There is an interesting fight brewing over the planned memorial to Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The owner of the land, Svonavec Inc., refuses to sell a critical part of the needed land and the relatives want President Bush to seize the property to allow them to start construction of the memorial so that it can be finished by 2011 — the tenth anniversary of the tragedy.
Patrick White, vice president of the group Families of Flight 93, has asked President Bush to empower the Secretary of the Interior to take the land. They are demanding 2200 acres for the memorial — much of which are owned by Svonavec. The company has refused to negotiate and the National Park Service has indicated that it is retaining an independent appraiser for 275 acres in dispute.
The government has set aside $58 million for the memorial. The company reportedly turned down a $250,000 offer from the Park Service as well as a $750,000 offer from Families of Flight 93. The company reportedly wants $10 million for the land and forced the Park Service to move the temporary memorial off his land, citing security reasons. The difference between $10 million and the price offered is a bit curious. Either the company is profiteering or the group is trying to force an effective corporate donation of the land. Notably, there have been three appraisals including a second appraisal that was never released by the service.
Mike Svonavec of Svonavec Inc. has complained that the National Park Service and Flight 93 groups are “trying to make my company and myself look like the bad guy in this.” They appear to have succeeded.
For the full story, click here.
Why should President Bush seize the property?? Why should the government be allowed to seize anyone’s land? What if it was a farmers field that it happened at? Should the farmer be forced to sell off land that is his family’s life?
$250,000 for 2200 acres is $113.64 an acre. That is robbery. So is $750,000 for the property at $340.91 an acre. Just where can one get property that cheap??? The owner of the property has every right to ask whatever price he or she wants to. It’s THEIR property.
I don’t have a problem with eminent domain if the property is taken for a legitimate state purpose and a fair market price is paid. That being said, I am not sure why the government needs 2200 acres for a monument to the sad event. Too much money for these hard economic times for too much property. The owners do have the right to ask whatever price they want, but the appraisals will control as to the “fair” price.
I agree Rafflaw, a fair price should be paid for the property.
I don’t think a monument justifies eminent domain. This is not a national battlefield nor a route for an interstate highway. There are other fitting ways to commemorate the victims of this tragedy without depriving the owner of its land or forcing a “donation” of the land at the government’s and victim’s families’ price. Were I advising the company, I would suggest doing exactly what they are doing now. Sentiment is fine, but it shouldn’t cost someone rights to which they are entitled.
they don’t need that much land and to ask bush to just take it sounds more like the ideals of the hijackers and not americans. just scale the thing back.
As U.S. Succeeds In Iraq, Network TV Pulls the Plug
By Rich Noyes | December 29, 2008 – 14:49
After reporters such as NBC’s Tom Brokaw derided President Bush’s troop surge as “a folly” and suggested the war itself was a “lost cause,” ABC, CBS and NBC have now all pulled their full time reporters from Iraq. According to correspondent Brian Stelter, the stellar lack of violence means the networks have lost interest in the Iraq story: “Representatives for the networks emphasized that they would continue to cover the war and said the staff adjustments reflected the evolution of the conflict in Iraq from a story primarily about violence to one about reconstruction and politics.”
Examples of earlier reporting:
■ “Like a folly.” Last Tuesday on NBC’s Today, anchor emeritus Tom Brokaw argued that the way Saddam Hussein was executed revealed Iraq as “a deeply divided country along tribal lines,” and that sending more troops would “seem to most people…like a folly.” Brokaw added: “I think a lot of people who are raising their hands to join the armed services are wondering, ‘I’m giving my life for that?’”
■ “Wrong Way Corrigan.” The next morning on Today, political analyst Chris Matthews declared the President’s plan dead on arrival: “I expect it will be treated the way Richard Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia was reacted to. The American people aren’t gonna like it.” Matthews insisted that the voters wanted to end, not mend, Bush’s Iraq policies and “for the President to go Wrong Way Corrigan on this thing and to increase the number of troops, take us deeper into Iraq, would be to reject the opinion of the American people.”
■ “Absolutely no difference.” This week, as more details of the President’s plan were revealed, the anti-surge drum-beat got louder. On CBS’s Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked Baghdad reporter Lara Logan if extra troops would make a difference. “The best thing we have is to look at what has happened already. When the U.S. brought in 12,000 more troops into Baghdad last summer, it made absolutely no difference,” Logan replied. “In fact, security here in Baghdad got even worse.”
■ “Lost Cause?” On Tuesday’s Today, NBC’s White House reporter David Gregory suggested even White House insiders have lost faith. “As the President prepares to start a new phase of the war in Iraq, the White House is fending off charges that key figures in the administration have concluded the war is lost.” NBC’s graphic headline read “Lost Cause? Can U.S. Win the War In Iraq?” Gregory also cited unnamed “critics” to suggest Bush’s motives were psychological: “U.S. commanders who opposed adding troops to Iraq have been replaced, prompting critics to charge the President’s resolve has become stubbornness.”
■ Roll call of critics. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer confronted White House aide Dan Bartlett: “I just want to run through a partial roll call of the number of people who have either opposed what the President is going to do, or expressed serious reservations.” As she read off names such as Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel, their names and faces scrolled over her right shoulder. “I could go on and on,” Sawyer told Bartlett. “What don’t they get? What don’t they understand?” Bartlett objected, saying some of the generals she listed as critics “helped devise this plan.”
■ “Breaking Point.” On yesterday’s Today, co-host Meredith Vieira doubted that the U.S. military could meet the challenge: “The cornerstone of his plan is sending around 20,000 additional U.S. troops into the war zone. But is the military stretched to the breaking point already?” Reporter Jim Miklaszewski suggested it was: “The pace of two wars has left two-thirds of the Army’s combat brigades rated ‘Not Ready to Fight.’”
Mespo,
You may be right that we don’t need a monument to the people who tragically died in that hijack attempt. If we have a monument for these victims, how about a monument for all of our 4,500 plus soldiers who have died in Iraq, not to mention the countless thousands who have been seriously wounded?
They haven’t even finished the monument on the site of the Twin Towers yet so I can’t see why they’re suddenly so worried about this spot.
I am wondering about this as well. I wish there was a way to find accurate information about the situation. I could see bush doing this for two cynical reasons; to raise his poll numbers and to hype terrorism. He does not now and never did care about any of our people who died, not the civilians and not the soldiers he ordered to their deaths.
Surprise! Surprise! Former New York Times reporter & many time MSNBC guest on guess who’s shows Chris Hedges has admitted what almost anyone familiar with his reality-challenged rantings already knew: he is a socialist!
So we have the President-elect of the most powerful country in the world, the one nation that stands between the many billions of world inhabitants that treasure freedom and democracy and the thugs of the world that would take it from them, the man who walks with a briefcase that containst the nuclear codes that could incinerate the world, the man who is Commander in Chief of an army of several million with a power unmatched in the world, and this man, this President-elect, walks around with EITHER HIS HEADO BACKWARDS OR HE HAS HIS STUPID BASEBALL CAP TURNED BACKWARDS – YOU DECIDE.
The world was stunned to see Barack Obama looking like some kind of teen rapper wanna be walking out of a store with baggy jogging pants, a worn T-shirt, and a baseball cap turned backwards. Thus begins the descent of the dignity of the Office of the President of the United States back into the toilet bowl as it did with Bill Clinton.
So! We have the President-elect of the most powerful country in the world, the one nation that stands between the many billions of world inhabitants that treasure freedom and democracy and the thugs of the world that would take it from them, the man who walks with a briefcase that containst the nuclear codes that could incinerate the world, the man who is Commander in Chief of an army of several million with a power unmatched in the world, and this man, this President-elect, walks around with EITHER HIS HEAD ON BACKWARDS OR HE HAS HIS STUPID BASEBALL CAP TURNED BACKWARDS – YOU DECIDE.
The world was stunned to see Barack Obama looking like some kind of teen rapper wanna be walking out of a store with baggy jogging pants, a worn T-shirt, and a baseball cap turned backwards. Thus begins the descent of the dignity of the Office of the President of the United States back into the toilet bowl as it did with Bill Clinton.
hezno 1, December 29, 2008 at 9:45 pm
“The world was stunned to see Barack Obama looking like some kind of teen rapper wanna be walking out of a store with baggy jogging pants, a worn T-shirt, and a baseball cap turned backwards. Thus begins the descent of the dignity of the Office of the President of the United States back into the toilet bowl as it did with Bill Clinton.”
What are you kidding me?
We’re at war in 2 countries. The counties economy has practically collapsed. We have new terrorist reports for strikes in the US and global warming is upon us and you’re gripe with our incoming President, who’s not even President yet, is that he wore an old T-Shirt and had his baseball cap on backwards?
You must really hate America to want it to fail so badly, that you’d try to defeat our incoming President prior to taking office, over the way he chose to dress on his holiday.
What are you kidding me?
We’re at war in 2 countries. The counties economy has practically collapsed. We have new terrorist reports for strikes in the US and global warming is upon us and you’re gripe with our incoming President, who’s not even President yet, is that he wore an old T-Shirt and had his baseball cap on backwards?
You must really hate America to want it to fail so badly, that you’d try to defeat our incoming President prior to taking office, over the way he chose to dress on his holiday.
You must really hate America.
Oh and as for the ” descent of the dignity of the Office of the President of the United States back into the toilet bowl as it did with Bill Clinton” statement, allow me to be the first to congratulate you on your recovery from your 8 year coma.
Now, allow me to introduce you to our current President, one George “W” (as in Whatthef#$k) Bush, who took that descent from the toilet bowl all the way to the sewer.
In fact I think they even named one after him.
Waynebro,
Amen brother!
Not for nothing, but where’s the memorial for the Constitution?
If Jill wants cynical, I think she should google up ‘holiest day in nazi calendar’ and see what comes up.
Neun November (9-11) ist am besten tage for popaganda; bitte.
Bob,Esq.,
I like your idea of a memorial for the Constitution. After the damage done by the Bush Administration, maybe a Constitutional memorial is in order.
I’m with Bob and raff. Where’s the Constitutional Memorial?
More importantly, where is the restoration of the Constitution and the trials and punishments for the criminal Bush administration? We the People won’t wait forever. Don’t make us take matters into our own hands. Test us if you doubt it. Justice will be served along with heaping bowls of crow. I’d prefer by peaceful judicial process, but at this point, I’m considering opening a business that only has growth potential. I’m going to call it “The Angry Villager Torch & Rope Supply”. Free lighter with the purchase of three or more torches.
Sleep tight, D.C.
Bob,
I agree with you on several points. cheney recently called 9/11 one of the high points of his time in office. I don’t think that was just an unfortunate choice of words. If you look at everything that led up to 9/11 the minimum conclusion is they let it go down and took full advantage of it afterward.
The idea of a memorial to the Constitution is an excellent idea.
Buddha,
I share your complete frustration with the govt. I don’t think a violent response is a good idea. It’s going to take a very creative approach, multipronged and well considered to counter these people. I admit to a non-violent orientation, but as a practical matter, I don’t think violence against the govt. will work. This govt. is READY for violence. They won’t hesitate to use incredible violence against their own citizens. I said this before, but I really think the upper class needs to get protesting in the streets (the govt. will be constrained in a violent reaction to the upper class) and the lower classes need to devise whole new methods of protest.
i saw cheney say that and i was stunned. “high point”
excuse maybe, in fact, probably but high point says it all!
