Does Jeanette think the US Government blew up the Twin Towers?

November 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm by David Farrar

This is amazing. You know how the Greens go on and on about how climate change is real, and anyone sceptical is a crazed anti-science denier.

Well the former co-leader of the Greens, , has joined the ranks of the barking conspiracy theorists who think the US Government actually blew up the Twin Towers with explosives.

Richard Gage is talking in NZ at the moment. From Wikipedia:

The organization is collecting signatures for a petition to the United States Congress that demands a truly independent investigation with subpoena power of the September 11 attacks, and in particular “a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction” of the World Trade Center buildings.

His petition has around 5,000 signatures on it, out of 300 million Americians. He has also produced a film called Blueprint for Truth and one of his fellow nutters has a book called Crossing the Rubicon.

Ruppert identifies players who were involved, would have had to be involved and may have been involved and clearly points out amazing ommissions by the 9/11 Commission and 9/11 Truth researchers including the FACT that the deputy director of the National Military Command Center [a position required to coordinate NORAD,FAA and JCS in both wargames and real-world events] actually asked on September 10, 2001, to be absent from duty on September 11 between 8:30 and 10:30 a.m. [the exact time of the attacks], that this did occur despite the fact the the hijackings and attacks were already taking place and that no one has ever received an explanation why. [further Ruppert reveals that the Officer who replaced this important defense coordinating position was a long-time Bush Administration friend recently qualified to hold the position as the result of Bush appointment who filed the shortest testimonial in all of the 9/11 Commission's requested written depositions]

Anyway the local NZ truth 911 website has a quote from Jeanette Fitzsimons:

“There is so much that does not make sense about the official version of 911. I have read all 600 plus pages of “Crossing the Rubicon” and it appears to me to be well researched, though I still have an open mind on the matter of what exactly did happen. It is time we knew the truth one way or another, and an independent enquiry is the way to achieve this. If we do not know the truth of our history it will compromise our future.”

I await Jeanette also calling for an independent inquiry into whether the moon landings were real.

Next time someone from the Greens puts down someone who is sceptical of climate science “projections”, then remind them of how Jeanette is unsure whether or not hundreds and thousands of people in the US Government actually blew up the Twin Towers themselves, hijacked the planes themselves and buried them all in the Nevada desert after shooting all the passengers (or whatever their exact theory is)

Tags: , ,

142 Responses to “Does Jeanette think the US Government blew up the Twin Towers?”

  1. jabba (280 comments) says:

    I’m surprised it was weirdo and US hater Keith Locke (him up) who would be heard saying this sort of rubbish ,, what does Jennette smoke, does anyone know?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Eisenhower (134 comments) says:

    Obviously senility has taken a firm hold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    To think this nutter actually sat in the NZ parliament.

    Wasn’t she once into witchcraft remedies to scare possums off too??

    ..and a Marxist too of course.

    What a disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. XChequer (350 comments) says:

    I’m with Red on this one, what a bunch of wankers……. pure and unadulterated wankery packaged up for the public in the form of the Green Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. XChequer (350 comments) says:

    More to the point Jabba, where can Philu get some?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jack5 (4,208 comments) says:

    So maybe it was true that the weed was passed around at Green caucus meetings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. projectman (190 comments) says:

    There really is no other way to describe Fitzsimons other that an ignoramus (but so typical of many in the watermelon party). Rational thinking and evlauation clearly is not a strong point. Maybe her ‘disciples’ will finally see through her after this latest stupidity. Is she really from this planet, or just visiting? She really shouldn’t wait until the end of this parliamentary term to retire.

    I suppose, by the way, that the live television of 9/11 we saw wasn’t in fact live, but an elaborate Hollywood staging in which all the news medial were complicit. Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    Poor Jeanutte has schizophrenia – The Bearded Lady Disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    She’s fucken barking…

    ….but there again she’s a melon

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Viking2 (10,687 comments) says:

    Coromandel Green.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Election 2011 campaign:

    “There is so much that does not make sense about the official version of 911. I have read all 600 plus pages of “Crossing the Rubicon” and it appears to me to be well researched, though I still have an open mind on the matter of what exactly did happen. It is time we knew the truth one way or another, and an independent enquiry is the way to achieve this. If we do not know the truth of our history it will compromise our future.”

