I knew they couldn’t keep Keith quiet for-ever
As reliable as ever, the only thing surprising about Keith Locke’s statement on the deported Yemeni, is that it took him two days to escape from his minders.
Keith has said (and to be fair, this is very restrained for him):
“I’d be a bit annoyed if just based on circumstantial evidence he was kicked out.
Everyone deserves that their case be considered on the facts, not on an unhappy meeting of coincidences or circumstances.”
For one to accept Ali is just a victim of coincidence, you have to accept:
1) It was a coincidence he flatted with the terrorist who flew a plane into the Pentagon.
2) Despite living together, he had no idea at all, of what his flatmate was planning.
3) That while he was known for giving extremists statements at his old mosque, he didn’t really mean it.
4) That his change of behaviour from extremist Muslim to not even attending a local Mosque was a genuine change of heart, and not just a ploy which just happened to match the Al Qaeda training manual.
5) That his decision to want to be a commercial pilot, is genuine, despite the fact that with his background he would be unemployable in most countries.
Ali is not a New Zealander, he is not a refugee or asylum seeker. We owe no duty to him, and I 100% back David Cunliffe’s decision to deport him without appeal. This is not a case of proof to put someone in jail, this is a case of the circumstances are too suspicious to risk keeping him here.
Now some people may say, but what if really does want to be a pilot, and what if he really was just an innocent flatmate of the guy who flew into the Pentagon?
My response is, well life is tough sometimes. The reality is that from the moment his flatmate flew into the Pentagon, being a pilot was no longer a career choice for him. Let me give an analogy.
Say you flat with that nice psychiatrist Dr Hannibel Lecter. You get on well, enjoy many a meal together. You have no idea he was a psychopathic cannibal and the dinner parties you both held, included human body parts.
Now after Dr Lecter gets arrested, then your plans of becoming a restaurant chef are no longer viable. It’s tough because you had no idea what your flatmate was doing, but no-one will want to eat in a restaurant where Dr Lecter’s flatmate is the cook, just as no-one would want to be on a plane where the pilot used to live with someone who flew a 747 into the Pentagon.
June 12th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
The question is was the Pentagon actually damaged by a plane or a large bomb planted in a truck convientently placed to make it look like a plane had damaged the building – and if the later was responsible what did happen to the plane and those in it ?
Why was there only a minimal of evidence of a crashed plane at the Pentigon – real strange !!
As for Ali -I am a dont know person -personaly I feel if he is inocent then you have to feel sorry for him and his luck to be so close to a person supposed to be connected to 9/11.
Keith does have a point in particular with the US lousy record with identifying and treating supposed terrorist -take Gutanamo Bay they the US can never complain about other countries bad human rights now can they
June 12th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Personal note to self: must resist urge to engage trolls who believe in conspiracy theories.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
The Herald raises a valid issue when Cunliffe says there are no security concerns but then uses that excuse to give this guy the flick. So which is it. It all looks like he was deliberately kept under surveillance for a period no doubt his communications were monitored and when he was deemed to be of no further use he was given the flick under section 72 quick smart. All of this is valid even necessary stuff but I get irritated when the information we are given does not stack up on fairly basic logic.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Paulinem, security camera footage of the aircraft crashing into the Pentagon has been released. You can see it here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml
I guess it’s a fake video though right?
June 12th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
security camera footage of the aircraft crashing into the Pentagon has been released
Oh dear please try to keep up. That particular footage has been around for ages (at least 3-4 years), and has been demonstrated as proof of nothing much at all. Certainly it reveals an aircraft, but what kind is far harder to determine from the two frames that contain it.
What is known is that OTHER footage from far better placed cameras at other locations was confiscated by the FBI on 9/11, that would show definitively exactly what actually happened, but has NEVER been made public. Why not?
must resist urge to engage trolls who believe in conspiracy theories.
Yes I’ve been resisting the urge to swallow the so called “official story” for ages. Or are you telling me that you believe everything the Bush White House tells you?
June 12th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
I had dinner with someone while I was living in DC that was working in the Pentagon when the plane flew into the Pentagon.
Hmmm – but maybe the Bush administration paid him to tell this story huh?
Seems like the most logical conclusion.
June 12th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Don’t forget the moon landings were staged also.
Yeah that Bush White House. Within 30 minutes of two planes hitting the Twin Towers, it managed to blow up the Pentagon with a decoy plane, just so the terrorists would get extra blame.
And in fact CIA agents on board the real Flight 77 shot everyone on board and took the plane to Roswell.
June 12th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Someone has watched Loose Change one too many times. Just another gullible fool who obtains a sense of superiority from knowing the “truth” and looking down at us mere mortals who have been so easily deceived.
June 13th, 2006 at 1:16 am
Indeed. It seems the Bush haters out there will believe anything as long as it casts suspicion on Bush.
June 13th, 2006 at 5:17 am
Lets not be too hard on iLogix. I can believe that a truck caused the horrific devastation. I would guess that the truck would have the follolwing attributes:
Make: Boeing
Model: 757-223
Hidden bomb: Many tonnes of av gas
Detonator: Kinetic energy produced by truck flying into Pentagon.
And ilogix you see now that we’re not believing everything Bush and co. tells us. We’re believing everything you tell us.
June 13th, 2006 at 5:39 am
More seriously does anyone think that Keith Locke might be a direct descendant of John Locke the English philosopher?
This from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy…
“John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher…Much of Locke’s work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions.”
June 13th, 2006 at 5:45 am
Shame his last name is not Bentham. Maybe then he would believe in Utility – and his policy would be based on the most good (read safety here) for the most people.