The problem with a Constitutional Memorial is that it presupposes the Constitution is dead. Which it is not.
It’s just in stasis for a few more weeks.
Wayne,
I get really nervous when people say Obama will get in and everything will be restored. I don’t believe it. There’s a lot of work to be done to restore our rights. Obama voted to strip our 4th amendment rights and I haven’t heard of any plans for him to give those back. We will get our rights back by being vigilant and clawing them back from those who took them away. That includes our craven Congress, both Republicans and Democrats and it includes Obama. If we are lulled into believing Obama will come in and make everything O.K. again, we can be assured it will not. It’s dangerous to hand over that kind of power to any president. Only we the people can make this whole mess right again. JT spoke about this under his torture entry. We have got to stop being chumps.
And well you should. I certainly don’t think he’ll “fix everything” particularly considering his vote on FISA. But I am holding out hope that he will undo a lot of the damage and certainly will uphold the Constitution rather than describe it as an “Interesting Document”.
He’s going to be better than Bush, of that I am sure. How much better remains to be seen. But until it’s seen I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Wayne,
My new motto is, “Hope but Verify!”.
Sounds like a good motto.
As long as its not “Hope but Villify”.
I think this whole thing is criminal. The owner can ask whatever he wants for the property. The families are acting like fascists. Seizing this property for a memorial is a fascist act, especially when you consider that the plane never even crashed there. 911 was a inside job and a full investigation should be done before any memorial is made. There is more evidence to show flight 93 being shot down than there is evidence supporting a crash. There are even records that show Flight 93 landed at Cleveland an hour after it supposedly crashed. Until the truth is known there should be no memorial.
vince:
How’s that aluminum foil hat fitting? Read the Popular Mechanics analysis of 9/11 conspiracies and quit reading those conspiracy blogs! They make one sound stupid.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Mespo,
Beat me too it.
I wouldn’t call Vince stupid for merely voicing his opinion. An opinion that at least has a degree of plausibility to it. The juries not in yet on the events of that morning and they won’t be until an independent party gets to investigate all of the facts surrounding it.
I doubt Vince is correct, but I’m not so sure you guys are correct either. Usually the truth in murky areas like this are less grand than both sides wants to allow for. Its likely the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and until the Bush administration is out of office how can any of us say we really “know” anything about that morning? Other than what we saw on television and what the Bush administration, or its nemesis the conspiracy theorists tell us.
And of course what we read in “Popular Mechanics”.
waynebro:
We shall never know the exact truth about anything, even events we witness. The question is, or should be, what does the evidence show? Any thinking person who reads the PM report will conclude that the conspiracy theory crowd is either stupid, or holds malicious intent. I chose to give vince the benefit of the doubt. By the way, I didn’t conclude that vince was stupid, merely that he sounded that way.
I’ve read the PM report and it’s incomplete and has plenty of holes in it. It doesn’t really prove anything with regards to the other building collapse. It’s facts about the burning materials in the offices are a joke (offices burn all the time and they don’t drop the building) it doesn’t address the people that came down from ABOVE the 90th floor who walked past the fire that was supposed to be burning according to PM at 1800 degrees. (they’d have melted, yet they reported NO heat). It doesn’t address the fact that just because theres a fire 90 stories up, how does that soften steel a few thousand feet down at the base so as to perfectly collapse an entire bldg on itself. And not one bldg but TWO bldgs, plus the one down the street. It doesn’t address the firing of Bush’s investigator who brought up the fact that he didn’t see how the bldg collapsed from what he called a low intensity fire so high up. It doesn’t explain what witnesses saw around flight 93. It just doesn’t jive.
Now, YOU can believe it if you want. But given the Bush administrations past issues with truth, I’m not buying it. I’m not buying any conspiracy theories either. All I’m saying is after having read the FIRST report from Bush’s own NTSB investigator, who was then FIRED and having read the SECOND report AFTER Bush fired the first guy, I can say there is room for doubt.
mespo727272 1, January 2, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“By the way, I didn’t conclude that vince was stupid, merely that he sounded that way.”
And telling someone they sound “stupid” is better how exactly then telling them they are stupid? You’re splitting that hair pretty thin.
waynebro:
Heck I sound stupid sometimes myself. You are what you habitually do, not what happens on occasion. Maybe vince is a Nobel laureate having a bad day!
waynebro:
On the PM report, most people believe it to be accurate and are satisfied it addresses the problems raised by the crazies. It may not be complete nor comprehensive, but it puts to rest the main fallacies of the conspiracy crowd, who, after all, bear the burden of proof of their extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proofs, and innuendo, speculation, and the accounts of frantic eyewitnesses neither qualify as such nor persuade me as much as the comments of the professionals in the various fields cited by PM. Witnesses are only as good as the people they were before the event, and we can probably agree that most folks, when faced with cataclysmic events, are poor observers and worse historians.
“How’s that aluminum foil hat fitting? Read the Popular Mechanics analysis of 9/11 conspiracies and quit reading those conspiracy blogs! They make one sound stupid.”
Mespo,
I hope you have your fencing regalia handy; so to speak.
First, I take it that when we attorneys speak of ‘conspiracies’ we’re referring to one of the three incohate crimes that does not merge with the underlying offense; yes?
And when we speak of truth, surely you agree with Immanuel Kant when he wrote:
“The question, famed of old, by which logicians were
supposed to be driven into a corner, obliged either to have
recourse to a pitiful sophism, or to confess their ignorance
and consequently the emptiness of their whole art, is the
question: What is truth? The nominal definition of TRUTH,
that it IS THE AGREEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE WITH ITS OBJECT, is
assumed as granted; the question asked is as to what is
the general and sure criterion of the truth of any and every
knowledge.” (Critique of Pure Reason, p. 097, Kemp Smith Ed.)
And, as an attorney, surely you’ve encountered the informal fallacy known as the “Straw Man” have you not?
Mespo, I submit to you that the arguments set forth in the Popular Mechanics piece regarding 9/11 were as intellectually dishonest and down right pathetic as the ‘arguments’ made by the trolls that occasion these parts.
I know, I’ve set forth a claim and now the rules of argumentation constrain me to bolster the claim with facts and evidence; i.e. illustrating the agreement between knowledge and object. However, since the topic of article upon which we are “commenting’ has nothing to do with ‘Debunking 9/11 Debunking’ I’ll leave you with this for now:
Do I hear it said that the rules of argumentation empowers people to re-write or ignore some of the most basic laws of macro-state physics simply to gain assent of the listener/opponent?
Do I hear it said that ‘the need to move on’ entitles one to lie to one’s self by accepting blatant lies and contradictions as gospel?
Do I hear it said seeking tranquility over the truth is now considered a virtue?
And one last thought; have you ever considered your use of the word “conspiracy theorist” while listening & responding, allegedly in earnest, to another’s argument?
Stay in your own movie,
Bob
P.S. You may want to revisit the story of Andre & Arnold and closely examine the thoughts and actions of G. Washington when he ignored the pleas of his most trusted officers/advisers, e.g. Hamilton & Talmadge, by sending Andre to face the felon’s noose.
“On the PM report, most people believe it to be accurate and are satisfied it addresses the problems raised by the crazies.”
Mespo, Mespo, Mespo.
Bob,Esq:
I do note that all the hubub died down once PM talked to the actual experts who shared their accounts of the scene. Most notably the mysterious “White Jet” which of course was asked by the FAA to investigate and was a corporate jet who happened to be in the area of Shanksville, and the infamous “missing debris field” scam at the Pentagon attack that was easily disproved by photographs taken of the scene. That structural engineers cannot explain every nuance of a building collapse of that magnitude should not make you distrust the main thrust of he piece which is that the event unfolded just as most of us believe it did. It’s hard to explain a failure when you cannot simulate the exact occurrence even with computer models. That jet fuel doesn’t burn at the melting point of steel “I” beams does not suggest to me that the heat was insufficient to make the metal infrastructure brittle, and hence reduce its efficiency to the point where the concrete caused it to fail.
I suspect most of these conspiracy folks were glad 9-11 came about to relieve them from their frustrating pursuit of a “live” Elvis based upon the truly revealing misspelling of his middle name, Aron,on his tombstone.
If you hear thundering hooves on the prairie, it’s still probably horses and not zebras.
There has been no closure on this tragic matter and many still believe that Flight 93 was brought down by an airforce missile. It is a very bad idea to commemorate this destruction until the truth is out there.
mespo727272 1, January 2, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“waynebro:
Heck I sound stupid sometimes myself. You are what you habitually do, not what happens on occasion. Maybe vince is a Nobel laureate having a bad day!”
Perhaps.
And maybe Vince is a Nobel Laureate having a good day.
Archie:
25% of the US population still thinks we never landed on the moon and that Bush was a great President. I suspect its the same 25% that believe a missile did in Flight 93 despite the absence of any proof of such an event. Absolute certainty is not for this world, but there are probable beliefs and improbable ones, and the missile theory falls into the latter category. As for closure, that is in the mind of the beholder and for some even a verified film of the actual event would never bring them “closure.” It’s amazing what we can delude ourselves into believing and accepting based on almost nothing except our “feelings” that something is “out there.” Cue Mulder & Scully and creepy “X-files” music.
waynebro:
That’s possible too, but, as I explained to Archie in another context, not very likely.
mespo727272 1, January 2, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“waynebro:
On the PM report, most people believe it to be accurate and are satisfied it addresses the problems raised by the crazies. It may not be complete nor comprehensive, but it puts to rest the main fallacies of the conspiracy crowd, who, after all, bear the burden of proof of their extraordinary claims”
And therein lies the problem. Calling anyone challenging the Bush administrations official reports “crazies” is disrespectful and dismissive and doesn’t help illuminate anything. It just shuts the door on any real investigation. Was Bush’s original lead investigator a “crazy” when his report indicated that there just wasn’t enough heat to damage the supports? He said the fire was way too high up, and even combined with the materials in the office could never have impacted the steel so far down as to cause a collapse. If anything the building would have “broken off” near the top. He also pointed out that the 3500 degree tested steel would have had to have been incredibly hot all the way down for it to be “weakened” near the base. And that meant incredible temperatures on the other floors and in the stairwells. Hot enough to melt human skin. Yet no one melted on the way down. He also pointed out that the fire would have to be “stoked” constantly to send the heat 90 stories down the steel supports like that. If you’ve ever tempered a sword you’d know what he meant by that. The fires were according to him not only not hot enough but they would have needed to be on the BOTTOM of the supports, not the top, to have any real impact on them that low. That’s what he said and he was FIRED for saying it.
Was he a “crazy” too?
Are the widows of 911 crazies too? They still don’t buy the official story so they must be nuts, right?
- “Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proofs, and innuendo, speculation, and the accounts of frantic eyewitnesses neither qualify as such nor persuade me as much as the comments of the professionals in the various fields cited by PM.”
Not everyone is making “extraordinary claims”. Many people are just asking questions. But these questions are silenced by people like you who call them “crazies” and immediately list them as “conspiracy theorists”. Well I know I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t even have a theory. Yet anyone “questioning” the event is immediately told in liberal blogs all over the web that they’re crazy and nuts and that the case is closed.
Well the truth is I just don’t know what happened on that morning.
But I don’t think you do either.
In 1991 a fire at One Meridian Plaza, a 38 story office bldg in Philly burned for 18 hours and burned 8 floors completely, yet not one iota of damage to the steel was reported.
