacker, do you really expect the CIA or FBI to follow this lead?

About Manetta, he contradicted the official timeline of events and even implicated that Dick Cheney was giving orders in regard to Flight 77. I would say this is a pretty significant piece of evidence that warrants further investigation. Perhaps if your mother, father, brother or sister was on that flight or died in the Pentagon you would agree. You are so eager to dismiss any anomoly, even when it's a government official contradicting the official story on the record. Unbelievable!
But even if Manetta is wrong or lying or whatever, why didn't the Commission investigate this obvious discrepancy? Take off your blinders!!!

 
At 18 April, 2007 20:12, Blogger James B. said...

If the Pakistani ISI is an arm of the CIA and you have the head of Pakistani Intelligence wiring $100K to the lead hijacker, do you really expect the CIA or FBI to follow this lead?


ROTFLMAO The ISI is barely even an arm of the Pakistani government, much less the CIA. The idea that this somehow implicates the US government is laughable.

About Manetta, he contradicted the official timeline of events and even implicated that Dick Cheney was giving orders in regard to Flight 77.

Regardless of what you think Minetta implied, Minetta does not believe so. When he was asked by the commission whether there was an order to shoot down planes, he answered that there was. Yet somehow you know more about what he witnessed then he does. Why hasn't Minetta joined the "truth" movement? Hell, he is even a Democrat.

But even if Manetta is wrong or lying or whatever, why didn't the Commission investigate this obvious discrepancy? Take off your blinders!!!


How do you know they didn't? The report was a summary, it did not include every thought, finding, or question asked by every investigator involved in this.

 
At 18 April, 2007 20:34, Blogger Brian said...

Wrong about the ISI. Do your homework. The CIA funds the ISI.

Wrong about Minetta. If it were an order to shoot it down, that means they knew it was heading for the Pentagon. So why wasn't the Pentagon, White House, or Capital Building evacuated? If the 9/11 Commission did indeed investigate his claims and find them to be faulty or misleading, shouldn't they have told the family members? A glaring discrepancy such as this? Give me a break. You got nothing. Go back to sleep, your government loves you.

 
At 18 April, 2007 20:39, Blogger CHF said...

But even if Manetta is wrong or lying or whatever, why didn't the Commission investigate this obvious discrepancy?

I guess they just figured: "well we've got all these timelines and they all mesh pretty well except for this one guy's. In all likely hood he's wrong and everyone else is right - especially when there are obvious flaws in his account."

What we see with your logic is the same idiocy that we see when twoofers try to address the matter of expert backing.

99.9% of the world's engineers have seen nothing seriously wrong with NIST's basic conclusions. Yet when a dental engineer and some philosophy profs disagree with NIST we are expected to throw the 10,000 page report in the garbage and start over since it's obviously wrong.

Think of it this way, Brian...

Let's say you visit 1,000 doctors.

999 say you have cancer.

The other says you're fine.

Who you gonna go with?

 
At 18 April, 2007 20:44, Blogger James B. said...

No, the CIA may have funded some ISI operations, such as the war against the Soviets, but that does not mean they are in control of the ISI. We have unfortunately has given money to plenty of sordid characters that we have very little control over. Hell, we gave Karimov $500 million to let us use his airbase to invade Afghanistan, and he kicked us out.

I am not sure how much clearer I can make this.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

He did not know the specific order, but he quite obviously does not believe there was a stand down order. Answer my question, why isn't Norm Mineta a truther?

 
At 18 April, 2007 20:52, Blogger CHF said...

Funny how twoofers know more about Mineta's claims than Mineta does!

There's a reason why he hasn't protested against his story not being accepted.

He's quite capable of seeing that his timeline is wrong. Twoofers, however, aren't yet willing to let it go.

 
At 18 April, 2007 20:56, Blogger texasjack said...

The funny part about troothers is that nobody can ever be mistaken, they are just plain liars. I wish these people would attend a court trial, where you are constantly presented with conflicting evidence. A jury or judge must way the evidence to determine which is more credible and corroborated, then make their decision.

In the case of Minetta, the overwhelming evidence points away from his time-line, hence it not corroborated by other testimony and evidence. Therefore, he must be mistaken.

Wrong about the ISI. Do your homework. The CIA funds the ISI.

How about you show us your homework? In other words, prove it.

 
At 18 April, 2007 21:31, Blogger Brian said...

I don't know why Mineta is not a truther and I will not speak for the man. I am just going by what he said, in his own words to the 9/11 Commission:

"the plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out. The plane is 10 miles out... Do the orders still stand?"

Think about it. Dick Cheney knew the plane was heading for the Pentagon as far as fifty miles away. So why wasn't the Pentagon evacuated?

When you have such a contradictory testimony in the most important investigation in modern history, to not address it or to chauk it up to human error does not cut it.

Now answer my questions- why did Bush and Cheney insist on testifying behind closed doors, not under oath? How is this acceptable in a supposed independant investigation? Why was William Rodriguez's testimony omitted from the report? Why did they insist he testify behind closed doors? Why did they ignore every survivor/first responder account of explosives in the towers?
Why did Fire Engineering magazine call the FEMA investigation a half-baked farse?

 
At 18 April, 2007 21:52, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Brian said: "Think about it. Dick Cheney knew the plane was heading for the Pentagon as far as fifty miles away. So why wasn't the Pentagon evacuated?"

Let's assume the plane was travelling a steady and meager 200 miles/hour.

