all 9/11 and related american political threads, merged here

[rogue]

Kymus, I'm laughing my a$$ off that you doubt that unions were at the core of all of this. The theory is gaining steam.

There is no way that the fire could of gotten that hot that fast. Firstly, it had fire proofing due to the first fire in 1975 which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.". Secondly, it was designed structurally to withstand multiple hits from a plane with more force than those that hit it on 9/11 and still stand without a problem.

It's simple!

From wikipedia (of course double check everything in wikipedia)

The combined effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse. The impacts severed load bearing columns and dislodged fireproofing from the structural steel. Heat from the fires then gradually weakened the structures, causing the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bow inwards. The towers collapsed abruptly when the perimeter walls finally buckled. Once the collapse was initiated, the enormous weight of the portion of the towers above the impact areas overwhelmed the load bearing capacity of the structures beneath them. Total collapse was then inevitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center

On top of that the damage occured on multiple floors.

[rogue]

And just for the record, the "waving woman" has a name and it's Edna Cintron. I think we should refer to her by name from now on.

RIP Mrs. Cintron.

[Kymus]

It has no defenses. It's a ****ING OFFICE BUILDING.

How do I know this?

1. I lived half a mile from it.
2. My dad works there.
3. I've been there frequently.
4. I know several people who work there.

It has some SECURITY (rent a cops and 19 year old marines), but it's not like there's a SAM infantry division running around the place.

I am quite aware that the Pentagon doesn't have SAM; atleast never before 9/11. Is this not a no-fly zone? Last I checked, there was an AFB very close and I've read elsewhere (and I'll see if I can dig it up) that in the past, there were planes stationed to defend the pentagon.

Incidentally, just to lay to rest the absurdity of something other than a plane striking the Pentagon, you can see the Pentagon from the air control tower from the Reagan National Airport.

Okay, since you claim that it's absurd that a plane didn't hit it as described, I'm sure that you must be able to explain to me how that plane didn't encounter a high-speed buffet and fall out of the sky, further, I'd love to know how it's possible for the plane to be going top speed and still be able to hover such a small space over ground and not get spun out of control as military piliots have described. Further, I'd love to know how a pilot who is known to not be able to handle a cesna can perform manouvres that are nearly impossible for even an experienced fighter pilot. It was physically impossible for the plane and pilot to do as described on 9/11 unless the official story is wrong and the direction, etc. was totally different.

Incidentally, stow the dialectic bull**** already. You're building in a false dichotomy

I guess that's why I'm the one that's not engaging in pittiful disinformation tactics like strawman arguments, huh? Please. You know nothing about the holes in the official story.

since you are such a fan of pointing out rhetorical fallacy...Rogue isn't arguing that it's IMPOSSIBLE, and neither am I. It's POSSIBLE that 9/11 was a giant government conspiracy committed by whomever you decide.

I'm used to dealing with partisan tools that cheer for their political party every time they stab them in the back. I've heard this useless argument before, I know that anything is "possible". I'm not claiming it happened as I say because of a "possibility" window, I'm saying it happened because of the countless research I've done. I don't ignore things that I don't like; that's why I look at BOTH sides instead of creating fake arguments.

{quote]What we are saying, is that it's highly IMPROBABLE, for a variety of reasons. You can disagree with that if you like, but you can't run around throwing out terms like "Hegelian Dialectic" and not expect to get called on it[/quote]

ROFL. I know what the Hegelian Dialectic is, that's why I refer to it. It's amazing that you completely ignore both my words and history.

Instances of the Hegelian Dialectic throughout history:
Nero Burning down Rome
Hitler burning down the reichstag
Russian FSB (attempting to) blowing up buildings
Pearl Harbor
Gulf of Tonkin
USS Liberty
Operation Northwoods
Operation Bojinka
Operation Ajax
Operation Gladio

Honestly, if you're so d@mned lazy that you have to create conspiracy theories about my "jargon", I'll just define it for you myself:

the Hegelian Dialectic is best described as problem, reaction, solution. The best and most accepted example is Hitler. Hitler wanted to create a Martial-Law Police-State within Germany and take away everyone's rights. So, he created a problem ("Commies" burning down the Reichstag, and "Polish" starting a war), then the people react to this and want safety so he took away their rights with the Enabling Act and Reich Fire Decree in order to give them safety (who does that remind me of... hmm...), the solution gained was that he was able to make himself a dictator all the while his people cheered for it. The majority of Germans willingly accepted this type of enslavement because of how things were carried out.