June 13th, 2006 at 6:37 am
That’s a crap analogy.
June 13th, 2006 at 6:58 am
Having read your post mjl and considered its reasoning at length all I can say is ‘Bravo.’
June 13th, 2006 at 8:12 am
II saw that bit of nonsense video.. oh what mental masturbation.
At one point they were saying one airliner that hit the Towers fired a missile just as it hit.. what crap!!!!!!
These dingbats went on to say the Towers blew up before they collapsed because windows blew out many floors below where the superstructure was collapsing…. Of course that wouldn’t be because the building was designed with a rigid exterior and the collapse was from the inside first.. oh no.. it was all one big conspiracy.
There seems to be this weird notion amongst these people that if it is good or official it must be a conspiracy.. and if it is totally bizarre it must be true.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:25 am
You take for granted that he did flat with a guy that flew a plane into the Pentagon. Some evidence as to who flew the plane into the Pentagon and who those pilots’ ex-flatmates were would be really useful.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:41 am
What’s the cost if we kicked him out without titanium strength evidence, Ross? The cost is one pissed off trainee pilot heading back to Saudi Arabia.
What’s the cost if we got all PC and let him stay here because someone thought the evidence wasn’t good enough to impinge upon his individual rights – and then he turned out to be a 911 style pilot? You can answer that for yourself Ross.
In any event the reported eveidence seemed quite adequate to most for the use of s.72.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:42 am
DPF,
One annual year’s free subscription to the Straw Man Writers Guild for that little effort. At what point did I say that a plane did NOT fly into the Pentagon. In fact I said the exact opposite. What I actually said was:
Certainly it reveals an aircraft, but what kind is far harder to determine from the two frames that contain it.
Now how the fuck did we get from there to “staged moon landing” nonsense?
The point that has been made by many, many people is that the “official story” is riddled with inconsistencies, implausible coincidences, coverups of physical evidence and grossly inadequate investigations. Now this might be all well and good if the story came from a US Administration noted for it’s probity and transparency….but from the Bush Administration, noted for it’s secrecy, extremist agenda’s and non-stop lies….then you really have to be willfully stupid to take on face value ANYTHING they tell you.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:51 am
But Logix the “many people” you refer to are all mad. A civilian aiplane was hijacked and flown into the Penatgon. There’s no real need to let dislike Bush lead one to favor the “alternative”, since they all come from the conspiracy ridden alternative media, naratives.
June 13th, 2006 at 9:02 am
ilogix
Can you tell me what plane you think it was that hit the pentagon?
I believe it was American Airlines flight 77 which was a Boeing 757-223.
Do you really need a pile of video evidence to accept this?
There is no video footage of a big ship sinking in April 1912 but I believe that ship was the Titanic. Or maybe the yanks stole the Titanic because they were jealous that the Poms had the biggest passenger liner (later-day connection here with the concorde). The US then planted a bunch of old debris for Dr Ballard to find decades later. The real Titanic of course is now stored at a secret base outside Las Vegas – probably in the same shed that now holds the Boeing 757.
June 13th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Yes Logix tell us what plane it was, as you doubt it was Flight 77. And please tell us where Flight 777 now is.
June 13th, 2006 at 9:09 am
But Logix the “many people” you refer to are all mad.
Yeah …and denial is a river in Egypt. All I see here in this “narrative” is the pulling out of stupid strawmen to distract attention from any real debate. The 911 discussion has raged in the US for more than a few years now, and I am not going to attempt even a slight purview of it. However it was characterised at the outset by numerous sources spouting forth obvious disinformation, blatant strawmen arguments that would be latter used by “official” sources to discredit the entire discussion. Most of what I see here is shallow recycling of these pathetic efforts.
The fact is that very large numbers of people all around the world firmly believe that the US govt has not told the whole truth about 911 (whatever it may actually be)…and to suggest they are all mad is the weakest, most juvenile debating tactic of all. (On the other hand you may want to reflect that labelling internal political dissent as “mentally ill” has been a routine technique employed by authoritarian states for centuries.)
June 13th, 2006 at 9:12 am
My take is that if the Bush Administration somehow ‘staged’ the 911 attacks they wouldn’t have let the President spend the morning reading ‘My Pet Goat’ to a bunch of schoolkids while the cameras rolled.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
“.but from the Bush Administration, noted for it’s secrecy, extremist agenda’s and non-stop lies….then you really have to be willfully stupid to take on face value ANYTHING they tell you.”
Logix you are letting your obvious dislike for the current American adminstration draw you conclusions for you.
The fact is that in any large, chaotic event like 9/11 there is going to be things that are not going to make sense upon first examination.
To create a bizzare ‘conspirisay’ (which must have involved thousands of people) strikes me as illogical…
June 13th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
iLogix said
“…I’m not going to attempt even a slight purview of it”
This is classic ‘I simply know better than you’ hogwash that just about every conspiracy theorist resorts to in the end.
And ‘all the people around the world’ aren’t necessarily mad they’re just plain stupid or suckers for conspiracy theories like some people are suckers for hororscopes.
June 14th, 2006 at 1:05 am
Yes it was all a mssive hoax and you all fell for it ha ha, all praise the genius of Karl Rove who can mastermind the deaths of 3,000 inocent people for no apparent reason… yet can’t get his shit together enough to plant a couple of drums of chemicals in Iraq after winning the war!