200 miles/hour
1 hour = 60 minutes

200 miles / 60 minutes = 3.3333... miles/minute

50 miles / 3.3333... miles per minute = roughly 15 minutes

That's not exactly a lot of time...

 
At 18 April, 2007 21:58, Blogger CHF said...

Here's a crazy idea, Brian.

Why not ask Mineta if he stands by his original timeframe?

Ask him if he thinks there's a coverup.

As him to join the twoof movement.

Cuz if he says "no way!" then you'll know that you're pissing in the wind and can move on to other things.

 
At 19 April, 2007 05:33, Blogger sggw said...

Hey Brian
Instead of makeing the same stupid claims and asking the same dumb questions that have been answered over and over.
Why don't you answer our questions?

How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts? If you can do this maybe someone other than lunatics might believe you.

Where is your list of experts that will back up what you claim?

 
At 19 April, 2007 05:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

The fact that the bush admin, and the authors of the 9/11 report, DIDN'T do this tells me that the report is honest and as accurate as was possible at the time.

ROFLMAO! Alex, apparenlty you are ignoring the comments of the Co-Chair to stand by that farce.


TexasJack, you can't even read an engineering article and your calling Brian out?? LOL.

CHF Now really how can you honestly say 99.9 percent of the engineers support the NIST report?
Come on chap, just because they haven't publically faulted the report doesn't mean they agree with it.
In fact you wouldn't know unless you contacted each engineer on the planet to find out if they have read the report itself.

James...No, the CIA may have funded some ISI operations, such as the war against the Soviets, but that does not mean they are in control of the ISI.

Then again, big guy, it doesn't mean they are NOT in control of the ISI. And I suspect none of us will ever know either way. But considering the history of the CIA, covert operations, and declassified documentation, I wouldn't be one bit suprised if the ISI is influenced substantially by the CIA. It would be a rather foolish mindset to think otherwise. Does this link mean the U.S. government did it, of course not. Is it something to investigate as part of a money trail? You bet.

Oh Brian, btw, this blog isn't about the truth as you may think, it is about supporting the 'official conspiracy theory' of 9/11 despite discepencies, errors, fallacies, and lies found with in the offical story.

SLC: Where fiction is fact and fact is fiction.

 
At 19 April, 2007 06:01, Blogger killtwoofers said...

Mr. Dangler,

Why do you hate America so much?

 
At 19 April, 2007 06:06, Blogger pomeroo said...

Sorry, Press for Lies, the 9/11 Commission did not, AS YOU KNOW, "ignore" Norman Mineta's testimony. They REJECTED it when they concluded that his timeline was off by thirty minutes. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing Mineta's version with that of EVERYONE ELSE and noticed that he heard the same conversations and witnessed the same events, but he placed everything thirty minutes earlier. His contention that the White House was being evacuated by 9:20 was INCORRECT in that the actual time was established as being almost thirty minutes later (do you notice a pattern here?). Now, we understand that Mineta's mistaken timeline can be used to support your fantasies, but that's YOUR problem. The 9/11 Commission's job was to establish a correct timeline, and they succeeded in doing so.

 
At 19 April, 2007 06:18, Blogger pomeroo said...

Brian, you are boring everyone with your ancient myths about Norman Mineta. Mineta does not share your confused interpretation of his testimony.

As almost everyone has learned, the plane being tracked in the famous conversation recounted by Mineta DID NOT EXIST. NO PLANE WAS APPROACHING WASHINGTON, D.C. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE FOLLOWING FLIGHT 93, BUT DID NOT REALIZE THAT IT HAD ALREADY CRASHED IN PENNSYLVANIA. IT WASN'T BEING TRACKED AT ALL. They were using its projected flight path to make estimates of distance. Listen closely: THERE WAS NO PLANE. FLIGHT 77 HAD HIT THE PENTAGON MUCH EARLIER.

The "orders" Mineta heard mentioned were the same orders everyone else was talking about: the SHOOT-DOWN orders that had just been communicated by Bush to Cheney. Here's the important part. If everyone heard Cheney ANNOUNCING A DECISION TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER TO CRASH INTO A GOVERNMENT BUILDING, IT JUST MIGHT HAVE BEEN A NEWS STORY.

Hmmmm, what do you think? Would Cheney's announcement of the government's involvement in a monstrous and unprecedented crime have made news? It's a tough one.

 
At 19 April, 2007 06:26, Blogger texasjack said...

I would just ignore Swing, he's just bitter after I busted him for plagiarism.

I wish troothers would actually read the 911 Commission Report, it is a well documented and sourced report, and when juxtaposed to the silly research troothers attempt, holds up beautifully to their innocuous scrutiny.

 
At 19 April, 2007 07:32, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Fat chance, most of them won't even read the Popular Mechanics article or watch the SLC video.

 
At 19 April, 2007 07:44, Blogger Greg said...

I wish troothers would actually read the 911 Commission Report, it is a well documented and sourced report

Yawns

 
At 19 April, 2007 08:10, Blogger James B. said...

LOL, you source a two year old article on Able Danger, rather than a more recent article discussing how when they reviewed the program it did not find what people claimed it did. You guys are slow learners.

 
At 19 April, 2007 08:20, Blogger Greg said...

Some people are slow learners, some are easily fooled.

 
At 19 April, 2007 08:29, Blogger CHF said...

CHF Now really how can you honestly say 99.9 percent of the engineers support the NIST report?
Come on chap, just because they haven't publically faulted the report doesn't mean they agree with it.