In 1998 the First Interstate Bank bldg in Los Angeles burned for hours in a horrific fire that was reported to be much worse than what was on the Trade Towers, yet no damage whatsoever was discovered on the steel supports of the 64 story building.
In fact, in over a century of steel skyscrapers, there has NEVER been an example of steel collapsing from fire. Never. Not once. EVER.
And yet you call people “Crazies” who doubt the Bush administrations (and all its underlings) story about how the trade towers fell?
And how did bldg 7 collapse again? How did the bldg that just “happened” to contain all sorts of documents involving Vice President Cheney just happen to collapse too? The fire got to it?
What fire? The fire on the 90th floor of the world trade center that we couldn’t even see?
You mean that fire?
What did it teleport over to Bldg 7 and burn it down? And why did that bldg collapse again?
No mespo, the Bush administration has controlled this story since day one and if you want me to accept that not one, but THREE bldgs suddenly collapsed from some “invisible” fire that was so hot that it weakened supports 90 stories beneath it, and then magically “jumped” to a bldg a block away without burning anything in its way (or anyone) and then somehow weakened the supports of that bldg so that once more something thats NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE suddenly happened a THIRD time, and dropped a bldg containing papers Dick Cheney didn’t want us to see, well…..you’re gonna have to get me pretty drunk to buy THAT story.
And you’d have to buy me dinner too.
waynebro:
Questions are fine, but these are more than just questions. They are an attempt to promulgate a point of view. That is exactly what I do on cross-exam, and. as you must know, I am doing that as an advocate attacking a position. Cross-exam is a method to test another theory of an event. It does that job well. It is not a method of asserting anything except that the theory in the cross hairs in wrong.
Unfortunately, my earnestness in cross-exam does not translate into proof of what actually happened. I have to do that in my case in chief. The “cross-exam” that these websites and some victims engage in is pure attack, without any evidence of what actually occurred. They promote the wild idea that the government is responsible for these events in a sort of “inside job.” Anyone who knows how the government operates knows how unlikely this theory is, especially given that even the top secret domestic telephone surveillance program was leaked to the New York Times.
That goes to my point about probable and improbable beliefs. That one theory cannot explain every question or facet of an event does not make it untrue. That a theory is advocated by the conspiracy crowd and perhaps some of the “victims” but fails miserably to explain the event and is based on, quite frankly, wrong facts should tell us quite a bit about its probability. To rely on wrong facts and expect people to accept what you say is my definition of “crazy.”
Waynebro,
Did those buildings also have planes crash into or near them? That sort of impact needs to be factored in. You’re right, fires don’t collapse skyscrapers by themselves. The fire wasn’t by itself was it?
Excuse me:
“Did those buildings you’re talking about also have…” and “the fire on Sept. 11 wasn’t…”
Mespo,
Quick point for point reply before I venture into the frozen tundra for some rock salt.
“I do note that all the hubub died down once PM talked to the actual experts who shared their accounts of the scene.”
I also note from 4 years of high school electronics class, that the PM’s that were always on the benches were aka “Grease Monkey Monthly.” That aside, the crux of any rebuttal of the PM article is founded upon the premise that they failed to do what you just said they did in an intellectually honest manner.
“Most notably the mysterious “White Jet” which of course was asked by the FAA to investigate and was a corporate jet who happened to be in the area of Shanksville,”
Actually that was addressed midway through the article, seeing the editors chose to lead off with the tin foil hat theory of ‘pods’ as being the number one issue. Cute rhetoric.
“and the infamous “missing debris field” scam at the Pentagon attack that was easily disproved by photographs taken of the scene.”
Actually, the official explanation is that the hydrocarbon fuel of Flight 77 (magically) burned at the heat of vaporization for a 757; leaving no debris behind. You wouldn’t happen to know the max temperature of a diffuse hydrocarbon flame, much less the heat of vaporization of a 757 would you?
“That structural engineers cannot explain every nuance of a building collapse of that magnitude should not make you distrust the main thrust of he piece which is that the event unfolded just as most of us believe it did.”
There’s a difference between failing to explain and neglecting to address. Care to tell me how a building collapses upon itself, into its own footprint, while accelerating down through the path of greatest resistance? In lieu of mentioning the 47 steel columns comprising the core structure, PM chose to focus on ‘puffs of dust.’ BTW, I’m not sure what you ‘believe,’ but I know that Q=MC∆T. Accordingly, I ‘believe’ PM and the and the head of NIST itself found it convenient to deny the existence of molten steel at the bases of the building that remained for almost six months. After all, Q=MC∆T would demand an explanation for the source of sustained heat, exceeding 2,000 degrees F for such a long period of time.
“It’s hard to explain a failure when you cannot simulate the exact occurrence even with computer models.”
Karl Popper is rolling in his grave… Furthermore, they did create computer simulations, which had to be tweaked beyond the impossible to make said simulations work.
“That jet fuel doesn’t burn at the melting point of steel “I” beams does not suggest to me that the heat was insufficient to make the metal infrastructure brittle, and hence reduce its efficiency to the point where the concrete caused it to fail.”
You do know that buildings are designed to bear the weight of the entire structure from the top down; don’t you? Like those 47 steel columns and the internal structure holding it up; just like a five year old with blocks, the foundation was stronger and opposing with more newtons as you went down the building. Then again, when you’re talking bolts and floors ‘pancaking’ on themselves, it’s far more convenient to imagine the building as a hollow structure with only trusses over trusses. Interior structure? What’s that?
“I suspect most of these conspiracy folks”
There you go again.
“were glad 9-11 came about to relieve them from their frustrating pursuit of a “live” Elvis based upon the truly revealing misspelling of his middle name, Aron,on his tombstone.”
And how is the foregoing different from a comment by a rabid right winger describing Turley as a pathetic lefty looney?
“If you hear thundering hooves on the prairie, it’s still probably horses and not zebras.”
Ockham’s razor veiled in sarcasm?
FYI, contrary to popular ignorance, Ockham’s razor is not “the simplest explanation is usually correct.” Rather, it is:
“Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora” (“It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less”).
Meaning, one should never postulate the reality of any entity UNLESS IT IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY TO DO SO.
Apparently your zeal for tranquility over the truth seems to have blinded you and many others to the second requirements of the equation; so to speak.
Now, it’s time to find rock salt.
SIYOM (Stay in your own movie,
Bob
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm
Mespo,
Quick point for point reply before I venture into the frozen tundra for some rock salt.
“I do note that all the hubub died down once PM talked to the actual experts who shared their accounts of the scene.”
I also note from 4 years of high school electronics class, that the PM’s that were always on the benches were aka “Grease Monkey Monthly.” That aside, the crux of any rebuttal of the PM article is founded upon the premise that they failed to do what you just said they did in an intellectually honest manner.
“Most notably the mysterious “White Jet” which of course was asked by the FAA to investigate and was a corporate jet who happened to be in the area of Shanksville,”
Actually that was addressed midway through the article, seeing the editors chose to lead off with the tin foil hat theory of ‘pods’ as being the number one issue. Cute rhetoric.
“and the infamous “missing debris field” scam at the Pentagon attack that was easily disproved by photographs taken of the scene.”
Actually, the official explanation is that the hydrocarbon fuel of Flight 77 (magically) burned at the heat of vaporization for a 757; leaving no debris behind. You wouldn’t happen to know the max temperature of a diffuse hydrocarbon flame, much less the heat of vaporization of a 757 would you?
“That structural engineers cannot explain every nuance of a building collapse of that magnitude should not make you distrust the main thrust of he piece which is that the event unfolded just as most of us believe it did.”
There’s a difference between failing to explain and neglecting to address. Care to tell me how a building collapses upon itself, into its own footprint, while accelerating down through the path of greatest resistance? In lieu of mentioning the 47 steel columns comprising the core structure, PM chose to focus on ‘puffs of dust.’ BTW, I’m not sure what you ‘believe,’ but I know that Q=MC∆T. Accordingly, I ‘believe’ PM and the and the head of NIST itself found it convenient to deny the existence of molten steel at the bases of the building that remained for almost six months. After all, Q=MC∆T would demand an explanation for the source of sustained heat, exceeding 2,000 degrees F for such a long period of time.
“It’s hard to explain a failure when you cannot simulate the exact occurrence even with computer models.”
Karl Popper is rolling in his grave… Furthermore, they did create computer simulations, which had to be tweaked beyond the impossible to make said simulations work.
“That jet fuel doesn’t burn at the melting point of steel “I” beams does not suggest to me that the heat was insufficient to make the metal infrastructure brittle, and hence reduce its efficiency to the point where the concrete caused it to fail.”
You do know that buildings are designed to bear the weight of the entire structure from the top down; don’t you? Like those 47 steel columns and the internal structure holding it up; just like a five year old with blocks, the foundation was stronger and opposing with more newtons as you went down the building. Then again, when you’re talking bolts and floors ‘pancaking’ on themselves, it’s far more convenient to imagine the building as a hollow structure with only trusses over trusses. Interior structure? What’s that?
“I suspect most of these conspiracy folks”
There you go again.
“were glad 9-11 came about to relieve them from their frustrating pursuit of a “live” Elvis based upon the truly revealing misspelling of his middle name, Aron,on his tombstone.”
And how is the foregoing different from a comment by a rabid right winger describing Turley as a pathetic lefty looney?
“If you hear thundering hooves on the prairie, it’s still probably horses and not zebras.”
Ockham’s razor veiled in sarcasm?
FYI, contrary to popular ignorance, Ockham’s razor is not “the simplest explanation is usually correct.” Rather, it is:
“Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora” (“It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less”).
Meaning, one should never postulate the reality of any entity UNLESS IT IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY TO DO SO.
Apparently your zeal for tranquility over the truth seems to have blinded you and many others to the second requirements of the equation; so to speak.
Now, it’s time to find rock salt.
SIYOM (Stay in your own movie,
Bob
mespo727272 1, January 2, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“waynebro:
Questions are fine, but these are more than just questions. They are an attempt to promulgate a point of view. That is exactly what I do on cross-exam, and. as you must know, I am doing that as an advocate attacking a position.”
No they are just questions and examination of data and facts.
When the govt says one thing and someone says, “well, we know this has never happened before” or “the first investigator thought the fire wasn’t hot enough”, those are facts we are using to evaluate a story being sold to us.
What you are doing is supporting the Bush administrations storyline, one that has been carefully put together using computer “modeling” and a lot of speculation and declaring “the jury is in”.
Well, it’s not in. And there’s more than 12 angry men questioning the so called verdict of a jury that’s been pruned until a collective verdict could be read. Bush fired people who wouldn’t sign on to the official story, and that should be enough for ANYONE to question it. That alone is suspicious. Combine that with the fact that they are asking us to believe that something that more than half the experts out there say is impossible, and something that has NEVER HAPPENED EVER in human history, well, I’d say there’s ample room for doubt.
Asking questions means examining information, looking at stories, bringing up conflicting points of view, arguments, ideas, facts, accounts, etc.
But you’d silence all that by saying simply labeling those doing so as conspiracy theorists. Bill Maher does the same thing.
But the fact is there are questions. Real questions and the official story is full of holes. And I’m not saying there’s anything specific that did happen, but what I am saying is what I said earlier.
I just don’t know what happened that morning and I don’t think you do either.