June 14th, 2006 at 7:01 am
I agree Murray. Even just a drum of icing sugar and the arabic word for Anthrax on the side of it would have done the trick. Scatter a few test tubes and beakers around the room the drum is in and hey presto – a weapon of mass destruction. Of course the drum of anthrax would be so dangerous that it would require the whole area to be cordoned off. Only a few people in hazard suits would be let in to arrange its safe disposal. Later test results would confirm that the stain of anthrax was very lethal. Now that’s a conspiracy that maybe could be pulled off with as few as 30 people in the loop (which is probably way too many anyway). But if it had worked think of how much grief it would have saved Bush abd Blair.
Now back to all those jet planes…
June 14th, 2006 at 8:52 am
This is classic ‘I simply know better than you’ hogwash that just about every conspiracy theorist resorts to in the end.
And that is the classic response of those too intellectually lazy and dishonest to do the reading for themselves. As I have said before, the Net is a vast and variable source of information on the topic, it is up to you to do the work to figure out what makes sense and what does not….not for me to attempt a summary argument of it all in one wee blog comment.
To make it clear: I do not claim to know the real truth around 911. I promote no specific “conspiracy theory”…but I do repudiate the most risible theory of all…the web of fairy tales that is touted as the “official story”.
June 14th, 2006 at 9:00 am
DPF, in defence of logix, I think he was only responding to the tenor of the original post. If you can contrive a scenario as rediculous as the terrorist flight from Wellington to Auckland (conveniently overlooking the seat of government) I see no reason for him not to come up in a similar vein. Danyl’s point about Bush reading Goat love stories seems and appropriate response.
Back on topic, you seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that the best strike in the world failed to stop planes crashing into the Pentagon. Their may be a lot of good reasons for having a strike capability but stopping terrorists flying from Wellington to Auckland is pretty long bow.
June 14th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Exocet said that “The fact is that in any large, chaotic event like 9/11 there is going to be things that are not going to make sense upon first examination”.
Yes, but we are talking about something that happended nearly 5 years ago, and there are things that still don’t make sense. How many more years will it take before these things begin to make sense?
June 14th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Exocet said that “The fact is that in any large, chaotic event like 9/11 there is going to be things that are not going to make sense upon first examination”.
Yes, but we are talking about something that happended nearly 5 years ago, and there are things that still don’t make sense. How many more years will it take before these things begin to make sense?
June 14th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Ross, some things can never be adequately explained or make sence. It will all depend on your worldview and what burden of proof you require.
There are conspirisy theories about the Titanic sinking, and of course the mother of all conspirisy theories, the JFK assasination.And both of thoes event were over 5 years ago….
June 14th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
“Back on topic”
What a joke. I was so excited at this blog being back up again I posted to the wrong thread.
In my defence I was probably also trying to work out WTF andrew was on about? Anthrax in Arabic, Huh?
June 14th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
> Yeah that Bush White House. Within 30 minutes of two planes hitting the
> Twin Towers, it managed to blow up the Pentagon with a decoy plane, just
> so the terrorists would get extra blame.
According to the NZ investigative journalist Clare Swinney, the twin towers
were destroyed by Dubbya’s brother, whom she says planted “controlled
demolition explosives.” The pictures of jets crashing into the buildings
were digital fakes.
Clare also says the moon landings were faked.
> And in fact CIA agents on board the real Flight 77 shot everyone on board
> and took the plane to Roswell.
I’m sure I read her say that too, sans the Roswell bit.
The sad thing is that millions of people seem to believe this shit. The
truth is too simple for them.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
All are too ready to blame USA for conspiracy, when the simple truth is muslims and islam.
Muslims hate USA and all westerners and are not going to stop these acts until they have won.
We should not allow muslim migration to New Zealand, nor should any western country.
This jihad thing wont be over untill we all have an outright war with islam and destroy islam completely starting with mecca.
June 16th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
DPF
This jihad thing wont be over untill we all have an outright war with islam and destroy islam completely starting with mecca.
You really seem to attract a nice class of wannabe mass-murdering war-criminal here.
June 16th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Looniest of all conspiracy theories
One of the wilder stories circulating about September 11th – and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs – is that it was carried out by nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they ‘hate our freedoms.’ Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell….
Perhaps those who deny the possibility that events occurred that are other than the official story should bother to understand the actual allegations that are made about the incident.
Given the fact 911 ushered in a new paradigm, I would have thought you political animals would be interested in those allegations so you could be sure they are in fact bullshit.
Instead some of you appear to take a simplistic child-like attitude, preferring to believe some wild consipiracy theory about Arabs hijacking planes and flying them into buildings that collapse as a result of the fires. Duh.
I challenge you to properly examine the allegations and refute them.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Just in case people misunderstand my view, the important thing is not 911, but the events that it opened up. The world has changed, and radically. The change is epitomised here.
June 17th, 2006 at 5:25 am
Every time Logix gives me hope that he/she actually can think and reason (dog chipping) he or she sneaks up and pulls the rug right from under me. Ah well.
Reid a little question. Not one link that you provided is actual evidence. Just bloggers like all of us spouting off what we believe. My dad used to say that no-one ever wins an argument. And that is very true. Every body will continue to believe what they want to believe – whatever that is – regardless of the facts – whatever THAT is.
The only problem with conspiracy theories are that they give those in charge an awful amount of credit.
Have a think about this: Somewhere in a little room an amazingly powerful man makes a decision. One that, if it is revealed could change the balance of power in the world.
Now his decision and subsequent actions only include one other person. A very small group indeed. Surely if one can employ upward of 200 (minimum for moon landing hoax) and 500 (minimum for 911) people in a staged operation, and keep it quiet, this would be a breeze.
The problem is people. We love to talk. and so did Monica.
So did those helping Ollie North. So did those involved with the Bay of Pigs.