To say that it's "impropable" that a government would do this is very ignorant. It's the oldest trick in the book (obviously since Nero did it). You can theorise into eternity about how impropable it is, but by Rogue's own strawman logic, it's also impropable that 4 large "coincidences" are all that allowed the terrorists to carry out their attacks. You can keep building these phoney arguments and stick your head in the sand all you want, but I actually spend time researching these things instead of saying "you're wrong because I think X".

when you are building in your own set of strawmen and dilemmas.

Rofl, now I'm building strawman arguments? Which post?

Personally, I've found that jargon is the refuge of the ignorant or the insecure. Either the person doesn't actually know enough about what it is they are talking about to explain it in plain english, or they want to sound like they know more than the other guy.

I'm sorry, I'm very used to the term "hegelian dialectic" and it's in the encyclopedia for christ sake. If that's too far above your head and it's somehow me trying to sound smart, I don't know what to tell you.

[Kymus]

Kymus, I'm laughing my a$$ off that you doubt that unions were at the core of all of this. The theory is gaining steam.



It's simple!

From wikipedia (of course double check everything in wikipedia)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center

On top of that the damage occured on multiple floors.

I'm laughing my @ss off that you have to lie and create disinfo-ridden arguments on a subject you know nothing about all to baselessly claim that others are wrong.

If you had a real argument, you wouldn't need to do this.

[Kymus]

Secondly, it was designed structurally to withstand multiple hits from a plane with more force than those that hit it on 9/11 and still stand without a problem.

When the Towers were designed, and built, planes THAT big, carying THAT much fuel had not even been invented yet. I highly doubt they were built to withstand the impact from a plane that size, fully loaded with fuel, when a plane that size didn't even exist at the time the blue prints were drawn.

I'ts known to most anyone that has researched this that the WTC towers were designed to take a hit from a fully loaded 747. The 747 produces more force than the 767 that hit the WTC.

Also, like I said before, the steel beams do not have to MELT, just heat up enough to soften.

I am aware. A "couple hundred" is much different that 1,200.

As for other building buring for days, and not giving, I doubt those buildings were anywhere near as heavy as the twin towers, nor did they sustain a full trottle impact of a HUGE comercial jet liner in the process.

So if I poked a pencil through your screen door, I assume then that it would all collapse?

[rogue]

I am quite aware that the Pentagon doesn't have SAM; atleast never before 9/11. Is this not a no-fly zone? Last I checked, there was an AFB very close and I've read elsewhere (and I'll see if I can dig it up) that in the past, there were planes stationed to defend the pentagon.

At least I know that Reagan airport is right by the Pentagon.

From Wikipedia

Because of its proximity to central Washington, the airport has been subject to special security procedures for many years. Before 2001, the most notable of these was the southbound approach into the airport. Most of central Washington is restricted airspace up to 18,000 feet: in order to land on National's southbound runway, pilots had to follow the path of the Potomac River and make a steep turn shortly before landing, in a procedure called the "River Visual." Similarly, flights taking off to the north are required to climb quickly and bank left sharply to avoid the Washington Monument and follow a path which does not go over either the White House or the Pentagon.

I'ts known to most anyone that has researched this that the WTC towers were designed to take a hit from a fully loaded 747. The 747 produces more force than the 767 that hit the WTC.

I don't think the 747 existed when they designed the towers.

The Boeing 747, commonly called a Jumbo Jet, is one of the most recognizable jet airliner and is the largest airliner currently in airline service. First flown commercially in 1970, it held the size record for more than 35 years until surpassed by the Airbus A380 (due to enter service in early 2007). The Soviet-built Antonov An-225 cargo transport remains the world's largest aircraft in service, while the Hughes H-4 Hercules had a larger wing-span.[2]

Yup, I'm right.

[Kymus]

It's simple!

From wikipedia (of course double check everything in wikipedia)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center

On top of that the damage occured on multiple floors.

True to the article I linked to, you are adept at ignoring facts. I'm not going to even bother repeating myself again about Frank A. Demartini.

[rogue]

n 1966, construction of the World Trade Center began with a groundbreaking that razed 13 square blocks of low rise buildings, some of which predated the US Civil War. The construction was under the auspices of the semi-autonomous Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In 1970, construction was completed on One World Trade Center, with its first tenants moving into the building in December 1970.

Just double checked the completion date, and it's the same year that the 747 rolled off the line.