Gyges 1, January 2, 2009 at 3:56 pm
“Waynebro,
Did those buildings also have planes crash into or near them? That sort of impact needs to be factored in. You’re right, fires don’t collapse skyscrapers by themselves. The fire wasn’t by itself was it?”
Bldg 7 nothing hit. No other bldgs collapsed in the area. Why bldg 7? Why the bldg with Cheney’s documents in it? Why that one? Where’d the fire in Bldg 7 come from? Was it teleported from one of the towers?
If it was so hot why didn’t the people and the firemen in the way “melt”?
I’d like to hear more about this over the next decade or so, once the Bush administration is out of office.
waynebro:
All the conspiracy scenarios you cite have been discussed in detail by BBC and dismissed as highly improbable. I suggest you watch the show. BTW Bldg 7 collapsed due to its location, design, damage from the falling North Tower (new photos clearly show damage to the Building’s south side which faced the North Tower) and the un-fought fires ignited on various floors of the building which weaken the connections between the steel girders, per the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I know that opinion pales before the options of the “crazies” and that crowd at “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” headed by Richard Gage but after two years of exhaustive research that’s NIST’s conclusion.
You certainly don’t have to believe the work of these able men and women at NIST but you must answer these questions if the more sinister scenario is so obvious at Gage says: why would these scientists lie, and what proof is there of any deception?
See for yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/
Wayne,
Actually I believe I said “crash into or near them.”
To be honest I knew that you’d find some reason to ignore what I was saying. I was just trying to see if I could beat mespo’s ratio 2 of your replies:1 post. Since I failed, and I’ve got to fight off a pack of rabbits that are terrorizing my dog, I’m done.
Also I know I’m not being very subtle, but I’m hoping you’ll take the bait anyways.
mespo727272 1, January 2, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“waynebro:
All the conspiracy scenarios you cite”
See? There’s the problem.
I didn’t cite any “conspiracy scenarios”.
I asked questions and offered contrasting information.
You for some reason chose to label that information and those questions as “conspiracy scenarios” in order to discredit the information or the very act of asking questions.
As for the BBC having “dismissed” them, and my need to “watch the show”, I’ve done ample reading over this for the last 8 or 9 years, and I’ve seen every show there is to see on it. I’ve read everything you can possibly locate online about it.
And after reading it all I can honestly say there remains REAL QUESTIONS. Real issues. Issues a BBC special hasn’t and won’t likely answer. Especially since these days there are a few million people like yourself ready to dismiss any questions as “conspiracy theories” while you taut the Bush administrations “official story”.
Your newly found confidence in the credibility of the Bush administration and its “experts” is admirable. Sorry if I cannot share in your confidence.
Gyges 1, January 2, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“Wayne,
Actually I believe I said “crash into or near them.”
To be honest I knew that you’d find some reason to ignore what I was saying. I was just trying to see if I could beat mespo’s ratio 2 of your replies:1 post. Since I failed, and I’ve got to fight off a pack of rabbits that are terrorizing my dog, I’m done.
Also I know I’m not being very subtle, but I’m hoping you’ll take the bait anyway”
Nahhh. It sounds like you’re just being a dick.
Here Mespo, at risk of allowing gyges to feel intellectually and morally superior for my taking two comments to complete a thought instead of one, like he and the obviously “better class of people” do, I’ll conclude my thoughts with this.
One day someones really going to take a look at the events of 911, and some answers will be forthcoming. What those answers will be remains to be seen. In the meantime we have two groups fighting each other each trying to shout the other one down. Not a conducive environment for real answers to occur.
On the one hand we have the conspiracy theorists who believe everything from Bush did it to Aliens did it. And on the other hand we’ve got the anti-conspiracy theorists, who buy the Bush administrations “official story” and label anyone not willing to submit to that story, a conspiracy theorist.
Then, what’s left over, is everyone in between.
Those of us who think neither of you know what you’re talking about, …yet, and will wait for time and real investigations, the kind that only come with time and distance from the events and the sensitive issues involved, by impartial experts and analysts to occur before we conclude judgment on the matter.
Until then we’re satisfied in saying we don’t know, and don’t think any of you do either.
Wow! I’m amazed I got this conversation started. Didn’t really expect my comment to go anywhere but being it has I Have to make another. As I said I believe 911 was a inside job. To the skeptics I will say this. You are either in a state of total denial, where you believe the gov’t would never attack it’s own citizens, or you just haven’t seen all the evidence. Someone said something about a building not being built for plane crashes and the resulting fire. The engineers of the 2 towers stated they were built for 2 crashes and the Empire state building had a B-%@ bomber crash into it. I don’t recall the date but you can google it. The pilot got lost in the fog and flew right into the building. He died. Lots of fire. Yet the building stands today. You people that believe the gov’t story (which is the real conspiracy story) need to convince people like me the following things. Why was there no plane debris at the Pentagon? Why were countless video recording not released? How is it that about half the hijackers have been proven to be alive? Where are the bodies from the Shanksville crash? The local coroner said he quit being a coroner 10 minutes after he arrived because there were no bodies to look at.
How did building 7 collapse in the exact same manner as the 2 towers with no plane involved? And why did Bush block every attempt made to investigate the event? What I have stated are documented facts. You people that believe the gov’t conspiracy theory must explain these facts along with many others I have not stated. You have not. The 911 truth movement has documents, video footage, science, and physics to back up our claim it was a inside job. What do you have? The word of one of the most corrupt administrations this country has ever seen. I have suspected this as being a inside job since about the 2nd day when they started to blame Al Qeida. When it happened I expected a huge investigation to last for months before they found the guilty party. When they announce the guilty people only 2-3 days after the event I knew something wasn’t right.
I suggest the following films for viewing. 911: In Plane Site, Loose Change, Terrorstorm, and Fabled Enemies. If you take the time to watch these films you will see a whole new picture of 911 and the governments behind it.
Vince:
You are laboring under so many half-truths and false impressions that you need some quiet time alone to find out the facts and not rely on your recollections. Building 7 was addressed by NIST as I mentioned in my earlier post. You can also check out the BBC documentary for more info about that aspect.
What the engineers said about the Towers’ ability to withstand a plane crash was that they were designed to absorb a Boeing 707 impact, the largest commercial airliner of its time 30 years before the attack. Flight 11 & 175 were Boeing 767′s. The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport since it was assumed it would be lost in fog or other inclement weather; the Boeing 767- 200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.
The B-25 Mitchell Bomber that hit the Empire State Building weighted considerably less (41,000 lbs takeoff weight) and flew at speeds much less than jet speed (275 mph maximum air speed). You can do the math using F=MV to figure the difference in impact strength.
Mespo,
Quick point for point reply before I venture into the frozen tundra for some rock salt.
—
Quick? Hardly!
This post of yours is the lengthiest of any you’ve proffered since you showed up ‘chumming’ us ‘turlees’ last March…
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/26/chumming-for-torts-tourist-killed-by-sharks-after-company-chums-water-with-fish-parts/
Mespo:
“BTW Bldg 7 collapsed due to its location, design, damage from the falling North Tower (new photos clearly show damage to the Building’s south side which faced the North Tower) and the un-fought fires ignited on various floors of the building which weaken the connections between the steel girders, per the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I know that opinion pales before the options of the “crazies” and that crowd at “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” headed by Richard Gage but after two years of exhaustive research that’s NIST’s conclusion.”
Actually Mespo, you seem to have become so fixated on retaining your ‘tranquil beliefs’, and opposed to engaging in earnest argumentation on this matter, that you’ve given up on re-examining your position; much less bothering to get your facts straight. In fact, you simply parroted the baseless claims made, and fraudulently held out as ‘truth,’ by Popular Mechanics(aka Grease Monkey Monthly).
Perhaps realizing it could never reconcile asymmetrical damage with a PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL collapse, NIST said in its final report:
NIST: “Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.” (NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)
I know, you’re probably sitting back thinking WTC 7 didn’t need any damage from the other towers with those ‘massive’ fires fed by all that fuel oil in the building; right?
NIST: “However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.” (NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)
I think it was Jon Lovitz as the compulsive liar who said “When in doubt, just keep changing your story…yeah, that’s the ticket.”
But don’t worry, by employing pathological science to ignore any facts contradicting their ‘final theory’, e.g. the MOLTEN f’n STEEL existing at the basements of all three buildings for months, NIST claims it explained how a COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED EVENT, in the century long history of steel buildings, occurred on 9/11.
And speaking of the BBC, I’m wondering why NIST didn’t contract for their help in preparing the report; seeing how the BBC broadcasted the details of WTC 7′s UNPRECEDENTED demise 20 MINUTES BEFORE IT HAPPENED.
Sorry Mespo, my refusal to allow anyone to force me to lie to myself and live within those lies extends further than my hatred of the Bush administration. Consider it a categorical imperative if you will.
SIYOM,
Bob
Bob,Esq:
Not to topple your world but here is the press release from NIST explaining the role of the North Tower debris that did ignite fires in the the building. I do prefer to accept scientific explanations over idle speculation:
“Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.”
You’ll also be happy to know that many outside technical experts were consulted in the report such as well respected Applied Research Associates. To allege conspiracy to conceal facts, you must necessarily conclude that hundreds of people with advanced degrees from all scientific disciplines conspired to deprive their country of the truth about the biggest tragedy in most of their livetimes. That, to me, is the far-fetched aspect of your contention. They could certainly be wrong, but that is a far cry from deducing that the government somehow precipitated all of this for its own nefarious designs. Paranoia is a bad substitute for reason.
Mespo:
“Not to topple your world but here is the press release from NIST explaining the role of the North Tower debris that did ignite fires in the the building. I do prefer to accept scientific explanations over idle speculation:”
Mespo, if you truly prefer the scientific method then why do you treat it with such disdain? According to our friend Karl Popper, a scientific theory that is not falsifiable is no scientific theory at all; i.e., unless the “theory” can, in some way, be tested as false by an observation or a physical experiment, it’s pure horse shit. For example, a ‘scientific theory’ that FAILS TO ADDRESS interconnected facts and phenomena that cannot be explained, thereby contradicting the validity of said theory, is not falsifiable and therefore invalid. To be clear, the theory is invalid because it demands that any test of its validity to blindly accept the untested assumptions upon which it is based.
Still with me?
Just one example of key factor conveniently ignored by NIST’s version of the ‘scientific method’ was the existence of molten steel and partially evaporated steel.
From the NY Times:
“A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. 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.”
http://tinyurl.com/9u7xgz
And not for nothing, I never breathed a word about ‘conspiracy’ other than to remind you it was one of three inchoate crimes with uniquely specific elements. Inserting one of your premises into my argument and thence attempting to reduce it to absurdity, with a sad cliche argument no less, is truly below you.
But assuming for argument sake that we were discussing ‘conspiracy,’ as one lawyer to another, I would politely remind you of just how rediculous you sound with comments like:
“To allege conspiracy to conceal facts, you must necessarily conclude that hundreds of people with advanced degrees from all scientific disciplines conspired to deprive their country of the truth about the biggest tragedy in most of their livetimes. That, to me, is the far-fetched aspect of your contention.”
Query: Since when in the history of jurisprudence has proving the existence of a conspiracy necessitated a showing of KNOWLEDGE on the part of all actors? Do I hear it said that the key element of a chain conspiracy is no longer knowledge of a large operation? If five people conspire to commit atrocities by dividing up all the conspiracy widget work to thousands of individuals who have no idea of any large operation, do we incarcerate them and every member of society who helped them, and so on and so on??