Reid I, am not arguing with your point. What I believe about 9/11 is not really important, but if you are going to throw links around don’t use bloggers spouting opinions just like i did then.
It is bad enough that we have to rely on the media for “factual” information and they cant agree.
The only other thing is, that it becomes very easy to think of 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali and indeed Afganistan and Iraq as events. Events that changed our lives, yes, but events.
It pays to remember that these were far more than just events or dates that we can squabble over. Jeer at each other over. Score points over.( And yes I do too)
It pays to remember that an awful lot of people died. With families.
June 17th, 2006 at 6:21 am
Vanzyl
You’re really wasting your time with this character
http://www.nzpundit.com/archives/2005/03/18/13.04.13
http://www.nzpundit.com/archives/2005/03/17/19.31.07
http://www.nzpundit.com/archives/2005/02/24/08.09.22
June 17th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Vanzyl,
The argument you make is useful up to a point. But it makes three assumptions:
1. That 911 (and the events like them) were planned by a lot of people.
2. That those who executed the plans were fully aware of the whole plan.
3. That those who know anything damaging are in a position to reveal what they know.
Only rather young or ill-informed people are unaware that the large militarily powerful nations of the world have very complex and layered “military/intelligence cultures”, which exist as “off-the books” organisations. The existence of “black-ops” groups (most often a transient existence) is a reasonable given in such an environment. If you want us to believe otherwise, it is up to you to prove your point by demonstrating that such operations CANNOT exist.
It is also reasonable to suggest that in any large country like the US, has many men and women, who have little or no family ties, whose past has been made to vanish, and whose lives are ENTIRELY circumscribed by their service to the organisation’s they live in. The spy/military cultures of these nations is an enormous matrix in which these people can exist, but whose lives and actions will never reach public awareness. In all likelihood if such a person was aware of damaging information, either their silence is assured, or if they did go public their credibility can be quickly destroyed…or they are dead. People such as this DO NOT “talk” as you put it. If you think this unlikely…reflect for a moment on the numerous examples of authoritarian states who manage to almost fully shut down all critical public discourse by networks of spies, informants and public persecution of all dissenters. And further reflect that almost all intelligence/military operations are by their very nature, are absolutely authoritarian entities.
The US military is a reasonably accountable organisation…but even they cannot account for over $2 trillion of funding, that has just vanished into the maw of Pentagon back corridors. If the Pentagon is a fair example, what of other nations whose record of public accountability is far poorer than the US’s? Why do you restrict you assumptions that it had to be US based people who acted as the direct operatives?
Why also discount the potential role of highly advanced technologies? What proof have we that the public are aware of all the possible methods and technologies that could be brought to bear on an operation such as 911? You cannot deny the possibility that there exist military secrets…that really are secret. (Or at the least, all useful knowledge of them is very tightly held to a limited group of people.)
Your argument that “well someone would have blabbed by now” is a very common, and not a wholly unreasonable one. Yet it is underpinned by assumptions that have poor evidence to back them. If you could demonstrate for instance that every major spy/military organisation in all of the likely suspect nations, were fully audited and publically accountable …then the assumptions would carry some weight. But you know the world is not like that…some things ARE secrets….and the fact that you and I are unaware of them, does negate their existence.
Again I repeat. I have no more evidence than any other ordinary kiwi about what actually happened on 911. But in hindsight it was a personal turning point for me. Prior to then I had little interest in global politics, and I pretty much accepted the conventional discourse that got fed to us on the six o’clock news. But you claim that we have no evidence. This is not true. The best and most credible 911 researchers base all their work on public domain evidence. You are more than welcome to debate their deductions from that evidence…but ignoring the actual evidence is just willful denial.
(PS If you have proof that burning avgas can produce pools of molten steel I fully welcome your contribution.. it would be a major leap forward to resolve that little conundrum.)
June 17th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Geez, of course burning aviation fuel can produce pools of molten steel. But the aircraft wouldn’t have had Av Gas in them as that’s used in piston engine aircraft. They would have had Jet A fuel in them as that’s what
June 17th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Geez, of course burning aviation fuel can produce pools of molten steel.
Uhuh? Yes I got my terms slightly mixed, JetA is the fuel in question. Let’s do a few second’s google monkeying:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html
Aviation turbine fuels are used for powering jet and turbo-prop engined aircraft and are not to be confused with Avgas. Outside former communist areas, there are currently two main grades of turbine fuel in use in civil commercial aviation : Jet A-1 and Jet A, both are kerosine type fuels.
So yes I used the wrong term. But we appear to have established that Jet-A is essentially …kerosine. Now like all carbon based fuels, the actual temperature at which it burns is dependent on the stochiometric air/fuel ratio. Only when correctly vapourised/sprayed and forced mixed with air will hydrocarbon fuel combustion temperatures reach the high temperatures required to melt steel. At all other ratios and conditions the temperature is very much lower. What we actually saw on video was a huge orange fireball from each aircraft impact, the result of much of the fuel vapourising and burning off in a matter of seconds. Any remaining fuel in a liquid pools would likely burn in a much lower temperature range from 350-900 deg C, characterised by a deep orange flame and lots of black smoke.
Since the melting point of steel is about 1,400 degC, the temperature of non-forced liquid jet fuel fires is very unlikely to exceed 900 degC even under optimal conditions with plenty of air available, we are left to puzzle how people on the ground reported substantial pools of molten steel present in the oxygen poor environment of the WTC wreckage for many weeks later during the cleanup effort. Again a moment’s googling should get you a wide range of information on the topic.