Now would be a good time to update us on your engineer hunt, Swing.

Find any who disagree with NIST's basic conclusion?

Find any who support the demolition theory?

 
At 19 April, 2007 08:40, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Killtwoofers What makes you think I hate America? I have nothing against the state of Arizona and I love Wisconsin, and California is a nice place to visit! I love football baseball and apple pie! I've never burned old Glory or not supported our troops.
We assuming your not Canadian like many are, we have the greatest country on earth with the most corrupt government in the industrial world. I would argue that it is near if not impossible to have a representative government in a capitalist society.

What I hate is when politicians use my government to lie to the people for political/personal/and geopolitical/ and corporate gain. It is really that simple.

Jack, you didn't prove anything. To the contrary, you proved you could not read an engineering publication and you also lied about the comments that were said in public which you said they were not. You claimed I copied it off of a conspiracy site. No offense genius but I have the pdf. file of the engineering publication. Your simply a rookie at this Jack. As shown by the following comment:

it is a well documented and sourced report, and when juxtaposed to the silly research troothers attempt, holds up beautifully to their innocuous scrutiny.
ROFLMAO...this is the most whimsical account of the report I have ever read!

 
At 19 April, 2007 09:01, Blogger Greg said...

You would expect someone who were complicit in the attacks to suppress evidence and information that could blow their cover so it's not all the surprising "able danger" has been completely ignored and squashed.

 
At 19 April, 2007 09:07, Blogger killtwoofers said...

Mr. Dangler,

Let's try again. Why do you hate America so?

 
At 19 April, 2007 09:08, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Greg said: "Some people are slow learners, some are easily fooled."

So, which one are you?

 
At 19 April, 2007 09:09, Blogger James B. said...

Agg, the cardinal rules of conspiracy theories.

1. Any evidence, no matter how logical or credible, that could possibly be interpreted to support a conspiracy theory is absolute indisputable proof.

2. Any evidence which goes against a conspiracy theory, no matter how credible is faked by the government.

3. Any lack of evidence to support a conspiracy theory is proof of a government coverup.

Falsifiability, we don't need no stinking falsifiability.

 
At 19 April, 2007 09:19, Blogger killtwoofers said...

Mr. b,

Why do you waste your time educating twoofers?

Nothing will change their peabrains.

 
At 19 April, 2007 09:33, Blogger texasjack said...

Swing, you are sure a glutton for punishment. Do I have to embarrass you again? I guess so.

You made this post: The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
The words in bolding were not in the article, you stole them from this website(it's not the first time): http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

Get it?--you plagiarized those words and you got caught, then I'm the one who instructed you to read the entire article, because obviously you had not, and then it took you four days to respond!

The point of my original post was to show an example of your deceit, and I did.

Again Swing, did you read the entire article? Please recap everything in the article for us, or are you afraid? http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf


Swing, you are a fraud, a dense fraud to boot.

 
At 19 April, 2007 09:41, Blogger killtwoofers said...

Mr. Dangler hates America. That is why he does what he does.

America haters manipulate. Thats what they do. Cowardly manipulators entrenched in the dark neverlands of a basement of kin.

 
At 19 April, 2007 09:55, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Let's try again. Why do you hate America so?

What makes you think I hate America? Bro, you play too much Dungeons and Dragons in your basement.

Or are you just attacking the character in another logical fallacy so commonly used by bunks? Oh nevermind, I already know.

CHF I can't find any that have read their report! LOL! Go figure.

 
At 19 April, 2007 10:13, Blogger Greg said...

So, which one are you?

Are you talking to me or are you talking to yourself in the mirror?

Hey look at james talking out of his ass again. Although the data mining program, able danger, have been confirmed by many high level officials to exist for the reason of tracking and collecting intelliegence on bin laden and al qaeda's network, you decide that the program doesn't exist and come from fantasyland of conspiracy theorists. That speaks high volume of cognitive dissonance possibly because it's too much for you to comprehend am I right.

 
At 19 April, 2007 10:24, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

So Texas, I'm a fraud for not posting the link to which I got the information? Is that what you are getting at? You already did that!

Well clear it up for us. Go ahead and post what Robertson said as part of his keynote address. Nevermind I will do it for you since you wont.

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. What concrete that wasn’t pulverized into dust will continue to be removed for weeks to come. The structural steel is being removed and shipped by barge to be recycled.
All photographs shown on
television, shot-on-site were preapproved by the FBI.
We were shown photographs that
were not released for public view.


Now go and figure out why that steel was melted and flowing....

 
At 19 April, 2007 10:25, Blogger James B. said...

Huh? When did I say, or even vaguely suggest that it didn't exist? This is old news anyway, we covered it here months ago.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/12/able-danger-claim-found-baseless.html

The Senate Intelligence Committee has rejected as untrue one of the most disturbing claims about the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes — a congressman's contention that a team of military analysts identified Mohamed Atta or other hijackers before the attacks — according to a summary of the panel's investigation obtained by The Times.

The conclusion contradicts assertions by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and a few military officers that U.S. national security officials ignored startling intelligence available in early 2001 that might have helped to prevent the attacks.

In particular, Weldon and other officials have repeatedly claimed that the military analysts' effort, known as Able Danger, produced a chart that included a picture of Atta and identified him as being tied to an Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Weldon has also said that the chart was shared with White House officials, including Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security advisor. But after a 16-month investigation, the Intelligence Committee has concluded that those assertions are unfounded.




You guys claim you want an investigation. Well, they investigated it, and you reject their findings anyway. I guess you will just keep on demanding investigations until they find what you want.

