Nation building

email hidden said:

Fred Fredburger said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:28:17 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> The 9-11 CR is a total joke. It served one purpose
> and one only: cover for
> the previous administration.

This is a great quote from you. It shows how blindly partisan you
are.

And your response shows how blind YOU are to the fact that Bill Clinton
is responsible for all evil dating back to the beginning of time. You
hater, you.

Bill Clinton is directly responsible for things going badly
in Iraq. If he had only managed to prevent 9/11, we
wouldn't have gotten into Iraq and over our heads.
See? It is very simple. Damn that vicious, machinating
Bill Clinton!

It wouldn't have been possible without Soros funding the Democratic
operatives.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

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

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

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

I can't.

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

Technically speaking:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

Jobst Brandt

Interesting little movie but a couple of things i wonder about,

-After 5 years, nobody has come forth to say they were one of the ones,
that had to be, hundreds or more of the people that were involved in
this operation. All there is is this little movie, with the wierd
soundtrack(is that the music from Damian?)I doubt there is that level
of secrecy, loyality or sophistication in this or any other government.

-why 4 A/C, and what about the pentagon A/C?. Seems out of place, if
this whole thing is true. Why not just crater WT#7, with explosives,
since they got into the building anyway, blame the arabs, then go to
war? This whole conspiracy seemed huge, but only the fringe seem to
talk about it. Yep, I have heard that the Pentagon one was a missile,
not an A/C but fornesics and witness' say otherwise.

-The A/C that went into the field, they were told they were just
hijacked, on their way to someplace else. The passengers heard about
the WTC A/C, and then attempted to take back the A/C..heard on cell
phones altho the guy in Denmark said no technology existed until
2004(?). Every other hijacking, the passengers just have made the trip
to Cuba or whereever, not felt threatened.

HAS to get the award for OT this year tho.

Quoted message said:

Technically speaking:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

No sound, but I get the gist of this.

The bigger problem is that all of our distrust of 'our' institutions is
so high that we see manipulation in everything.

For example, I was talking with a stranger about gasoline prices
recently. While I can't see how Bush, etc can manipulate gas prices, my
suspicion of him (and filthy clinton before him) is so great that I am
of the belief that somehow he's behind it all.

It my belief even though I consciously know it's irrational. That's how
high my hatred has grown.

-paul

R Brickston said:

I like this explanation a lot better:

http://tinyurl.com/ootzx

"Fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire."

Well, that's just complete and utter [censored], isn't it?

Quoted message said:

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

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

Occam's Razor.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://udctours.com

Quoted message said:

Technically speaking:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

Jobst Brandt

We certainly don't know exactly who was involved in organizing and
executing the whole thing but I am disappointed that Jobst would post a
link to a video that is full of uninformed, bad, sensationalist
engineering and science.

For example: The video says the fires didn't get hotter than 1200 deg F
and that steel doesn't melt at that temperature. True enough but at that
temperature the low grade steel (usually A36) used in buildings loses
most of its stiffness (Modulus of elasticity) and strength (yield).
Review Euler's and Johnson's equations and see what happens to the
central core columns - especially if the lateral support of the floor
diaphragms is also lost. Steel not a fire resistant material. The steel
in most buildings is encased in thick fireproofing which is usually a
fragile material which would be destroyed in the impact. The WTC steel
was wrapped in gypsum wallboard "sheetrock."

http://www.cwc.ca/design/fire/

Windows popping out can easily be due to air pressure, snapping joints
in the lightweight steel exterior and/or local buckling of the exterior.
All the junk flying out is being carried out with the escaping air.
Damage to nearby buildings is no surprise, I was at the site a month ago
and one of my first impressions was how small it is.

The simplest explanation is very often the most accurate.

By the way, BOTH towers survived impact by an airliner as per design.
The did not survive the fire. Surviving 2 hours of fire is about the
best you can hope for in this type of building. Fire ratings in the
building code range from 1 to 4 hours. If the fireproofing is in place.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

-The A/C that went into the field, they were told they were just
hijacked, on their way to someplace else. The passengers heard about
the WTC A/C, and then attempted to take back the A/C..heard on cell
phones altho the guy in Denmark said no technology existed until
2004(?).

Bingo. The chance of a call going through was next to zero with 2001
tech. It's a complete and utter fabrication. Now the planes did have
those seatback "sky phones" or whatever they're called. When the cell
phone meme is used, and it's a technical impossibility, then I start to
wonder what other bits of the story are made up.

I'd also like to know why Khalid Sheik Muhammed has not stood trial
yet. He was the architect of 9/11, not Bin Laden--tho the former may
have offered financial and logistical assistance. Why was Muhammed
squirreled away for years in secret prisons? Could it be to deny
Americans a sense of closure and keep them terrified? Oh nooooo. And
now he shows up again when the November is coming up. No coincidence
there. Not a single one. Yessiree.

Mark Hickey said:

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Couple of weekends. Easy.

Quoted message said:

I can't.

You're not paranoid enough...yet.

Quoted message said:

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

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

What's REALLY sad is that this is even considered a political discussion.
It should be considered the whacky nutjob mumbojumbo that it is.

Quoted message said:

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

Bill Sornson
This 'n That
Home of the dusty mtb frames (and one upside-down wheel-less road bike while
the new one gets all the love)

Quoted message said:

R Brickston said:

I like this explanation a lot better:

http://tinyurl.com/ootzx

"Fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire."

Well, that's just complete and utter [censored], isn't it?

Cite?

Paul Cassel said:

For example, I was talking with a stranger about gasoline prices
recently. While I can't see how Bush, etc can manipulate gas prices, my
suspicion of him (and filthy clinton before him) is so great that I am
of the belief that somehow he's behind it all.