Because everyone in the field is working with non-primary sources of information (all the actual evidence was removed as quickly as possible) a wide range of conclusions have been drawn from it, but regretably what remains in the minds of many people, is the “jet fuel inferno that melted the steel” propaganda story that the msm spread in the critical hours and days while we were still all in psych-shock immediately after the event.
And I should add, this just one of literally dozens of equally anomalous aspects of the 911 events. In the normal course of events, when something chaotic and dramatic like 911 occurs, there is much confusion in the immediate period afterwards, but with time and proper investigation, the evidence is gathered, the first-hand accounts are all accumulated, the relevant facts are assembled, a consensus is reached…and the doubts are resolved. When this does not occur it is reasonable to assume that the normal process was not followed.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:42 am
iLogix has convinced me at last. Well done iLogix.
It was the Titanic that holed the Pentagon and her sister ships Olympic and Brittanic that brought down the WTC towers. Why couldn’t I see this before? It so obviously was not the three commercial jets. Lots of coal on those ships. Energy to smelt/melt plenty of steel.
June 18th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Popular Mechanics have done a fine article debunking the various 911 conspiracies.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
Here’s their info on the disputed heat of the fire, jet-fuel issue:
But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832
June 18th, 2006 at 8:37 am
nicely put Danyl, its interesting isnt it that Popular Mechanics is turning into a pretty serious journal these days – i have a few copies from the 60s where mostly it was about how to fix carter carburettors and how to survive shark attacks in the water (ie., great reading when i was in my early teens).
and your risk -reward equation is quite compelling – start a war, set fire to the world, become the most unpopular president (at least abroad)in history and cause gas prices to stay high forever and thats just the upside – sounds like a real winner of a gameplan to me.
and of course where would we find someone to believe in a theory thats “totally fucking moronic”?
ah yes, Logix, our resident “engineer” and expert on everything – the man is simply a gift that keeps on giving
June 18th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Danyl,
The Popular Mechanics “de-bunking” article has been in turn de-bunked numerous times. In essence all the original article did was flame a handful of obvious strawmen arguments, and then gloss very lightly over any question with any real substance.
The quote you give is a good for instance. In it they are essentially saying that the jet fuel was mostly consumed within the first 10 minutes or so. Most researchers agree with this. But now Popular Mechanics are telling us that the jet fuel fire ignited a towering inferno of office combustibles, at over 1500 degC. (Bear in mind we have molten steel to account for.)
Well this fire did not exist prior to the collapses. The evidence from the TV footage showing dark sooty clouds of smoke, lack of heat broken windows, no white-hot glow of heat, the audio tapes of firemen who reached the impact floors describing nothing of the kind, the clear photos of two people on the impact floors peering out of the gaping hole not suffering from burns or scorched clothing….all make very implausible any kind of +1400 degC inferno on those floors, even in some small pockets. And if you allow for pockets deep inside the building, how would they be getting force fed with air?
The simple fact is that “office combustible” fires that are not being force-fed air do not get hot enough to melt steel. Temperatures much over 600degC are very difficult to achieve without some form of force-fed air, and even then, it is hard to get much over 900 degC with with solid fuels. Even when coal is pulverised and burnt in a air-fed boiler has a maximum theoretical combustion temperature of around 1500 degC, but the conditions inside the WTC were nothing like this. Experience in other, far more dramatic tower fires around the world is proof of this point.
What many people confuse is the question of energy and temperature. You can have a LOT of energy, and no-one is denying that the jet fuel and office fires represented a fair amount of energy, but that is not the same thing as saying that a LOT of energy = HIGH temperature. There is for instance, an imcomprehensibly vast amount of energy stored in the world’s oceans, but none of it is much of 40 degC.
Once the building collapsed, you now have the new problem that the rubble heap is a very oxygen-poor environment. Any fire would quickly consume much of the oxygen available locally to it, and would then smoulder at a low temperature.
Overall the problem for the official story is that there is ample evidence (photos even) demonstrating the presence of molten steel. This establishes the existence of sustained temperatures over 1400 degC. You need a mechanism to reach that temperature (not just a lot of energy). The steel did not just magically melt by itself…and the official fairy tale simply ignores this requirement.
The PopMech article is typical of all the “de-bunking” efforts I have seen so far. They garner some faux-credibility by attacking obvious strawmen and silly theories, then make some very obvious statements that are not in contention by anyone serious…and then draw some very shallow conclusions, while all along totally failing to answer any real questions. It’s standard blogging stuff really…if you know you cannot win the argument on the facts, argue the theory; if you cannot win the theory; argue the facts…and if you cannot win either, attack the messenger. (As per Andrew’s more outstandingly silly effort. Ya must be prouder’n shit to have HIM on your side?)
Bush government was responsible for 911
Did I say that? This is the kind of black and white thinking that plagues blogs everywhere. For the reasons you correctly identify it is unlikely that the Bush govt had involvment in any official capacity. Under such a scenario, total deniability would have been an important consideration. Even if we allow for people close to Bush to have been involved, they would have not told him any potentially damaging details.
At the same time you cannot rule out any other combination of actors…and with a little reading you quickly compile quite an interesting list of potential suspects, of whom Osama bin Laden is a relatively minor player.
June 18th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Gee Logix.
I almost felt sorry for you, with your whiny, snivelling “engineer” whimperings on this conspiracy theory, but for the fact that time and again you have dumped on decent causes as a pretend knowledgeable commentator.
Now … go dangle in the breeze …
June 18th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Shame on you Danyl for the SIN of black and white thinking!
how can you not see the TRUTH(!). Hallelujah brother Logix tell it like it is!
best be careful, the zionists might be monitoring your thoughts, very clever those zionists, cunning even …
if we find a molten puddle of Logix somewhere will we finally have the proof we need?