 
At 19 April, 2007 10:39, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Back to school, Jack. All you did was put that phrase in google, see the first conspiracy site that popped up and assumed I used it. Did you fail to mention the source of the info in my post:(Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
And that that Williams piece has been republished on numerous websites?
The quote I used was from here:
http://www.blackvault.com/wiki/index.php/9/
11_conspiracy_theories

The original quote from the engineering magazine facts from ground zero as discussed by Les Robertson: As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.

The whole point being: there was molten steel flowing in the rubble. It was witnessed by several people from firefighters to Robertson. Move on rookie and debunk the facts please.

 
At 19 April, 2007 10:54, Blogger Greg said...

But after a 16-month investigation, the Intelligence Committee has concluded that those assertions are unfounded.

Oh gee I wonder why...

Eventually during the period December 2000 and March 2001, all electronics and hard copy, were destroyed under orders of the Army. Additionally, we just recently learned that duplicate documentation that was maintained by Lt Col Shaffar at his civilian DIA office was apparently destroyed-for reason unknown-by DIA in spring of 2004.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1606&wit_id=4668

Well, just in time for the documentations to be destroyed during the 9/11 commission hearings in spring of 2004. Woooow.

 
At 19 April, 2007 11:01, Blogger Pat said...

All these people claim to have seen a chart with Atta's photograph on it, but nobody can seem to find that particular chart. One guy claimed that it "disintegrated" when he took it off the wall (perhaps it was dustified by Judy Wood's Star Wars beam weapon?). He also claimed to have shown the chart to many people over the years, and yet somehow could not find a single one to back up his memory.

 
At 19 April, 2007 11:03, Blogger CHF said...

CHF I can't find any that have read their report! LOL! Go figure.

That's wasn't your original goal, Swingy.

You were gonna show them your demolition theory.

You were gonna find some who disagreed with NIST's conclusions. Apparently you're not even asking whether or not engineers are familiar with it.

And let's say you find some who have read the 10,000 page report.

What exactly would you ask them? You haven't read the report either.

You seem to have given up on trying to find any engineers who back you up and so you're instead looking for a reason to disregard them.

"well they haven't read a 10,000 page report!"

Fucking lame.

If you weren't such a chicken shit you'd ask them if they're familiar with NIST's conclusions and whether or not they agree.

 
At 19 April, 2007 11:38, Blogger texasjack said...

No swing, I put these words into google:"The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade", words you stole.

Wow! Swing, you took words that weren't yours, that weren't in the article, and that's OK? You are thief, a plagiarist and simply regurgitate from bogus conspiracy sites. Give me a break.

Then you make it appear that the quote was from Robertson, but is in fact a recollection from Williams. A real researcher would ask for clarification from Williams or get a direct quote from Robertson. Willing to to try that Swing? Or are going to continue to deceive?

BTW, still waiting for a full recap on the entire article, or are you afraid that it doesn't fit your fantasies?

 
At 19 April, 2007 11:49, Blogger Jay said...

SD it was actually By JamesM.Williams,
SEAU President

The author of that peace who said it.

Look at the last line on page 1.

Prior to engineering theWTC, the
tallest building Leslie Robertson had
engineered was 20 stories. (Maybe
there is still hope for me).
CONTINUED ON PAGE 3


On page 3 he continues.

 
At 19 April, 2007 11:50, Blogger Jay said...

Is it really that hard to actually read something or what...

 
At 19 April, 2007 11:52, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

All you did was put that phrase in google, see the first conspiracy site that popped up and assumed I used it.

For shame! Everyone knows Swing can't Google something without getting an adult to help him.

 
At 19 April, 2007 11:54, Blogger Jay said...

SD, check out mu new Blog with lots of engineers who don't question the official story.

And yes, they are actually real structural and civil engineers.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:02, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

SD, check out mu new Blog with lots of engineers who don't question the official story.

Little misleading don't you think? It has lots of articles with engineer quotes in them, correct.

You own description proves your misleading statement:

This is a blog dedicated to all the engineers that have spoken out about what happend on 9/11 but were quotemined by the "truthmovement". I have also added Engineers that just commented on the events that day. I will be updating this blog reguraliry.


Will you be placing articles of engineers who do question the NIST, the 9/11 attacks, etc. or is your agenda just those who support the OS?

Eitherway thanks for the great resource. I look foward to using it.

For example the Marquette, SE after explaining in broad detail the collapse floor:
Thus. there were many floors above the compromised level that now had no vertical support at the exterior of the building. These floors then became a free falling load, which initiated a progressive collapse mechanism in the towers. The towers then collapsed in a manner similar to a controlled demolition.

I'm not sure what to make of that, Jay. ;)

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:03, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Oh sorry for Jack:

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/
christopher-m-foley.html

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:08, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Oh Jay thanks again for the link. I found something else...

This article goes on to explain possible fuel fire or 'other sources of heat' responsible for the collapse and then tapers off with...

But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

Source: Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/engineers-are-
baffled-over-collapse-of.html

I'm not an expert of course, but I don't think office fires combined with disel fire can cause steel to appear to have been evaporated.

Thanks again Jay!

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:09, Blogger Jay said...

Yes SD, and it says similar, or did you miss out that part to? Or don't you understand the word similar?

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:10, Blogger Jay said...

LOL your quotemining already :)

Read the entire conversation he had u tool.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:13, Blogger Jay said...