When did Frank A. Demartini start working at WTC? Was he part of the design team or a member of the building crew?

[Kymus]

At least I know that Reagan airport is right by the Pentagon.

But you still have trouble making real arguments and getting yourself out of this petty partisan world. Amazing how that works.

I don't think the 747 existed when they designed the towers.


Yup, I'm right.

I mixed up the numbers.

http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257.php

got a new excuse?

[Kymus]

[QUOTE=rogue]Kymus keeps bringing up a supposed Clinton EO W199I-WF-213589 that was extended by Bush. For the life of me I can't find any reference to the thing except for This and this and they do not look too credible. All stories seem to come from an episode of BBC's Newsnight.

So Merry, any idea of what in the Sam Hill Kymus keeps harping on. I'd like to answer his question but I think this is another red herring.[/.quote]

I knew you couldn't answer my question Rogue . Why do you tell others they are wrong when you don't know the first thing of what you're even talking about?

Just in case the younger crowd isn't familiar with the term "red herring" here's a definition from Wikipedia.

* a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments. See Ignoratio elenchi.
* in politics, a minor or even phony issue trumped up as being of great importance, in order to influence voters to vote for one party or candidate and against the other, or distract from more important issues that might help the opposing party.
* in literature, a plot device intended to distract the reader from a more important event in the plot, usually a twist ending. See also MacGuffin.
* in detective work, mystery fiction, and puzzle-solving, a false clue which leads investigators, readers, or solvers towards an incorrect solution.
* in adventure games, an item or object of no practical use; its purpose may be to frustrate the gamer who tries to find the intended use for it. In The Secret Of Monkey Island a red herring is ironically a key item for progression in the game. And in Simon the Sorcerer 2, Simon makes a comment about a carriage that he always thought herrings would be fishes.

The disinformation artist tries to cry about supposed disinformation? Wow, so not only are you a liar, but you're a hypocrite too!

[Kymus]

I read somewhere that way more people die every year in America as a result of car crashes than they do by terrorist attacks.

Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists

Following deplorable attacks in London, pharmaceuticals are still more deadly than terrorists

So no, I don't even slightly think that terrorism is the biggest or worst threat. It creates a great level of hysteria and fear...

Fear is the pretext needed to pass abysmal legislation like the Patriot Act 1 & 2, Victory Act, and New Freedom Initiative. the BBC's Power of Nightmares did a great job of dissecting how fear is the central ideology of neoconservativism.

[rogue]

Well if someone named Mad Max says it then it must be true!

Also, why did the hijackers choose to hijack aircraft leaving Boston, when they could have just as easily hijacked aircraft from one of the New York city airports (LaGuardia, Newark or JFK). Hijacking aircraft from Boston, meant that they had to deviate from their designated routes, while still a long way from Manhattan. Of course, as is usual, all sorts of alarm bells would be set off as soon as the aircraft deviated substantially from their prescribed routes. Not only that, the US Air Force specialist quick response unit, the Air National Guard, would almost certainly intercept them before they reached their target (and would have assuredly shoot down the second 767, after seeing what happened to the first).

Boston is not a long way to Manhattan (I just checked Expedia, the quickest flight is 59 minutes), but it is far enough away to give the hijackers time to take over the plane, point it at NYC and stand a better chance of hitting their target. Much better operationally than trying to takeover a plane moving away from your target and getting it into a tight turn trying to hit your target. Those flights were also known to carry few passengers.

Some support for my theory.

Using AirTrain and the Long Island Rail Road at Jamaica Station, travel time between JFK and Midtown Manhattan is about 45 minutes.

LaGuardia is a little closer.



Once again it's all about me. Thanks I love having my ego stroked.

[Kymus]

Just double checked the completion date, and it's the same year that the 747 rolled off the line.

Scroll up some Rogue. I got the number wrong, and provided a source.

When did Frank A. Demartini start working at WTC? Was he part of the design team or a member of the building crew?

I mentioned him in one of my original comments to you. Instead of quoting him, I'll source you to the video of him saying all this.

[Kymus]

Well if someone named Mad Max says it then it must be true!

Or George Bush!

[rogue]

Scroll up some Rogue. I got the number wrong, and provided a source.



I mentioned him in one of my original comments to you. Instead of quoting him, I'll source you to the video of him saying all this.

"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable."
White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".

People sometimes make mistakes when they don't really know.

Come to think of it, maybe the original designers were wrong about the towers even surviving a run in with the 707.