June 18th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Tony,
Nice to see you back again and it gives me warm comforting thoughts to see how closely you monitor us to ensure none of us put a foot wrong.
In any outfit there is of course one golden-rule….never criticise the real boss. Indeed this rule is so important that if you want to find out who is the real power in the outfit, just check out who it is that you are REALLY not allowed to diss….even indirectly, or by implication. Mucho appreciation Tony for keeping us all on the straight and narrow.
June 18th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Hey iLogix?
Are you saying now that Tony did it? Is Tony a big Italian boss? It was the Mafia all along!
June 18th, 2006 at 10:29 am
the zionists might be monitoring your thoughts
LOL.. did you expect Tony to so qucikly prove you absolutely right? Or do you two work as a team? Remarkable stuff.
As for “snivelling engineer theories”….let me put it this way. Steel does not give a rat’s patui about anyone’s theories….it melts at 1500 degC (+/- a little depending on the exact alloy)…and no amount of ad-hominen changes that fact. Besides this is not “expert stuff”, it pretty much basic secondary school science.
I cannot resist quoting one of the earliest writers on the topic, one J McMichael:
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel
OK a little over the top and simplistic, but it points to the heart of the matter. The simple facts of temperatures:
* 1535
June 18th, 2006 at 10:33 am
no andrew, its just that Tony is our one-man zionist content provider, and Logix is proving my point.
In his world it really is all about the Jooooos!
In fact if there was ever someone who fervently hoped and prayed for a decent zionist conspiracy it would probably be Tony! The effectiveness of his interventions alas gainsays the conspiracy
(unless that is what he really wants you to believe – fiendishly cunning these zionist overlords…)
June 18th, 2006 at 10:44 am
How stupid of me…
It was the Joooooish Mafia of Italian descent! This is one big conspiracy. But at least we’ve proved that no one from Saudi Arabia was involved.
June 18th, 2006 at 10:57 am
How stupid of me..
Yes, very. Now are you finished with your childish Titanic/Olympic fantasies? Do you intend addressing the actual question, or are you just here to create a distraction in order to prevent any sane debate?
In fact you all know exactly what you are doing…you know you cannot win the debate on facts or logic, so you attempt to shut it down with derision and distraction. What are you all so afraid of?
Now let me reiterate….steel melts as 1500 degC; burning jet fuel and office combustibles do not exceed 800 degC in the absence of forced air and vapourisation. Any takers? Or just a lineup of wankers?
June 18th, 2006 at 11:11 am
You missed out the Brittanic dickhead.
Aluminium melts at 660 celcius. Maybe people saw aluminium. Funnily enough there is a huge amount of aluminium in wide- bodied jets.
But I think its more likely that Mother Theresa flew the Britannic into both towers before taking on the Pentagon.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:16 am
It’s not appropriate in this blog to refute the PM piece point by point but let me just ask one thing. Why didn’t PM mention the owner of WTC7 gave instructions to pull it? That and the Pentagon are two very big smoking guns in all the myriad 911 facets. Also, why did the 911 Commission completely ignore WTC7? Their report has not one word about it.
Any thoughts about that from the conspiracy theorists who think the official story is the truth?
For those not aware since the media hasn’t covered it well (wonder why?), WTC7, a 47 story steel skyscaper, collapsed about 5:10PM 11/9/01. The owner of WTC complex, (who bought the complex from the Port Authority only months beforehand and immediately doubled the insurance on it specifically including terrorist acts and actually ended up with a double payout as he was able to argue there were two separate terrorist acts), said in a televised interview that they decided to “pull WTC7.” “Pull” is slang for demolition by explosive.
The video of the WTC7 collapse shows heaps of evidence of demolition. Happy to detail the evidence and point you to the interview.
I suggest all the conspiracy theorists who believe the official story might care to explain how an occupied building came to be wired with explosives. The official story, believed only by conspiracy theorists, is that a diesel fuel tank caused the fires which bought it down. Crap, of course. Recall the madrid skyscraper which survived 24 hours of a much larger conflagration and which had to be dismantled. Perhaps the conspiracy theorists think the laws of physics were different there.
BTW, the conspiracy theorists have also missed another smoking gun from Logix’ post: the hotspots at the bottom of the wreckage which when finally excavated were found to have formed pools of molten metal. Those hot spots lasted for weeks, as per satellite thermals, and melted firemens boots as they excavated the wreckage. Those hot spots were at all three sites, the twin towers and WTC7. Where did they come from? Friction caused by the collapse? Lasting for weeks? As far as I know the laws of physics don’t work like that. Anyone conspiracy theorist out there care to explain that?
June 18th, 2006 at 11:27 am
reid it … and weep
Who needs to explain anything done by Mother Theresa. She worked in the realm of miracles.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Andrew,
Do you really think that that last post progressed your pov at all? Or have you ever thought that there are people reading this thread who are comparing your performance with mine…and are silently drawing their own conclusions.
Still the aluminium question is not wholly unreasonable, and it was fairly thoroughly dealt with in this document:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
June 18th, 2006 at 11:36 am
I’m not an engineer, but I am a scientist. I’m a big believer in the law of parsimony in which the simplest explanation is preferable. In this case, I believe that the towers collapsed because of those massive jet planes that crashed into them, and not shadowy teams of Israeli spies (or whomever), that planted explosives throughout several heavily populated buildings, including two of the largest buildings in the world without ever being seen or leaving any evidence.
Maybe the reports of ‘pools of molten steel’ are inaccurate – the photos are far from conclusive and are analysed here:
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
This site also addresses Reids questions about WT7.