Will you be placing articles of engineers who do question the NIST, the 9/11 attacks, etc. or is your agenda just those who support the OS?

Point em out. Truthers always say that no one from the engineering world was following this(the WTC investigation). Which is a lie, because there were so many articles in engineering magazines.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:16, Blogger Jay said...

But by all means SD, butcher up those stories like you are used to, i don't care really, whatever makes you happy.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:17, Blogger texasjack said...

Great site Jay. The reading comprehension of troothers is pretty minimal, isn't it?

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:20, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Hey here is another one Jay that actually has a lie or uninformed comment in it:

Engineers respond to media bashing
submitted by Bob Johnson
Structural Engineers Association of Illinois, 203 N. Wabash Suite 2010, Chicago, IL. 60601
TEL: 312-372-4198 WEBSITE: www.seaoi.org
The intense fire from jet fuel could not reasonably been anticipated by the engineers. The extreme heat generated, far exceeded the temperatures normally associated with the combustion of materials commonly present in buildings, which are used as the basis for the current building codes. The intense heat, in all probability, significantly reduced the strength of the structural steel framing, eventually resulting in the collapse of the towers.
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/engineers-respond-
to-media-bashing.html

The bold part of course was proven completely wrong by the WTC white paper from Skilling's own firm in the 60's and his own 1993 comments.

Now I have an engineering publication lying to me about the capablility of the towers through ignorance or intentional deceit. But because it is an expert, I'm supposed to believe what it says despite it being wrong. Thanks but no thanks. An expert can be an expert who is wrong.

My above post quotes an expet sayin g it collapsed in a manner similiar to CD. But bloggers and college students on this blog tell me that it wasn't a CD because it didn't look like one. See the contradiction?

Oh well. Again thanks for the link.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:20, Blogger Jay said...

Yes it is. I see the same thing over here in Holland. Truthers link to sites that actually prove them wrong, they just read the part they want to read. Reading is kinda jard it seems to truthers.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:22, Blogger Jay said...

Barnete aint no Demo expert u moron.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:27, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Another error or lie...this time from MIT:


The World Trade Center towers "were indeed designed to withstand the impact of a large commercial aircraft," wrote Professors Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. "They were not, however, designed to withstand the prolonged effect of fire resulting from a bomb in the guise of a fully fueled aircraft." As a result, "a building designed to rocket toward the sky, imploded into the ground."

These MIT folk are in the same boat as above. Proven wrong by the WTC white paper from Skilling's office.
Geez. Prolonged effect?? So according to MIT, buildings aren't designed to withstand the prolonged effect of an office fire? LOL
How many times does the same error or lie get repeated before it becomes truth?? Apparently enough for MIT to buy into it.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:28, Blogger James B. said...

Dude, the janitors at MIT understand engineering better than you do.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:29, Blogger Jay said...

Don't you understand the meaning of fire protection??

Why do you think they have ratings of how long it can withstand a fire?

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:32, Blogger Jay said...

SD, you're nothing more then a fooking tool. You've proven that again in your postings here.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:34, Blogger texasjack said...

It just amazes me that somebody who admits he has no background in engineering, calls people with PHD's, from one of the most prestigious Universities in the world, liars.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:37, Blogger sggw said...

(collapsed in a manner similiar to CD)
A simple analogy, does not mean it was CD

There are no benchmarks for crashes like these so every whak can have a theory. This opens the door for people like sd who have no experience in such matters to give us his wonderfull theories.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:38, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

On top of all that, we have Ron Hamburger, famed NIST investigator, denying the existence of molten steel, despite the world being informed of it through the Les Robertson and http://www.seau.org/
SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

Not only that, big Ron wasn't not even aware of the number of core collums in the structure! Classic expert!

Oh and one for the road, Canadian Engineer,(former engineer of the year) Dr Bob Korol, who spoke at the Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Hamilton 9/11 Truth Symposium
He spoke on the topic of WTC and controlled demolition. Imagine that!
https://www2.blogger.com/
comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=
6099729090081083260

Oh well. Time to close shop. Thanks again, Jay! Your awesome.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:43, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

SGGW- I didn't use that comment to say it was a CD. I just proved that an expert engineer said the collapse was in the manner of a CD. Around here it wasn't a CD because it didn't look like one, yet you have an expert saying it looked like one.

So are bloggers here right and the engineer wrong or the other way around?

Remember it was you guys who said if it doesn't look like it, then it can't be it.

James You maybe right, but I can read. And when I read a white paper from the design period directly discussing the capabilities of the towers and completely contradicting the published statements of engineers I tend to believe the white paper.

Well Jack, are they liars or are they wrong? You can be the judge.

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:44, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Please do not take a no response personal. I'm done for the day.

Enjoy! ;)

 
At 19 April, 2007 12:55, Blogger texasjack said...

Well Jack, are they liars or are they wrong? You can be the judge.

Neither, however Swing, you are a liar and wrong.

 
At 19 April, 2007 13:00, Blogger Jay said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 April, 2007 13:02, Blogger Jay said...

On top of all that, we have Ron Hamburger, famed NIST investigator, denying the existence of molten steel, despite the world being informed of it through the Les Robertson and http://www.seau.org/
SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf


I wonder if you can actually read SD, we've proven over and over again that Robertson didn't mention this but Williams. So why keep on making the same mistake?

Are you really that daft or what?

 
At 19 April, 2007 13:04, Blogger Jay said...

Around here it wasn't a CD because it didn't look like one, yet you have an expert saying it looked like one.