Was the BBC engaged in a ‘conspiracy’ when it aired this?
No.
But it does raise the question of how a broadcast station was informed that an unprecedented event in the history of steel buildings had ‘already’ happened 20 minutes earlier than it actually did.
In the future, save the sophomoric ‘conspiracy’ talking points for someone who’s not insulted by them. And do please attempt to make so much as an appearance of engaging in argument by addressing at least some of my points in your counter argument.
SIYOM,
Bob
Mespo:
“Not to topple your world but here is the press release from NIST explaining the role of the North Tower debris that did ignite fires in the the building. I do prefer to accept scientific explanations over idle speculation:”
Mespo, if you truly prefer the scientific method then why do you treat it with such disdain? According to our friend Karl Popper, a scientific theory that is not falsifiable is no scientific theory at all; i.e., unless the “theory” can, in some way, be tested as false by an observation or a physical experiment, it’s pure horse shit. For example, a ‘scientific theory’ that FAILS TO ADDRESS interconnected facts and phenomena that cannot be explained, thereby contradicting the validity of said theory, is not falsifiable and therefore invalid. To be clear, the theory is invalid because it demands that any test of its validity to blindly accept the untested assumptions upon which it is based.
Still with me?
Just one example of key factor conveniently ignored by NIST’s version of the ‘scientific method’ was the existence of molten steel and partially evaporated steel.
From the NY Times:
“A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. 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.”
(link removed awaiting moderation)
And not for nothing, I never breathed a word about ‘conspiracy’ other than to remind you it was one of three inchoate crimes with uniquely specific elements. Inserting one of your premises into my argument and thence attempting to reduce it to absurdity, with a sad cliche argument no less, is truly below you.
But assuming for argument sake that we were discussing ‘conspiracy,’ as one lawyer to another, I would politely remind you of just how rediculous you sound with comments like:
“To allege conspiracy to conceal facts, you must necessarily conclude that hundreds of people with advanced degrees from all scientific disciplines conspired to deprive their country of the truth about the biggest tragedy in most of their livetimes. That, to me, is the far-fetched aspect of your contention.”
Query: Since when in the history of jurisprudence has proving the existence of a conspiracy necessitated a showing of KNOWLEDGE on the part of all actors? Do I hear it said that the key element of a chain conspiracy is no longer knowledge of a large operation? If five people conspire to commit atrocities by dividing up all the conspiracy widget work to thousands of individuals who have no idea of any large operation, do we incarcerate them and every member of society who helped them, and so on and so on??
Was the BBC engaged in a ‘conspiracy’ when it aired this?
(link removed awaiting moderation)
No.
But it does raise the question of how a broadcast station was informed that an unprecedented event in the history of steel buildings had ‘already’ happened 20 minutes earlier than it actually did.
In the future, save the sophomoric ‘conspiracy’ talking points for someone who’s not insulted by them. And do please attempt to make so much as an appearance of engaging in argument by addressing at least some of my points in your counter argument.
SIYOM,
Bob
Bob,Esq:
To engage directly, I see no reasonable way that the NIST report can be called unfalsifiable. In fact, it was tested by outside consultants who reviewed every assumption and retested its conclusion. This fact alone refutes that argument completely. Numerous scenarios were proposed and tested and some, like fuel fires, were ruled out. This to me is the essence of the scientific method. I saw no rush to judgment either since the process took two years to complete not weeks or months.
In addition NIST utilized the following organizations for technical expertise and to serve on its advisory board:Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).
NIST is uniquely positioned to investigate this collapse receiving high marks for other failure investigations. NIST either has led or participated in the following:
* terrorist bombing, Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Okla., 1995;
* terrorist bombing, World Trade Center, New York, N.Y., 1993;
* building fire, Happylands Social Club, Bronx, N.Y., 1992;
* building fire, Dupont Plaza Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1986;
* collapse of walkway, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Kansas City, Mo., 1981; and
* condominium collapse, Cocoa Beach, Fla., 1981.
In fact, NIST did investigate alternate theories such as the controlled demolition theory and the missile attack theory an found NO evidence of such an event. See NIST Fact Sheet and Section 3.3 of the Report which rule out blast theories due to inconsistent window breakage patterns associated with blasts and inconsistent sound wave patterns.
On your conspiracy argument, you must know that all of the independent organizations signed off on the final report an dthus were aware of its findings. That means each was aware of its conclusions and certainly are are of them now. None has voiced any opposition.
I must say that you have an exceptionally suspicions take on this issue with little evidence to go on, and seem willing to accept any conclusion except the one that is put forth by the best qualified organization we have to investigate it and the one most scientifically tested, scrutinized, and peer reviewed. Strange for a person usually firmly cemented in the camp of reason over emotion.
I think Bob’s suspicions are firmly cemented in the camp of reason over emotion.
There’s real questions out there that the administrations “answers” just do not answer. The idea of “flying embers” reaching an office bldg and igniting it causing it to burn so hot that it too “collapses in on itself identical to a controlled demolition” is ….well…lets just say that it is reasonable for someone to doubt such a fanciful explanation. Particularly considering these magical flying burning pieces of debris that were apparently invisible to the camera, didn’t seem to burn down any other buildings.
Just the one.
Just the one with all the questionable documents that Cheney wanted destroyed.
…ahem….
See, if I were to accept such, …let us say “creative” explanations, like I said last night you’d first have to get me pretty drunk, not box wine drunk either…I”m talking Makers Mark stumblebum drunk,.. and then of course buy me dinner. Only then would I allow myself to be so “easy” with the facts.
waynebro:
If you read NIST’s report and see the pictures, these were not flying embers but actual impacts from the debris of the falling Tower that started the various fires. I think the Report is worth your time to review.
I’ve read the report. I’ve seen all the reports that are available online. I watched the events live as they happened all day on 911. The term “embers” was just a characterization. And that debris didn’t cause any other buildings to collapse on themselves. You keep steering us to these shows, and reports, and their convoluted computer simulation explanations of what caused not one but 3 buildings to collapse into a perfect footprint of themselves identical to controlled demolitions, but what you fail to realize is we’ve seen them already. We’ve heard the answers. We’ve seen the so called data. The “new” data mind you. Not the original data that the man presenting said data was fired for presenting. No we’re talking the new data. The data that’s come out under the auspices of the Bush administration and other so called “independent 3rd parties” who like Bush, wanted to rush to get answers to close the case prior to Bush leaving office.We’ve seen the answer Mespo. The problem is we’re just not buying them.
Feel free to yourself but you shouldn’t insult others intelligence or sanity for merely refusing to accept data that so many other experts also do not accept. There’s two schools of thought out there, but only one of them is being heard. The other is being shouted down as soon as it presents one tidbit of opposing data by declaring those presenting that data as “conspiracy theorist nutjobs” thus silencing any further inquiry into the matter.
There’s real questions out there and we’ve seen your answers. We’re just not buying them.
You certainly have the right to think as you choose, but a rationale for your suspicions would be nice.
What would be even nicer is a rationale for why you chose to change my “doubts” into your “suspicions”.
Waynebro, from the very first moment you showed up here you’ve done nothing but display you ignorance.
How dare you, a high school drop out, attempt to argue with those of us with advanced degrees and ‘real’ ie professional jobs.
You should shut your pie hole and listen to mespo and me. You might actually learn something!
I have to ask you to dial down on the personal attacks, Patty C. While I recognize that a culinary devotee might gravitate to expressions about shutting pie holes, there is a civility rule on the blog and everyone’s views are welcomed equally. As one of our founding (and most valued) bloggers, I really need you to help maintain the decorum of the blog — and continue to fork over proven recipes with poignant observations!
WAYNEBRO:
I accept your doubts as we all have them but at some point we have to decide which is the most probable scenario. The official one of NIST, backed by evidence, or the doubts we have based on supposition and so-called “common sense.” I don’t want you to fall into the trap of vince who just accepts what he’s “heard” as true without any investigation. That apparently hasn’t happened to you but referring to proven impacts as “embers” does your argument no credit and places you closer to the category of those who have made up their minds of something nefarious without the willingness to say so and then go about attacking contrary evidence without any real basis except to say its a priori knowledge which of course it cannot be. I hope you are not hiding your true opinion behind the mantle of unreasonable “doubts.”
On a more pleasant topic, how to do you like the new gravtar? It’s Cicero.
Mespo:
As Cicero said, To each his own.(Suum Cuique)
I like the choice. Fits you well. After all, it was Cicero who stated “Our thoughts are free.” He also stated “The wise are instructed by reason; ordinary minds by experience; the stupid, by necessity; and brutes by instinct.” He would have used trolls for brutes, but the term did not exist at the time.
JT:
Since my own visage would scare away all but the most stout-hearted, I picked a hero from my youth. Who says Catholic School doesn’t confer lifelong benefits? This quote from Cicero hangs in my office:
Advice is judged by results, not intentions.
–Cicero (Ad Atticum)
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 8:21 am
“WAYNEBRO:
I accept your doubts as we all have them but at some point we have to decide which is the most probable scenario. The official one of NIST, backed by evidence, or the doubts we have based on supposition and so-called “common sense.” I don’t want you to fall into the trap of vince who just accepts what he’s “heard” as true without any investigation.”
Well thanks for your concern Mespo. Its quite touching.
However to curb your fears you can rest assured regardless of your close and valuable friend Patty’s declarations of my lack of education, and my wholly “unprofessional career” and of course my complete and utter ignorance, I am, believe it or not, perfectly capable of thinking for myself.
In fact in my 17 years as a data engineer and security consultant I’ve actually submitted information for the NIST “SP” (Special Publication) papers, and even helped work on a few, not to mention consulting on technical books like the famous “INTERCONNECTIONS” (don’t bother, it’ll be over your head) and other technical materials and papers. So believe it or not, and not to dissuade your fanciful imaginings of me being a 20 year old living in his moms basement, I actually possess the capability to examine data for myself, and even know a little bit more about it than I let on.
As for your obsession of my using the word “embers” all I can say is if you can’t see the symbolism there then perhaps relaxing your sphincter a little might let you loosen up and recognize the comparison there. In fact, perhaps this definition of the word from Wiki will help you see the similitude.
“Embers are the glowing, hot coals made of greatly heated wood, coal or ‘other carbon based material’ that remain after, or sometimes precede a fire.”
See? It’s easy when you’re not focusing on trying to mock peoples intelligence. However, it is not my intention to permit you to coerce me into defending Bob’s positions even though you keep trying so hard. As I’ve stated to you repeatedly now based on the facts available I simply don’t know what happened on that morning. I also am quite confident that neither do you, based on your grasping to a poorly written, inconclusive and often convoluted report submitted to NIST based on some really creative computer modeling.
As I said earlier, the facts do not support the Bush administrations theories, regardless of what well respected agencies he attempts to funnel them through. There are questions out there. Real questions, and dismissing those asking questions by relegating them to the “conspiracy theorist” crowd is a tactic of the Neoconservatives.I’m sorry you feel its a tactic warranted here, but as you said, to each his own.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 8:21 am
“On a more pleasant topic, how to do you like the new gravtar? It’s Cicero.”
Was Cicero a large white breasted fellow with ridiculously large overbite? All I see is the shark.
As for how I “like” it, I’d be more impressed if you demonstrated the wherewithal to use your own photo, so I can at least see the face of my antagonist. I know it’s easier to hide behind the anonymity of the keyboard but since you asked.