And I simply don’t understand why the Israelis would fly jets into Washington and New York – or if they did why the US Government would cover it up.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Let them draw their conclusions. I haven’t checked your link – its no doubt some conspiracy theorist drivel.
Prove to me that Mother Theresa didn’t do it.
June 18th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Or perhaps Alain Marfart and Dominique Prieur are getting better at their craft?
June 18th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Vanzyl,
Yes, quite a few people died in 9/11 but only a drop in the bucket compared with the number of innocent Iraqi’s killed by the Coalition of the Killing, Iraqi’s who had nothing to do with 9/11. Please discuss.
June 18th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Logix. The great Philosopher Mr. T. Parker Esq. ,would say this about your braindead theories…
“burka burka!”
June 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Ohh – I thought of another one. If the Israelis (or Haliburton, or PNAC) were really behind 911 wouldn’t they have made at least a couple of hijackers Iraqi, instead of using a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians? Would have made life a lot easier down the line . . .
June 18th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Danyl,
Yes 911myths is a far better effort than the PopMech drivel. Worth a read if for no other reason than it forces you to dig harder at the reasoning. One response to it is found here:
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths.htm
And I simply don’t understand why the Israelis would fly jets into Washington and New York – or if they did why the US Government would cover it up.
Again why the strawman? I have NO idea who actually may have been the real organisers…although one might ask reasonably the reliable old question “cui bono”. And why do you characterise the perpetrators as “Israeli”, as if everyone living in that nation could be in some manner monolithically held responsible for the possible actions of a tiny handful of extremists.
Personally I would suggest that we are all being blind-sided by the limitations of national or ideological identities here. Maybe the real question is simply one of “an enemy”. If it isn’t the Russians, it’s the Iraqi’s, or the “Muzzies”, or maybe next the “Chinks”. As Orwell portrayed it, the actual enemy matters little, he need not even physically exist, so long as he is able to trotted out by our leaders as the bogeyman we must all fear.
June 18th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Burka Burka.
June 18th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Troll.
dirka dirka interj. a mimicry of spoken Arabic; also attributive, connoting things Muslim, Arabic, or Middle Eastern, or those related to terrorists or terrorism. Arabic, English, Derogatory.
Doublespeak reborn.
June 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
whhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEOOOOOOOOOW
the sound of a humourous reference to the work of Trey Parker whistling over Logix’s tinfoil hat.
June 18th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Doublespeak/doubletongue Orwell/Team America dots too far apart I guess.
June 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
You’re right. Its dirka dirka. So….
Dirka dirka!!!!!
A bunch of arab muslims from (mostly) Saudi Arabia and Egypt hi-jacked 4 commercial airline flights and killed a huge number of innocent people of many nationalities.
You are a toad to suggest otherwise. The eveidence is in. Even Usama seems happy with this conclusion.
Get back on your train… engineer. Oh and one last thing…
DIRKA DIRKA
June 18th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I hope the great philosopher and philanthropist Mr. T. Parker esq will forgive me for the earlier mis-quote.
June 18th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Ross, let me guess, 5’6 and a chip on the shoulder. Piss off and arrogantly suggest to some-one who mentioned 9/11 as a reason to go into Iraq to “please discuss.” I made a comment that sometimes we see 9/11 as an event rather than the number of people who died there.
Go to bed early you have school tomorrow.
June 18th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Even Usama seems happy with this conclusion.
Do you mean this “Osama”:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html
Or this one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1729882.stm
Or the one that in the FBI’s Top Ten “Most Wanted Terrorist” list is charged with:
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Note the prominent mention of 911.
Or the one that used to be “Tim Osman”? Never mind, I should know better than to be feeding trolls. My bad.
June 18th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Insha’allah you moron, …and…
Dirka Dirka!
June 18th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Rayed Ali, the Saudi student deported from New Zealand on national security grounds, has disappeared after reaching Saudi Arabia.
New Zealand authorities will not say who Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali was handed to on arrival in Saudi Arabia but his family have told the Herald they had not heard from him.
His 27-year-old brother, Abdul Mohammed, who lives in the United States, says the family are anxious to know Rayed’s whereabouts. He learned of his brother’s deportation on the internet, after Herald inquiries last week prompted the Government to admit it expelled Ali on May 30.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10387028
God Willing Indeed.
June 18th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Who gives a fuck where he is
June 18th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
one might ask reasonably the reliable old question “cui bono”.
Asking who benefits from an act is not a foolproof way of determining responsibilty. Lenin, for example, benefited greatly from the 1917 February Revolution but was not even peripherally responsible for its outbreak.
I suggest that Osama bin Laden thought he would benefit. I think he thought the US would invade Afghanistan and be defeated there, just as the Soviets were. Obviously that didn’t really work out for him.
Again why the strawman? I have NO idea who actually may have been the real organisers…
Your comments in response to Tony – who is Jewish – suggested that you felt the Israelis were responsible for 9/11. That you now admit that you have ‘NO idea’ who was behind it does not strengthen your case.
But for your conspiracy to work the US Government must be implicated at some level, since you claim they’ve covered up evidence that conflicts with the official story.
Now, I believe that the Bush Administration fabricated the evidence regarding WMDs to justify a war against Iraq. I believe this because we have dozens of leaked documents and testimony from whistleblowers, intelligence analysts and former White House staff members who disagreed with the Administrations actions and went public. I find it impossible to believe that these people would have remained silent while the government covered up evidence relevant to the mass murder of thousands of Americans – and that’s whats required for a conspiracy involving controlled detonation of the buildings – by person or persons unknown – to be valid.