Yes an expert in Fire engineering said it, and like i said he is not a demolition expert. So why bring it up?

 
At 19 April, 2007 13:06, Blogger sggw said...

Like I said
(collapsed in a manner similiar to CD)
A simple analogy, does not mean it was CD. It just opens the door for people like you to speculate with proof.
There are no benchmarks for crashes like these so every whak can have a theory. You take an anology and spin it so it sounds like the engineer believes it was CD even though he does not or he would have said so.

With thousands of engineers you may find one or two that support you but the vast majority don't. I call that a route in our favor but I guess we should believe you who has no experience in engineering whatsoever

Where is your list of engineers that support you?

 
At 19 April, 2007 13:16, Blogger Jay said...

Well im glad i strated that blog so people can actually read what the engineers have to say, instead of all the crap the truthers bash out, like SD just proven once again. So maybe it will help someone thats not that far gone as SD.

 
At 19 April, 2007 13:39, Blogger sggw said...

Jay is that the transcript link or something new?

 
At 19 April, 2007 13:46, Blogger CHF said...

What really makes me laugh is that Swing is now looking for engineers who have read the NIST report. He was originally going to contact engineers to ask them if they agree with NIST and to present them with his "evidence" (which he did). Apparently that's not going so well so he's changed tactics.

Now he's only seeking those who have read the report - not those who are aware of and understand its conclusions. It seems that anyone who hasn't read all 10,000 pages can't possibly know of its basic theory.

The really funny part? Swing hasn't read it either!

So what exactly does he plan on asking them???

Needless to say, Swing won't answer that question since he's only seeking excuses as to why no engineers give his retarded demolition theory the time of day.

Incidentally, he also won't comment on the reaction he recieved when he showed some of the engineers his "proof."

I can't imagine why.

 
At 19 April, 2007 13:57, Blogger CHF said...

Notice also how he takes snippets of statements from experts to make his case, even though none of those experts have agreed with any demolition theories!

Seriously Swing - how hard can it be to find some engineers who will say "yes, Mr. Dangler, the WTC was a demolition job and you are in fact NOT a complete fucking idiot."?

Quite hard, apparently.

 
At 19 April, 2007 14:06, Blogger texasjack said...

It is also hilarious that he is just now researching(supposedly)structural engineers for their opinions. He has these outrageous theories about CD's without consulting experts first, yet we are to to take his layman opinion at face value or expect to believe his retarded conspiracy sites? LOL
I wonder if consults a veterinarian when he has a problem with his brain. Again, it might not be a bad idea for that monkey brain of his.

 
At 19 April, 2007 14:16, Blogger sggw said...

Jack
When he needs brain help he consults a Proctologist

 
At 19 April, 2007 14:23, Blogger Alex said...

The collapse looked similar to a CD in the same sense that that a Ferrari looks similar a golf-cart - they both have 4 tires, an engine, axle, seats, and a steering wheel.

 
At 19 April, 2007 14:51, Blogger sggw said...

Thats all the proof sd needs

 
At 19 April, 2007 15:16, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

James You maybe right, but I can read. And when I read a white paper from the design period directly discussing the capabilities of the towers and completely contradicting the published statements of engineers I tend to believe the white paper.

Do you also tend to believe the people who claimed the Titanic was unsinkable?

 
At 19 April, 2007 16:01, Blogger Brian said...

To all those insulting the truth movement, consider this- every time you insult one of us you are insulting over half of the Coalition of 9/11 families, according to Bill Doyle, their representative. So on that front alone, I would check my behavior and approach. You are pigeonholding a large percent of 9/11 family members, who have legitimate questions that have not been addressed (roughly 70%), into this ficticious group of paranoid conspiracy theorists. The whole thing is really transparent, I gotta tell ya.

Bob McIlvaine- hear him out.
Donna Marsh O'Conner- hear her out.
Colleen Kelly- hear her out.
Ellen Mariani- hear her out.
Cristina Kminek
Marion Kminek
Barry Zelman
Patricia Perry
Monica Gabrielle
Sally Regenhard

Hear them all out and don't just dismiss what they have to say. These are the people affected the most by September 11 and we could not even imagine what they had to go through. Get my point? If you don't agree that 9/11 was an inside job, at least have some more respect for the families asking questions.

Want more family members? Survivors? First responders, who question 9/11? Or is their opinion not credible enough to consider?

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

 
At 19 April, 2007 16:04, Blogger James B. said...

The collapse looked similar to a CD in the same sense that that a Ferrari looks similar a golf-cart - they both have 4 tires, an engine, axle, seats, and a steering wheel.



Hey, this are the same people who seriously propose that witnesses at the Pentagon confused a 20 ft long propeller driving Predator, for a 100 ton twin engine jetliner. Comparisons to them are meaningless.

 
At 19 April, 2007 16:13, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

The comments I posted under those videos about Jones' disrespect for the VT victims have been deleted. Once again we see who really wants to control the flow of information.


To all those insulting the truth movement, consider this- every time you insult one of us you are insulting over half of the Coalition of 9/11 families, according to Bill Doyle, their representative.

Being a relative or survivor doesn't necessarily mean you don't talk crap. Hell, these people are grieving and/or traumatised, what's your excuse?

 
At 19 April, 2007 16:50, Blogger Triterope said...

every time you insult one of us you are insulting over half of the Coalition of 9/11 families, according to Bill Doyle, their representative.

Yeah, and he'd never lie. His "group of 9/11 families challenging the NIST report" turned out to be two people. And he was one of them.