I’d invite your insulting and self proclaimed superior sidekick Patty to post hers but I paid a lot for this monitor.
“So believe it or not, and not to dissuade your fanciful imaginings of me being a 20 year old living in his moms basement, I actually possess the capability to examine data for myself, and even know a little bit more about it than I let on. … “See? It’s easy when you’re not focusing on trying to mock peoples intelligence.”
************
I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I have shown your POV noting but respect on this thread. Bob and I get a little testy but it’s a professional courtesy thing to bare our teeth once in a while. My real bile was reserved for the crazies who actually believe the government is in league with aliens and somehow precipitated this mess. Anger directed at the wrong person is no substitute for fact-based counterexamples or reasoned debate.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“I think you have me mistaken for someone else.”
Nope. Pretty sure I got the right Mespo.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“Anger directed at the wrong person is no substitute for fact-based counterexamples or reasoned debate.”
Nor is fabricating “anger” and attributing it to the other person a substitute for fact-based counterexamples or reasoned debate.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“My real bile was reserved for the crazies who actually believe the government is in league with aliens and somehow precipitated this mess”
Bile’s a good choice of words.
How many people do you actually think believe the government is in league with “aliens”?
Not many I’d imagine. But statements like that do go a long way towards silencing anyone with questions or doubts on the issue by pushing them all into your neatly wrapped “nutcase” package.
Just to clarify things a little bit, I am not the Vince who posted above as “Vince, January 2, 2009 at 9:37 pm” and as “vince, January 2, 2009 at 11:24 am”
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 8:21 am
“WAYNEBRO:
I accept your doubts as we all have them but at some point we have to decide which is the most probable scenario. The official one of NIST, backed by evidence, or the doubts we have based on supposition and so-called “common sense.”
Statements like this constitute the “respect” you’ve shown my “POV” on this thread. You talk to people who disagree with you like you’re talking to children who are in need of your wisdom. Here, lets examine your respect for my position.
You said – “I accept your doubts “BUT” they’re based on “supposition and so-called common sense”.
Wow. If that’s what passes for respect with you then I’d hate to see your disrespect. My common sense is my common sense. Not my “so called common sense” as your so called “respect” for my position dictates.
People, intelligent people, educated people, experts, have serious problems with the NIST conclusions. They’re not moonbats. They’re not nutjobs. And they’re not as your partner Patty declares, “ignorant”. They’re real people with real questions and doubts and until there is real investigation (meaning where real investigators are not FIRED for stating conclusions not acceptable to the Bush administration) then the jury will still be out for us. Sorry that doesn’t fit in with your conclusions and you’re welcome to your conclusions. But you should not disrespect others simply for not sharing them.
Waynebro:
It’s hard to argue with a guy who’s determined to be insulted no matter what you say or what you didn’t do. That’s sort of my problem with your “questions” about Bldg. You won’t even concede there is a much evidence on the side of the NIST report as perhaps there is against it. An you should know that most people will disrespect your conclusions if all you have is some as populum argument that other people believe it and therefore so do you.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“Waynebro:
It’s hard to argue with a guy who’s determined to be insulted no matter what you say or what you didn’t do.”
So you’re saying that you wouldn’t think I was insulting you if I referred to your “so called intelligence”?
Your “so called” status as an attorney?
Your “so called” honesty?
Your “so called” integrity?
I think what’s bothering you is not your fabrications about my determination to be insulted but my ability to recognize your carefully gilded insults when you deliver them.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“You won’t even concede there is a much evidence on the side of the NIST report as perhaps there is against it. An you should know that most people will disrespect your conclusions if all you have is some as populum argument that other people believe it and therefore so do you.”
No, I won’t concede to letting you force me into defending a position I don’t hold.
Your straw arguments about “all you have” are just a pathetic attempt at ignoring the actual details of some of the doubts I presented above to the existing data. I told you what I found troubling with the data but you ignore it, and instead try to compel me into defending a position that you find easier to debate.
…well, not actually debate but easier for you to declare them nutjobs and move on.
Like the neoconservatives you begin your debate by mocking and dismissing anyone with an opposing view or doubts in your theories as “crazies” and kooks. Then you invent “anger” and “hurt feelings” for me or anyone who refuses to capitulate to your position.
No ones angry. No ones feelings are hurt. I just refuse to capitulate to your position or your mockery of anyone who won’t.
Waynebro:
Ah, the reference to “‘so-called’ common sense” was directed at the utter foolishness of that term (which refers to something not too common or particularly rational) and not at you. I thought that was fairly clear from its context, but if it wasn’t I apologize for that.
I’ve listened to both sides, read and absorbed as much data on the subject that my “ignorance” permits, and after reviewing both sides I can honestly say there’s room for serious doubts on the official story. I did look at the data from the original investigator from the NTSB, right before Bush fired him. He said there wasn’t near enough heat to impact the steel 90 stories below. He also brought up a lot of the things I mentioned above that you just so lazily skimmed over in your dressing down of me. He discussed the lack of heat impacting the rescue workers and survivors that would have had to have been present for the steel to be so hot. He discussed the temperatures of office material and how hot it burns. He discussed the quick consumption of “most” of the jet fuel in the first explosions. He discussed the improbability of not one but both towers falling in the same manner and he discussed the improbability that Building 7 could have been ignited so badly, much less what could have weakened the supports of Bldg 7, since there was no magical jet fuel to help weaken the supports. The impact of the planes a block away would not be sufficient to collapse the steel of that building as has been speculated, particularly since no other buildings suffered a similar fate. A fate that has never happened once before I might add, in all of human history. He made his report, then Bush fired him, and hired a new group who’d say what he wanted them to say. Just like he did when Alberto Gonzales tried to get John Ashcroft to sign off on Domestic spying. When Ashcroft refused and declared domestic spying illegal, Bush fired him, and hired a guy (gonzo) who would say it was legal.
Its what Bush does, and for the life of me I cannot imagine why you’d think he’d do any different here. Perhaps the possible answers are just “too big” for most people to deal with. After all, imagine the ramifications if there was any sort of skulduggery with regards to 911. Of any sort.
But feel free to cling to the NIST report Bush prepared for you. Its your call. But you might some day considering asking yourself why at no time did the NIST investigation even bother to test for explosives.
You also might ask why Bush fired the original investigators. You might also ask why the office with Cheney’s documents was destroyed, when no other buildings were. You might ask yourself all sorts of things. You might, but I doubt you will. I on the other hand will wait until these and so many other answers are forthcoming. Answers NOT included in your precious “NIST” report.
In the meantime, feel free to mock the fact that I took three comments to respond to your one. I only do it because I’m usually working on something when I blog so I can’t always finish a thought when I want, but I know it gives you and one or two others in here great pleasure in declaring it a sign of my obvious inferiority so have at it.
By the way, don’t take my refusal to debate this topic, or more correctly, allowing you to force me into debating a position I do not possess, as any sort of animosity. I enjoy our debates, this is just not an issue you really want to debate, nor do I. You want to mock any deviation from the Bush official position and I don’t really have a position other than I doubt the Bush position based on the ORIGINAL reports from the NTSB and the cover ups, hush ups, etc, so there’s nothing really to debate.
You believe Bush.
I don’t.
But we can always debate something else.
jonathanturley 1, January 4, 2009 at 7:24 am
I have to ask you to dial down on the personal attacks, Patty C. While I recognize that a culinary devotee might gravitate to expressions about shutting pie holes, there is a civility rule on the blog and everyone’s views are welcomed equally. As one of our founding (and most valued) bloggers, I really need you to help maintain the decorum of the blog — and continue to fork over proven recipes with poignant observations!
———-
Forgive me. Dialing down.
Next time, I’ll convey my displeasure by telling Waynebro aka Bartleee/Cromagnum Man to ‘stick a fork in it’!
I agree with mespo most of the time and this is no exception.
I offer this Oped by Paul Krugman entitled ‘Bigger than Bush’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1
Thanks, Patty C.
I did read the editorial, though I was more interested when I heard the the Republicans had become “winers.” It turns out that he thinks that they are just “whiners,” far less interesting. The best GOP winer was Sen. Tower, but there are some in close competition on both sides of the aisle.
Patty C 1, January 4, 2009 at 6:56 am
“Waynebro, from the very first moment you showed up here you’ve done nothing but display you ignorance.
How dare you, a high school drop out, attempt to argue with those of us with advanced degrees and ‘real’ ie professional jobs.
You should shut your pie hole and listen to mespo and me. You might actually learn something!”
-
Lest anyone think you’re as superior as your constant protestations to the fact would indicate.
Oh and its’ “your” ignorance.
Not “you” ignorance.
Patty C:
I just read that editorial this afternoon and thought it captured the essence of the last eight years perfectly. If the present really does ride the shoulders of the past, Obama best look out for the bottom of the coffee table to avoid hitting his head. Maybe we have a new metaphor. Perhaps the past is now the dwarf and the present the giant!
jonathanturley 1, January 4, 2009 at 8:30 pm
“Thanks, Patty C.”
Yea by all means lets thank her.
Lets thank her for declaring that instead of walking into a thread where I’ve said absolutely nothing to her and just calling me ignorant and a high school drop out and not worth of arguing with such lofty educated professionals like herself like she did here today, and on several other occasions, she’ll now only walk into threads where I’ve said nothing to her and tell me to “stick a fork in it”.
That’s so much more reasonable.
I really enjoy her constant unprovoked insult attacks along with her incessant proclamations of her own lofty moral and intellectual superiority. She must be superior because she’s always telling me so. She’s indeed a legend in her own mind.
Yes, thanks.
Thanks a lot.
JT, I heard someone comment, I don’t remember who, when it was announced that the bars were staying open until 4am in DC for the inauguration that it was clear that whatever else happens, it’s clear, ‘we’re gonna need alcohol’…
mespo, I agree. The ‘Incompetence Theory’ is a good one and I’ll stand by it.
“You also might ask why Bush fired the original investigators.”
***********
Well I am not sure fired is the right word. Clearly the FBI took over the investigation (displacing NTSB) of this mass murder pursuant to federal law since it was, after all, a crime scene. I did however consider the claims of those people reprimanded for statements saying it couldn’t have happened the way most of us saw it happen. And I reached two possible conclusions: First it either was because Bush was hiding the biggest criminal cover up in the Nation’s history with literally thousands of eyes watching his every move from Boston to Bangkok, or second, it was because the “investigators” was reckless and jumped to a judgment without sufficient knowledge gleaned from a comprehensive analysis of teh event by various pertinent disciplines. You either believe that one guy has all the answers or you don’t. Put me in the camp of the skeptics. After reading about Kevin Ryan’s (the UL Lab director for Water Quality) letter disputing the conclusions without any authority from Underwriters Laboratories, I think I am on the side of the angels here. I have seen too many experts like Ryan climb out on limbs created by their incredible egos. I find them more humble and circumspect in packs.
You’re ignoring the firing of the NTSB investigator who for a while had a website up detailing his findings and his firing. That’s all disappeared now. Couldn’t tell you where it went.
As for referencing Ryan as that’s the crux of doubt on the issue is laughable. You ignore so many events, so many issues, like the FBI agent who was silenced for speaking out pre 911 on Muhammad Atta and the others taking flying lessons on Jets without landing lessons. What was her name? Rawley? I honestly don’t remember. Because unlike your attempts to paint me as such I’m not a “conspiracy theorist” and I don’t have a never ending wealth of data at my fingertips to debate you with on the topic. I “read” the data, I didn’t memorize it. I don’t obsess over it.