June 18th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Your comments in response to Tony – who is Jewish – suggested that you felt the Israelis were responsible for 9/11.
Well it was Tony who first introduced Israel to the discussion. Personally I don’t really want to go there, but in the larger scale of things, you have to accept that Mossad is a more likely participant than say, the equivalent Norwegian Secret Service. This is I guess why Tony stepped up to the mark the way he did…
I find it impossible to believe that these people would have remained silent while the government covered up evidence relevant to the mass murder of thousands of Americans – and that’s whats required for a conspiracy involving controlled detonation of the buildings – by person or persons unknown – to be valid.
I think you are transposing what is reasonable deduction about the Iraq war, an enterprise that was absolutely and officially all about the US Govt, at every level…to the 911 attacks, which by contrast almost certainly did not involve the US govt in any official capacity. The argument that “someone would have blabbed” is not nearly so valid when the entity in question may well have considerable coercive powers over it’s members.
Earlier on you stated I’m a big believer in the law of parsimony in which the simplest explanation is preferable. I would suggest that a more complete statement might be:
“All other things being equal, the simpler explanation is preferable”.
There are two points worth making:
1. You really need to show that your “simpler explanation” is supported by all the evidence.
2. The mere presence of a simpler explanation does not rule out a more complex one being valid.
For instance:
You find a 50c piece balanced on edge on the roof of a moving car.
Explanation #1. It is glued to the roof.
Explanation #2. The coin has a compact servo controlled gyro mechanism built inside of it that keeps it balanced on it’s edge, despite disturbing forces.
Of course Explanation #1 is preferable. But if on closer examination you find the coin is not glued to the car…then it fails. And Explanation #2 however less likely, was never impossible. This is in fact how stage magicians work; the human mind expects reality to obey the simple patterns it has learnt from day to day experience. When the magician introduces a complex, unlikely trick, the human mind struggles to adapt.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Explanation #3. You’re a moron full of crap;
Explanation #4. Mother Theresa did it; and
Explanation #5. Dirka dirka!
What part of Dirkadirkastan do you come from? And yes.. who gives a flying fuck what happened to Ali? Maybe he found a willing camel to spend some meaningful time with.
June 18th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
This from a person who just a day or so ago was advocating that the West should wipe out Islam as soon as possible.
Consider:
1. If for instance Andrew advocated that the same treatment be afforded the Jews, he would have Tony on his case quick smart and no doubt a banning from our normally long-suffering host might be in the offing.
2. As I said before, his real purpose is to shut down any meaningful discussion. You then have to wonder quite what his motive is? I find it hard to believe that the NZ blogland has it’s own real live paid disinfo agitator, so all things being equal I will go with the simpler explanation…Andrew actually believes the dreck he is posting. (And he thinks he is being funny…)
Keep your pecker up troll, you’ll need it.
June 19th, 2006 at 8:07 am
True indicitment on NZ that a person like Kieth Locke is actually a member of parliament.
Don’t really have to say any more than that.
June 19th, 2006 at 8:33 am
“Ross, let me guess, 5’6 and a chip on the shoulder. Piss off and arrogantly suggest to some-one who mentioned 9/11 as a reason to go into Iraq to “please discuss.” I made a comment that sometimes we see 9/11 as an event rather than the number of people who died there. Go to bed early you have school tomorrow”.
Ah, there’s nothing like a personal insult when incapable of mature debate. And I see you place a higher value on an American life than an Iraqi life. BTW, 9/11 was an event, just like the war in Iraq is an event. But you are right, that doesn’t tell the story of why tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s have been killed.
ps. I’m 6’3″.
June 19th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Why the problem with the joooos? In my experience they are fantastic additions to our NZ community. They generally fit in with our way of life, they have jobs (and frequently create jobs), they pay taxes, they don’t fly planes into towers, they don’t believe in killing non-believers and they don’t believe that their women should wear a tent to the supermarket.
Did I mention that they , as a rule, let the guy employed by the airline to be pilot. actually fly the plane?
In any event wasn’t Mother T a catholic? You should really be looking for a disgruntled catholic to give me a serve.
June 19th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Ross just where do you get the idea that I value American life more.
Tell me where I have ever suggested that 9/11 has anything to do with IRAQ. And on top of that 9/11 claimed lives from all over the world. The insult comes because of the arrogant “please discuss” order. If you read my post you would see that I made no connection between the two other than say that in all cases we start to view these as events and forget the dead. And I included those in Iraq on both sides of the fence. Read before you open your mouth. or start to write.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Andrew is just some kid who’s parents give him too much sugar and too little attention. Ignore him and he’ll eventually go away.
it was Tony who first introduced Israel to the discussion.
Care to point that out to me?
the 911 attacks . . . almost certainly did not involve the US govt in any official capacity.
Isn’t your entire argument based on the premise that the explanation of the planes piloted by Islamic terrorists bringing down the buildings is a massive cover-up? (And if not, what the hell ARE you trying to say?)
If this were true (and it’s not) then the US government MUST be involved in an official capacity, and at a vast level, because thousands of officials, investigators and politicians would have been involved in covering up the ‘real’ story and manufacturing the evidence to provide support for the fake story.
you have to accept that Mossad is a more likely participant than say, the equivalent Norwegian Secret Service.
Not really. I think the Israelis are about as likely to attack the US with no provocation or apparent reason as the Norwegians are. Probably less likely, since the entire existence of Israel is dependent on US patronage.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:14 pm
June 1967. USS Liberty. Check it out Danny.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
June 1967. USS Liberty. Check it out Danny.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:12 am
qcnjhvio xhdnk skaey imutlr nhfva dnuzpg ogxjqfwcn