 
At 19 April, 2007 18:29, Blogger ConsDemo said...

SD: What I hate is when politicians use my government to lie to the people for political/personal/and geopolitical/ and corporate gain.

Boy, that is far more egregious than murdering 3K of its own citizens. Glad you have your priorities right!

Brian: To all those insulting the truth movement, consider this...

The twoof movement accuses others of committing mass murder ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER and their upset about a insults? Pal, you need to find another hobby!

 
At 19 April, 2007 18:33, Blogger CHF said...

every time you insult one of us you are insulting over half of the Coalition of 9/11 families, according to Bill Doyle, their representative.

I guess that's why so many of them showed up at GZ on 9/11/06, and why 2 of them are on record opposing NIST.

Besides, considering that twoofers crap all over the victims every day (Mark Bingham ...hahaha... boxcutters.... hahaha) you're not really in a position to talk down to us on this one.

Also, please note that the "demolition" theory for WTC7 ends up implicating the FDNY - as much as twoofers hate to admit it.

 
At 19 April, 2007 21:52, Blogger Jay said...

SGGW, yes this is a new blog.

Brian, how about these families from people who died there. Should we ignore them to??

http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/

 
At 20 April, 2007 05:09, Blogger sggw said...

Jay do you have a link to it?

 
At 20 April, 2007 07:23, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

You guys are seriously misrepresenting the CD comment by the engineer. I simply put it this way:
Bunks say it wasn't a CD because it didn't look like a CD. I presented an expert saying it collapsed in a manner similiar to a CD.
Which of course you want to spin into me using the comment to prove CD, which I didn't. I only used the comment to point out that an expert said it collapsed like a CD. So really stop twisting the words.

Second, you really have no idea what I'm asking engineering firms so please stop pretending you know.
Third, asking about reading the report was a part of my original contact information I mentioned so indeed it isn't a new tactic at all. You've got to pay more attention to previous blogs, bro. And in fact when you implied I should change tactics to see if engineers agree with the report 'summary'. Because when someone agrees with something they haven't even read, it doesn't quite support 'your' side to full effect now does it? ;)

Jesus H., Jay, read the engineering journal and stop lying. I feel like I'm proving Jack wrong again. The relevant section is a continuation of a discussion Robertson had as a keynote speaker. A list of facts was presented and the journal itself restates this. Man stop LYING! Even my good pal, CHF, has in a sense admitted to this fact. Only this chickenshit won't prove you wrong when you know he is wrong. Hell he even then gave the appropriate advice to find out what caused it. The sad part is he won't even prove a bunker wrong when they are wrong. Come on CHF at least play the game with both sides.

Oh Texas, please prove I'm a liar, please! Nanny nanny pooh pooh....

 
At 20 April, 2007 08:57, Blogger Jay said...

SD youve proven again that reading isn't your strong point, so i will copy the entire part for you to read.

And i will make comments so even you can understand ok??

OK, the article is written by Williams.

WTC A STRUCTURAL
SUCCESS
By JamesM.Williams,
SEAU President


n October 5, 2001 only
three weeks since the
tragedy of September 11, I
attended the National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations 9th
Annual Conference. The Keynote
Address was to be presented by
Leslie Robertson, the structural
engineer responsible for the design
of theWorld Trade Center (WTC).
His topic was to be “The Design
Concept for a 500-Meter Building.”
The Keynote Address topic was
changed to, “The Design,
Construction and Collapse of the
World Trade Center.” Needless to
say, the presentation was a very
emotional one. (Leslie Robertson
did present the other topic later in
the conference)
.


So here he says Robertson was going to talk about a 500 meter building design. You understand?

Lets continue.

As many of you remember, Leslie
was a guest of SEAU several years
ago and presented a wonderful and
captivating presentation, part of
which did address the construction
of theWTC
. We are all aware of
the 110 story height, the 209’ x 209’
floor plate of each tower, the 60’
long open web joists, the 3’-3”
perimeter column spacing, and the
48” deep plate girders, etc...


Here he refers to Robertson talking about the WTC a few years earlier when he was a guest and talked about the WTC. And since this article is from 2001, he cant have been talking about any molten steel. You understand that part to??

So lets continue. Now comes the really hard part for you to understand it seems...

Prior to engineering theWTC, the
tallest building Leslie Robertson had
engineered was 20 stories. (Maybe
there is still hope for me).
CONTINUED ON PAGE 3


In this part he refers to Robertson and that he hopes he will be as good as him. Ok so far??

Then the story continues on page 3 where he is still talking.

So we continue.

Although the conception and design
of these buildings began some 40
years ago, they would still today
comply structurally with the current
New York Building Code.
The lateral wind design force is four
times larger than the zone 4 seismic
forces in Los Angeles.
Only 1/3 of the columns in any given
floor are spliced at that floor level.
The towers were designed to
withstand the impact of a Boeing
707 flying at approximately 180
mph. The much larger jets used in
the terrorist attacks were estimated
to be traveling as much as 360 mph
at impact (and fully loaded with
fuel).
There were 59 columns in each
exterior face. It is believed that two
thirds of the perimeter columns in
the face of the building were badly
damaged or destroyed at impact.
Other columns may also have been
damaged.
As of 21 days after the attack, the
fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running.
What
concrete that wasn’t pulverized into
dust will continue to be removed for
weeks to come. The structural steel
is being removed and shipped by
barge to be recycled.


I hope you understand now, and if you don't you really should take a course in reading.