The current “official story” is full of holes. NIST never bothered to look for any actual evidence. After all against objections of so many investigators Bush ordered the site plowed under before any real investigation could take place. They cited safety reasons of course, which whenever cited causes the general population to emit a collective “ahhhhh” as their eyes roll over backwards in their sockets, but clearly there was ample evidence to demonstrate the last thing the officials were concerned with was worker safety. They still aren’t.
And as for what we “all saw happen”? If you remember correctly several announcers were speculating that the buildings were felled, as was most people watching at home, because that’s what it looked like. That’s what we saw. That’s what our eyes told us. The fancy computer simulations are there to tell us we saw something than what our eyes showed us.
No Mespo, sorry, but there’s so many holes in the official versions of the events as well as the cover ups and attempts to cover up, the stonewalling, the destruction of evidence. There’s certainly ample reason to doubt the official story.
As for the two possible conclusions you demonstrate limited thinking. I’ve thought of literally dozens of possible conclusions, perhaps hundreds. The truth is often not black and white and that’s why waiting for real investigations to occur is important. Of course even then we may never find out. After all Bush successfully buried the evidence.
Anyway all I can say what I told you a day ago. I don’t know and I don’t think you do either.
Mespo and his minions -
Apparently you people are in a complete state of denial. You cannot admit that our gov’t would kill 3000 of it’s own citizens in a false flag attack to justify going to war and taking away our Constitutional rights. Have any of you pro-gov’t dstory people even seen any of the films I recommended in my last post? I doubt it. Seems your only sources for your belief are the gov’t itself, the PM article and the NIST report. None of these entities answers the many questions surrounding this event. There has been strong evidence found indicating it was a controlled demolition. Thermate residue was found at the towers site. Thermate is only used for controlled demolitions. Witnesses at the Pentagon say they smelled cordite. Cordite is a rocket explosive. It would not be found on a commercial plane. BTW you people don’t seem to want to talk about the Pentagon. Please explain how a plane can hit the Pentagon and leave no plane debris? No engines, seats, luggage, wings, fuselage, landing gear. Nothing, zilch. Plus teh hole in the pentagon is way to small for a 757 to go thru but the right size for a missile. Also if you look at the towers going down in slow motion you can see explosions below the blast wave. Please explain that. Most people who know anything about this event have discarded the NIST report, the PM article and the gov’t itself to be bogus. The 911 truth movement has much more evidence to support a inside job. The 911 truth movement has many more physicists, engineers, and other educated people on their side than the gov’t has. Even Ray McGovern, who worked at the CIA, I think for 24 years, says it’s a inside job. Bin Laden is wanted by the FBI for African embassy bombings but not for 911. When asked why they say there is not enough evidence that supports that he did it. The gov’t has been told that about 1/2 of the hijackers are alive and well, yet they do not update the hijackers list. They can’t because if they do it will be evidence they know it’s a inside job. And please explain to me the 5 israelis that were caught filming the towers and celebrating as it happened. The cops caught them, released them to the feds and they let them go back to Israel where they said on TV they were sent there to document the event. They were MOSSAD agents. What I say is all documented. It is not made up. I believe our gov’t and the gov’t of Israel were behind this. It would not be the first time Israel attacked the US and blame the attack on a enemy. Look up USS Liberty. It’s really amazing and pathetic to see how gullible so many people in this country are. I guess if the gov’t says it’s so it must be. Watch the films I recommended and then come back and say it was 19 arabs.
vince:
My “minions” and I think you bear the burden of proving your extraordinary and defamatory claims with extraordinary and convincing proof. I see all innuendo, coincidence, ad populum argument, and a person believing –and desperately wanting to believe– the worst about his Country with nothing more than a preconceived notion fitting a warped value system. Should you be serious you, like every citizen, may appear before the Special Grand Jury and present your “proof.” Let’s see if your fellow citizens reward you with indictments or those funny aluminum hats.
There’s the aluminum hat thing again.
Are you saying his theory that Israeli operatives may have played a role in an attempt to get the US into their war against the Arab nations?
Yea, that’s crazy huh?
I mean, what possible motive could Israel have for drawing the US into their war against the Arab nations?
See, your two conclusions are just that. Your two conclusions. There are many possible players here and many possible conclusions, from complicity to incompetence to just looking the other way. There’s lots of questions. You just don’t like people asking them.
Think I’m wrong? Then answer Vince’s question about why Bin Laden is not wanted for the 911 events, but for the embassy bombings.
Then you can explain to Vince why the govt, our govt, the one who’s story you are in here selling, flew dozens and dozens of Osama Bin Ladens family out of the country without any interrogations or serious questioning, just TWO days after 911.
Explain those two things. Just those two.
Waynebro:
“Are you saying his theory that Israeli operatives may have played a role in an attempt to get the US into their war against the Arab nations? Yea, that’s crazy huh?”
**************
What I say is simple: Prove it!
No ones saying these things did happen…, ok well Vince is but the rest of us aren’t. Meaning the rest who like me, doubt both the official stories and most of the “govt” did it stories still have questions that have not been addressed sufficiently. I doubt the government did it. But that they allowed it to happen is not in doubt. At this point they’re not even really denying they at least (in their words) “dropped the ball”. We know they stifled information. We know they ignored warnings. So that leaves the questions “why”. It also combined with other facts, like the FBI’s wanted list detailing the Embassy bombings and not 911, leaves some real doubt with regards to the who. Who were the players? All the players?
When Bush and the FBI come out and say Bin Laden did it and are back looking for him again because he was responsible, then let me know. But in the meantime, as long as the FBI and the White House are both wishy washy on not only whether he did it but whether or not they’re even looking for him, I’m going to have to reserve judgment until someone can provide me with some real answers.
All I’m saying is there’s easily a reasonable doubt to the “official story”. If this were a real court of law I would think a judge would be compelled to concur with me. There’s a “reasonable doubt”. And until the questions are answered, instead of stifled, I’ll reserve my judgment for something more tangible than your precious NIST report. If that earns me a tinfoil hat in your book then so be it. I’ll wear it prominently on my noggin with pride.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Waynebro:
“Are you saying his theory that Israeli operatives may have played a role in an attempt to get the US into their war against the Arab nations? Yea, that’s crazy huh?”
**************
“What I say is simple: Prove it!”
lol, so I take it reason is not the way this Cicero learns?
One more time.
I don’t need to prove it Flavius. I didn’t assert it.
I merely challenged your dismissal of it as tin foil hat fodder.
Waynebro:
You either assert it or you don’t. If you don’t that’s fine. It’s aluminum foil hat material then. Holding out the possibility of ridiculous events might make you feel inscrutable, but to me it makes you boring. Anything’s possible there Confucius. I’ll be moving on!
Mespo,
Once again you failed to address anything I said in support of my assertions. You simply ignored them as if you were engaged in pathological science.
That aside, allow me to quickly address the following:
“To engage directly, I see no reasonable way that the NIST report can be called unfalsifiable. In fact, it was tested by outside consultants who reviewed every assumption and retested its conclusion. This fact alone refutes that argument completely. Numerous scenarios were proposed and tested and some, like fuel fires, were ruled out. This to me is the essence of the scientific method. I saw no rush to judgment either since the process took two years to complete not weeks or months.”
Mespo, the certain folks in NIST charged with delivering the 7 year old botched abortion known as ‘The Final Report on WTC 7′ were faced with families demanding a new and better detailed & reasoned report; combined with the fact that their faces were turning red with embarassment for taking nearly a decade to explain something, as you would say, so simple and explainable.
Here’s a physics professor voicing one of his objections to NIST’s disregard for the scientific method:
“The nearest of the Twin Towers (WTC 1) was about 100 meters from WTC 7. For building 7 to come straight down at nearly freefall speed without explosives frankly strains credulity and leads us
to search for a better explanation.
Accordingly, several careful studies were performed regarding the collapse of WTC 7.17 I wish to call attention to this footnote in a paper by Professor Kenneth Kuttler:
“any further analysis of WTC7 should include all floors (not just “floors 8 to 46”) and
conservation of momentum considerations.” Now why would he say this about including all the floors in further analysis work, and not “just floors 8 to 46”? Dr. Kuttler’s paper points to a NIST solicitation. After the NIST final report on WTC7 was already long overdue, they solicited proposals for someone else to study the collapse of building 7. The grant went to ARA in New Mexico, and here is the solicitation that went out from NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7:
“Create detailed floor analyses to determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations) at the World Trade Center
Building Seven.”
We want to understand the collapse of this building, yet NIST is asking whoever accepts the contract to put blinders on and only consider “floors 8 to 46.” That, to me, is not a very scientific way
to proceed. As a scientist, what does this make me want to do? Of course I want to know, “what happened below floor 8? Why should I not consider what happened below floor 8, or above floor 46?”
(link omitted, awaiting moderator)
BTW, I found your comparison between 707′s and 767-200′s to be incorrect and outright misleading.
The difference between 707′s and 767′s per total mass and maximum force of impact (P=MV) is negligible and I’d be glad to show you why later. However, you characterized the design of the WTC as ONLY being able to withstand a 707 traveling at landing approach velocity. This is incorrect.
Here’s what the folks at Worthington, Skilling, i.e. the firm that Leslie Robertson & co worked for, said about the design of the Towers as far back as 1964:
“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”
Leslie Robertson, et. al. would repeat this claim in numerous interviews and documentaries for the next 40 years when making comments such as he “designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it.”
SIYOM,
Bop
Mespo,
One quick reminder:
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
The burden is upon he who affirms, not he who denies.
Did you know you have a proclivity for denying the existence of evidence contradicting ‘the official story?’
BTW, the world is still waiting for that white paper promised by Tony Blair and Colin Powell PROVING that Bin Laden & Al Qaeda did what they say they did.
Funny how the FBI doesn’t attribute 9-11 to Bin Laden in its Most Wanted poster.
SIYOM,
Bob
mespo727272
1, January 4, 2009 at 11:59 pm
“Waynebro:
You either assert it or you don’t. If you don’t that’s fine. It’s aluminum foil hat material then. Holding out the possibility of ridiculous events might make you feel inscrutable, but to me it makes you boring. Anything’s possible there Confucius. I’ll be moving on!”
Once more your bipolar view of everything limits your thinking. I either assert or I don’t, or I allow room for the possibility thereof. I don’t assert multiple dimensional theory but I allow for the possibility of it.
I don’t assert M theory but I allow for the possibility of it. And I don’t assert the theory that some Israeli faction had a role in 911, but I allow for the possibility of it, as I do for many theories that have a degree of plausibility to them. You don’t have to agree or disagree with something to acknowledge it. The juries still out for me on what happened, and the notion that Israel would have something to gain from dragging the US into a war against arab nations is certainly not a ridiculous notion. Theres motive so of course its a possible theory until proven otherwise.
Of course instead of addressing the specifics you asked for that I gave you, you instead just post another rant, calling me boring and alluding to my stupidity. Thats because you can’t answer the two questions I gave you hours ago, so you’d rather bury them in a tirade of haughty superior bullshit.
What’s boring to me is closed minded individuals who mock and ridicule anyone who doesn’t agree with their version of the truth, particularly when there are clearly many schools of thought on the subject which are held by a wide and diverse group of scholars, experts and those involved in the events.