There is talk -- unproven speculation -- that Bush has used family
connections with the Saudis to increase production in the few months
leading into the election to keep gas prices moving down. I don't
know if this is true -- it's plausible but I haven't seen any evidence
about it.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

There is talk -- unproven speculation -- that Bush has used family
connections with the Saudis to increase production in the few months
leading into the election to keep gas prices moving down. I don't
know if this is true -- it's plausible but I haven't seen any evidence
about it.

That's exactly the problem - we're so suspicious of everyone of those
guys who are in charge that we'll believe anything bad about them.

The problem is a populace which has lost all its respect for its
institutions more than if Bush did this or that with gas prices.

Mark Hickey said:

Bill Sornson said:

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

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

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

I can't.

For the sake of argument, why would it be that hard to plant explosives
in a high-rise building that was about one-third vacant, with several
floors being gutting and undergoing remodeling, and other area such as
maintenance closets that are typically off limits to tenants and their
employees?

Quoted message said:

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

Compare the reaction of the US public to the 1993 attacks on the WTC
and the 2001 attacks.

How many times video of WTC 1 and 2 falling get did played on
mainstream US television sources?

Sheesh Hickey, you are being obtuse.

Quoted message said:

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

Especially coming from those who apparently get their talking points
directly from the RNC.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm said:

Quoted message said:

Technically speaking:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

Jobst Brandt

Interesting little movie but a couple of things i wonder about,

-After 5 years, nobody has come forth to say they were one of the ones,
that had to be, hundreds or more of the people that were involved in
this operation.

That does seem to be the main problem with any hypothesis that involves
more than a few dozen people.

Quoted message said:

All there is is this little movie, with the wierd soundtrack (is that the music from
Damian?)...

I was curious what version of Carmina Burana was used - it sounded like
the boys' choir was replaced with adult women.

To me the greatest mystery is how a president that did little to
prevent the attacks, reacts by finishing reading "My Pet Goat" to a
class of elementary school children, then zigzags all over the country
in Air Force One; gets to be seen (temporarily) as a hero with the
resulting 80+% approval rating and enough "political capital" to
ride over the Constitution of the United States of America and take the
country into a war of aggressive conquest?

Did the people really believe GWB was a hero just because ABC, CBS,
CNN, FOX and NBC told them he was?

If the same events had occurred under Clinton, would not the mainstream
media pundits and Republicans in Congress have been screaming for his
resignation for letting it happen? [1]

[1] Before bringing up the 1993 WTC attacks (which of course happened
under Clinton) remember that they were seen as failed terrorist attacks
since damage to the buildings was superficial and only 6 people died).

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Paul Cassel said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

There is talk -- unproven speculation -- that Bush has used family
connections with the Saudis to increase production in the few months
leading into the election to keep gas prices moving down. I don't
know if this is true -- it's plausible but I haven't seen any evidence
about it.

That's exactly the problem - we're so suspicious of everyone of those
guys who are in charge that we'll believe anything bad about them.

The problem is a populace which has lost all its respect for its
institutions more than if Bush did this or that with gas prices.

I believe the problem is exactly the opposite - people are too trusting
of those with power to actually be working for the common good, rather
than fulfilling their lust for power (the sin the churches in the US
refuse to address).

To think that human beings have changed much since the feudal era (or
that somehow the population of the US is inherently morally better than
the rest of the world) is laughable.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 08:41:45 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

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

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

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

I can't.

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

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

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

The loon's video refrenced by Jobst, is total [censored]. First of all the
clown's education consists of a degree in theology. Just three quick
things in this guys rant:

1. Where are they hiding Barbara Olson?

2. He claims all the cement used in the buidings was turned to dust,
only by explosives, but fails to mention the miles of drywall the
building must of contained.

3. Claims cell phones are impossible to use in an airplane above 600
meters. Hello?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Quoted message said:

R Brickston said:

> Technically speaking:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysterie
s

Quoted message said:

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

My inexact, non-personal opinion is:

It is more credible than any explanations for the chain of events put
forth in the 911 Commission Report. I shows many events for which the
report has no reasonable explanations. The immediate destruction and
removal of all structural evidence is the final straw.

Yeah, that's the straw that broke the back, and this reluctance to even
investigate what happened in a public forum. The Secrecy behind the
initial clean up was creepy. Then the rush to dispose of everything at
Fresh Kills.

Quoted message said:

Demolition
experts could in one glance recognize the results of explosive effects
on the core structure. It was such dangerous hazardous material that
only the wrecking crew could see and touch it, if you believe that.

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

It's one hell of a Reichsdag fire, that's for sure.

The thing is, such a conspiracy would have to be so broad as to be
impossible to cover up. How do you prepare an occupied building for
demo w/o raising an eyebrow? The eyewitnesses aren't enough, we all
know how that stands in a court of law. People see and hear what they
want to see. Just put an idea in their head.

Still, there is a coverup of some sort. It smells to high heaven.
Especially Rice's recent lapses in memory concerning dire warnings
before the attacks.

Checked out part of the vid. It's not immediately dismissable as the
hack job "small change" and it does present the biggest question: where
are the building cores?

Now get back to your sex scandals folks, and put that silly Woodward
book down.

What needs to be cleared up for me is the substantial
economic loss caused by the destruction of the
buildings, before I can consider an alternative to the
given explanation.

Terry Morse said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Occam's Razor.

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

Ben

Quoted message said:

Terry Morse said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Occam's Razor.

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

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

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

Mark Hickey said:

Bill Sornson said:

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

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

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

I can't.

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

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

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

Mark:

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

Andres