 
At 20 April, 2007 09:52, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

Earlier you posted that you'd asked engineers if they agreed with NIST's conclusions. 10 out of 10 had up to that point.

Now all of a sudden you're choosing to emphasize that none have read the full report - even though YOU HAVEN'T EITHER.

Why don't you update us on what engineers think of your theory (which you claim to have presented them with)?

Why don't you tell us whether they are familiar with NIST's conclusion and whether or not they dispute it?

I keep asking you this and yet get no reply.

Could it be that you're too embarrassed to tell us that "I'm 0-for-20 now, guys!"?

This is why I urge twoofers to contact engineers: I know that you'll find yourself in the awkward position you're now in.

You can't quote any engineers as agreeing with you cuz none do and you can't dispute them without making yourself look like an even bigger fool than you already are.

So the best spin you can put on this pathetic situation is: "I still haven't found any who have read the whole report."

I'll ask you AGAIN: how many have agreed with NIST's conclusions?

How many have agreed with your demolition theory?

Feel free to post some e-mail exchanges.

A list of facts was presented and the journal itself restates this. Man stop LYING! Even my good pal, CHF, has in a sense admitted to this fact.

I never said they were facts, Swing. I acknowledge that people have referred to "molten steel." However, there is no solid proof of "molten steel". That's why I asked you to find out what those same sources believe could have caused it. When presented with that question they have to a) invent a silly theory to explain it (ie thermite) or b) re-examine their original claim.

Get it?

No of course you don't.

 
At 20 April, 2007 11:43, Blogger sggw said...

Jay, CHF
Thats why I keep saying There are no benchmarks for crashes like these so every whak can have a theory.
You can't compare a 20 to a 40 to a 110 story building especially when the towers were unique in the world. Even the people who designed them can only speculate

 
At 20 April, 2007 13:26, Blogger Jay said...

Yeh SD is just a tool.

Here is my Blog btw SGGW.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/index.html

 
At 20 April, 2007 14:04, Blogger sggw said...

Thanks Jay
Steve

 
At 21 April, 2007 13:43, Blogger pomeroo said...

I have often called attention to Swing Dumpster's ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills. Here is a response from Mark Roberts to another conspiracy liar, posted the other day on the JREF. Keep in mind that Swingie has read NONE of the references cited by Roberts:


Originally Posted by Mike Stephens
So the mass never stops moving, doesn't even slow down much huh? Not with that network of steel beams tying all the floors together.
That's right, Mike: it doesn't stop moving, and it doesn't slow down. It accelerates.

Again, you are opining on subjects about which you haven't taken the time to learn the most basic facts. For crying out loud, you thought the towers were concrete.

Please get informed, then come back with specific questions that are reality-based.

Is that too much to ask?

NIST Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

NIST summary of WTC 1 & 2 Investigations and recommendations

NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-1 Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems

NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the WTC Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-3 Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

NIST NCSTAR 1-4 Active Fire Protection Systems

NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-7 Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication

NIST NCSTAR 1-8 The Emergency Response Operations

FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Assessments

Zdenek Bazant (Northwestern) on the WTC and the progressive collapse of tall buildings
Bazant & Zhou 9/13/01-9/28/01 Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? See Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II

Eduardo Kausel (MIT): Why the Towers didn't fall like trees

Physicist Manuel Garcia's Counterpunch articles on the physics of the WTC collapses Pt.1– Pt.2– Pt.3

Frank Greening's papers on the Tower Collapses, Momentum Transfer, "Tipping," Concrete Pulverization


NIST WTC 7 Interim Report (2004)

ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report

WEIDLINGER/SILVERSTEIN Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures (Matthys Levy). 10/25/02

Silverstein Weidlinger Study – Column failures

Silverstein Weidlinger study says one tower collapse wouldn't have destroyed other.

Weidlinger study refutes FEMA. Collapse inevitable due to structural damage and fires, not to WTC design defects. ($ NYT Oct 22, 2002)

Others write about sensibly about the collapses
JREF Nobby Nobbs: Basic answers to common conspiracist claims about the tower collapses
Bautforum: Jay Utah's excellent explanation of Finite Element Analysis
JREF R. Mackey on Gordon Ross / Frank Greening debate
JREF R.Mackey on freefall and energy available for deformation
JREF R. Mackey on Judy Wood's "Math"
JREF Arkan on tower collapse times
JREF rwguinn on structural steel deformation
Physics kinetic energy Moscatelli The destructive forces unleashed
Steven Jones to Jim Fetzer: grand piano speed, damage to bathtub Judy Wood
JREF Kookbreaker on pancake collapse history
JREF juryjone with a simple graphic explanation of why the top of the south tower didn't fall to the side.

Some relevant journal papers, listed by JREFer senorpogo:

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11


I hope you will find these links useful.
__________________
(Gravy is) just as evil as Hitler...just as evil as Mao...just as evil as Stalin...that is no exaggeration." –28th Kingdom

 
At 21 April, 2007 13:46, Blogger pomeroo said...

Sorry, brian, insulting the brain-dead liars of the fantasy movement is not equivalent to insulting the family members of the victims. Remember that the liars, in promoting their hate-filled, fact-free stupidity, pretend that the jihadists responsible for the murders of three thousand civilians are innocent of any wrongdoing. The liars' goal is to lynch innocent men.

 
At 21 April, 2007 13:49, Blogger pomeroo said...

I wonder why Swing Dumpster doesn't parade his ignorance on the JREF.

Of course I'm kidding!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home