If Bin Laden did it, then why aren’t we really after him? Why isn’t the whole world after him? Why do we call Pakistan an ally who we know is providing him safe haven? Why did Bush disband the Bin Laden team? Why did he say he’s not really interested in him? Why did the White House back pedal on Bin Laden being the guilty one? Why do the FBI show the Embassy bombings and not the Twin Towers as the reason they want him? Why did we go to Iraq? Why’d we fly his family out of the country 2 days after 911? Why’d we let him go at Tora Bora? Why…
There’s a lot of questions that you have no answers for and so far no one seems to. In fact no one wants the questions asked and I can see why. They’re scary questions. Hard questions. And I don’t think anyones going to really start asking them for another 5 or 10 years. Maybe longer. But sooner or later, when cooler heads prevail and time has removed the natural barriers to them, they will be asked. And hopefully answered.
Bob, Esq:
“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”
**********
I’m with you, but I think the rule has a proviso to it: If I claim your car with you aboard ran the red light and struck my car causing me injury, I do have the burden. If you claim that you did so after warping through a black hole across the space/time continuum chased by Klingons and thus couldn’t have avoided it, I think the burden shifts.
Mespo:
While I was eagerly awaiting your reply to my previous posts, I came across this:
“My “minions” and I think you bear the burden of proving your extraordinary and defamatory claims with extraordinary and convincing proof. I see all innuendo, coincidence, ad populum argument, and a person believing –and desperately wanting to believe– the worst about his Country with nothing more than a preconceived notion fitting a warped value system. Should you be serious you, like every citizen, may appear before the Special Grand Jury and present your “proof.” Let’s see if your fellow citizens reward you with indictments or those funny aluminum hats.”
Mespo,
Are you advising those who question the official story, which has been said to read like ‘good fiction’, to bring their complaints to a sampling of the American population; nearly half of which STILL believes Iraq was partly responsible for 9/11?
Perhaps it would be better to advise Vince to bring his concerns to a judge who does not engage in outcome-determinism merely to re-confirm his ‘preconceived notions fitting a warped value system.’ After all, if the ‘American People’ did that, why they’d ridicule anyone who dare threaten to disrupt their dogmatic slumber with such awful things like facts and evidence proving they’d been resting on little more than ipse dixet assertions and baseless arguments from authority.
I guess you still haven’t figured out why I asked you to review what happened in Tappan, NY 1780.
Mespo:
“I’m with you, but I think the rule has a proviso to it: If I claim your car with you aboard ran the red light and struck my car causing me injury, I do have the burden. If you claim that you did so after warping through a black hole across the space/time continuum chased by Klingons and thus couldn’t have avoided it, I think the burden shifts.”
Mespo,
When you adopt an argument or series of arguments as your own, you bear the burden of defending those arguments as if you had made them yourself. Accordingly, you bear the burden of explaining away contradictory evidence presented, and dispensing with accompanying counter-arguments, TO THE EXTENT THAT REASON ALLOWS.
I put an emphasis on reason simply because argumentation runs afoul when one becomes over zealous in achieving the goal of argumentation, i.e. winning the assent of the audience & opponent(s).
I’m sure your attempt to form a coherent counter-argument to those who toss up piles and piles of ‘tidbits’ without any rational structure must be frustrating. However that does not license you to engage in ad hominem & ridicule.
How many clients have you had that walked into your office and stated the facts of their complaint in a perfect element by element of each law structure? Unless it was a fellow attorney, I’d say it never happened. So what did you do? You listened to all of it; wheat and chaff. And then you did what? That’s right, whether your motive was financial or a simple feeling of moral obligation, you sifted through it all to see if there was a case.
And yet, here I stand as a fellow attorney, attempting to inform you of a how a certain story is metaphysically impossible while hanging my hat on each and every element of applicable laws, of both society and physics, only to have you make comments about tin foil hats and ‘conspiracy theories.’
My question is why.
I have an idea, which is why I asked you to revisit the story of Andre & Arnold and put yourself in the shoes of George Washington. Sometimes Mespo, you have to go against the advice of those you trust the most and ‘do the right thing.’
Furthermore, if the Culper gang and the officers at Tappan one held the belief that Arnold, a celebrated war hero, could never commit treason, well, I think you can figure out the rest for yourself.
SIYOM,
Bob
P.S.
FYI, I never considered the collapses of the buildings to be anything more than a secondary or tertiary argument indicative of ‘inside help.’ The primary tell of a ‘treasonable design’ can be shown in the flight paths of the planes and where the alleged novice pilots chose to turn off their transponders. These guys weren’t good or lucky; they were F’n perfect.
I am a proponent of allowing the full exposure of the logical and illogical views regarding all subjects. However, I am often astounded by the irrational arguments posited by educated persons. Very educated, astute, and wealthy people fell for Madoff’s ponzi scheme because they “believed in” Mr. Madoff and did not ‘observe the facts’, just as other educated people “believe in” an inside job of a 9/11 conspiracy theory while ignoring the relevant facts.
Although astounded, I expected some of the stated “beliefs in” the incredible because the majority of people worldwide still “believe” in an anthropomorphic god who observes their every move and hears their every thought–a belief which is immeasurably more untenable than the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
That is the inherent problem with “beliefs” v. facts. To “believe” is to have faith without evidence. “Beliefs” are allowed in the ‘brainstorming’ phase of opinionated thought; however, such ‘emotional and/or spiritual senses of certainty’ must forever be barred from all rationalizations of events that must be founded on statistical certainty to ‘verify’ the legitimacy of facts in any of life’s happenstances.
Bob:
On that three page white paper from Worthington,Skilling that mentions another impact analysis, you should know that John Skilling who did the analysis was talking about the effect of impact only. He likely did not take into account the effects of a kerosene fire that could ensue and which according to some experts caused the Towers to fall. That was beyond his expertise. Also he likely assumed that the lightweight trusses would sustain an impact like the heavier masonry and steel configuration of the Empire State Bldg. Unfortunately all the 1960′s analysis data was lost in the collapse. Technically he was correct that the energy from the impact would not topple either tower, however the resulting damage to the structure, the loss of fire retardant materials along with the compromise of the sprinkler system did. BTW the 767 is about 20% bigger than the 707.
On the Washington/Arnold issue. I don’t really see a connection. Washington and his ancillaries may have been wrong about Arnold based on his history, but I see no evidence they conducted an extensive investigation. Rather, like some of our WTC theorists,he just relied on good ol’ common sense–to his detriment I might add. They should have read the fine print on those brokerage ads that past performance is no guarantee of future success–or loyalty it seems.
Mespo:
“On that three page white paper from Worthington,Skilling that mentions another impact analysis, you should know that John Skilling who did the analysis was talking about the effect of impact only. He likely did not take into account the effects of a kerosene fire that could ensue and which according to some experts caused the Towers to fall. That was beyond his expertise. Also he likely assumed that the lightweight trusses would sustain an impact like the heavier masonry and steel configuration of the Empire State Bldg.”
“Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision”
(Seattle Times, 2/27/1993)
“Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world’s top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle’s downtown skyline and for several of the world’s tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”
“BTW the 767 is about 20% bigger than the 707.”
However, the 707 has a 77 mph higher cruise speed; F=mV
“On the Washington/Arnold issue. I don’t really see a connection.”
My mistake, that one requires a bit of a lead in via discussion of the actual treason Arnold planned, i.e. removing the defenses of West Point, and a discussion of just how crucial of a part the loyalties to Washington and Washington’s, how shall we say, “Unforgiven” like adherence to discipline played in winning the war.
Per the similarity between the treasonable design of Arnold and the
the flight paths of those four planes and just how PERFECT they were in making their way to holes in the primar radar before turning off their transponders, I suppose I could think of one cinematic simile.
Have you ever seen “Star Trek II, Wrath of Kahn?” If so, do you remember the scene where Spock and Kirk are reacting to the first crippling hit by Reliant?
Spock: “They knew exactly where to hit us.”
Trouble is, we don’t have a Washington or Kirk asking
“Yes, but who knew and why?”
SIYOM,
Bob
Mespo and others who back his belief-
You asked for me to prove it was a inside job. I posted several questions. I mentioned several documentaries to watch and I think it’s safe to say none of you have watched any of these films. None of my questions have been answered. You just keep going back insisting 911 happened the way the gov’t says it did. Please explain to me what you want for proof when you ignore legitimate questions and refuse to watch the docs I recommended. All these docs can be seen on the internet so you don’t have to spend a dime in ordering them. Listen: 911 In Plane Site and Loose Change lay out the facts that don’t jive with the official story. Why no plane debis from a 757 in front of the Pentagon? What are the pods attached to the planes that hit the trade towers. What’s the flash you see right before the planes hit the towers. These are all seen on video taken by the major networks. Both films cover facts not covered by the other and some facts are covered by both. Terrorstorm educates you about gov’t false flag operations and the reasons for them. Fabled Enemies shows just who benefitted from 911 and the gov’ts responsible. Israel did have a hand in 911. Just google ‘Dancing Israelis’. We already know they attacked the US once when they attacked the USS Liberty. Look it up. Google it. They didn’t only attack the USS Liberty they got away with it with help from our gov’t. They did it once and got away with it, what’s to stop them from doing it again? Hell they just attacked a aid ship in international waters with a former US Representative aboard and nothing happened. Israel is a rogue nation and will stop at nothing to get what it wants. Back to 911. Mespo and others like him– I challenge you this. I challenge you to watch the docs I recommended and then come back and say you still believe the gov’t story. Until you see the evidence I have seen there is really nothing more I can say or do. You asked for evidence, I just gave you many sources. Now go look at it and tell me how you’re going to de-bunk it. And don’t forget to tell me how a plane can create such a small hole at the Pentagon and vanish.
vince:
“You asked for me to prove it was a inside job. I posted several questions. I mentioned several documentaries to watch and I think it’s safe to say none of you have watched any of these films. None of my questions have been answered.”
***********
With apologies to Wm. Cowper, proof of absence is not absence of proof. Your “questions” were answered many times by many sources as we directed you to in this thread. I will not go through everything with you, but suffice to say it is incredibly easy to convince someone who is already willing to believe what you have to say. BTW if you want to see debris of the 767 that hit the Pentagon, go here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_13.html
Mespo -
I’m starting to think you are a 5 year old kid. You have not answered any of my questions and that photo you linked to is bullshit. That part did not come from a 767. That is proven in Loose Change. Also that picture does not have any of the parts I mentioned. Tell me where the wings, engines, fuselage, seats, luggage, and ground damage is in that picture. You are either among the most gullible people there are or you work for the federal government and are trying to convince people it was not a inside job with the flimsiest of evidence. Once you take off the tinfoil hat you might see the truth.
They weren’t good.
They weren’t lucky.
They were perfect.
http://nlc.natca.org/OLD%20files/MM%20Feb%2099%20senate%20test.htm
Here’s a little update to this story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_re_us/us_flight93_memorial
Personally, I think it’s a load of BS that they’re doing this to people and that they’re even building a memorial in the first place.
What a HUGE waste of tax dollars
Here Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was shot down.
I looked this up. It is nothing new, just very old conspracy stuff. Here is the complete and uncut 2004 CNN story on it:
Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash
Defense secretary’s remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington
Monday, December 27, 2004 Posted: 9:54 PM EST (0254 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.
But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the “the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania.”
A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.
“Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy” asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.
Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.
The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/