    Party vote Gween.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    As I’ve said many times before, the relevant point is NOT speculation about who did it, how they did it and why they did it, but that the full and accurate story has not been told. You can analyse that hypothesis simply by analysing the physical evidence that we all saw unfold before our eyes on that day. That is not speculative in any way and it’s not hard to do.

    It’s a very hard truth to come to because it changes the way you think the the world works. You need to be quite hard and logical about it and not let your emotions dictate the conclusion to you which they will try to do. On your journey you will be thinking exactly what DPF always says about this particular topic: it can’t be true because thousands of people would have had to be involved.

    The answer to that is: really, how do you know that and who cares anyway? That’s not the point. The point is, what actually happened in terms of physical evidence: e.g. is it true the towers fell at free-fall speed and based on its extraordinarily solid construction how could that happen given the localised damage it sustained and what happened to the extremely solid building core and why was everything in the building pulverised to dust far beyond what you’d expect if there was just a collapse event going on and what happened to that bit at the top, why did it fall into itself and not topple over and fall into the street below as it should have done if the laws of physics were operating properly on that day and on and on and on and on. And then there’s WTC7, and the Pentagon, and the plane that crashed in the field. And then there’s other things like why did the 911 Commissioner himself + his deputy back away from their own report and on and on and on and on.

    And not once in all that investigation does the question of who did it, how they did it and why, ever become relevant in any way whatsoever.

    This guy that’s speaking I believe is a qualified commercial architect. If you don’t like that field then why don’t you look at what engineers and pilots have to say about the 911 official story. Ask yourself why these people who aren’t generally known to indulge in flights of fancy are putting their reputations on the line if it was just some lightweight spooky “theory.”

    I’ve found it quite an interesting contrast that these days there is almost no-one who really believes that JFK was killed by LHO acting alone. Almost everyone I mention it to thinks that the full and accurate story on that even hasn’t yet been told. Yet many of these same people can’t see that 911 is exactly the same.

    BTW, 911 debates really bore the crap out of me these days so if any of you wish to pick up on any of the examples I gave above, you’ll be talking to yourself. Just bear in mind they were merely examples and there are literally, hundreds of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    Now how many of you watched “An Inconvenient Truth”, left feeling that we’re all doomed and have since come to your senses. I’m no apoligist for Fitzsimons but she’s been ‘sold’ by a clever blend of fact and fiction. Will she come to her senses? Time will tell.

    Love this bit:

    If we do not know the truth of our history it will compromise our future

    .. and then read this:

    “It doesn’t matter what is true,
    it only matters what people believe is true.”
    - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

    Green truth: An oxymoron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    so one President cant poke his cigar in someones important little place without the entire world finding out……but another President can apparently be involved in the worlds biggest con job, obviously involving hundreds of people without getting found out?

    (and no, Al Gore was never President)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. themorgan (9 comments) says:

    Well the former co-leader of the Greens, Jeanette Fitzsimons, has joined the ranks of the barking conspiracy theorists who think the US Government actually blew up the Twin Towers with explosives.

    She may well be a barking conspiracy theorist, but your included quote certainly does not say that she thinks the US government did anything of the kind – only that she thinks there are still unanswered questions.

    so one President cant poke his cigar in someones important little place without the entire world finding out……but another President can apparently be involved in the worlds biggest con job, obviously involving hundreds of people without getting found out?

    Absolutely right. Cover ups don’t tend to work, only make things worse. It stretches credibility that anything happened to the towers other than what everyone sane thinks anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. wreck1080 (3,516 comments) says:

    The nutcases always draw a solid bunch of followers.

    Pita Sharples is another nutcase, some of the things he says are outrageous.

    Sue Bradford was another nutcase.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    reid

    With all due respect to your desire not to discuss 911, I suspect some degree of the answers to why we haven’t had all the details about how it happened are attributable to the ‘don’t frighten the horses’ approach. Previously unknown weaknesses in building design when the structure is faced with a major fire spreading through the core may not be good public confidence factors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    “Building peace needs work at every level. It is not just the absence of violence, but the presence of justice and freedom. It will not happen between nations and religions until we have learned to build it between people. And that does not just happen – it needs to be worked at.”
    Jeanette Fitzsimons 12/9/01

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    burt, it’s not that we’ve not had all the details about how it happened, it’s that it could not have happened the way it was observed to happen, unless there were other physical factors involved. If it was a simple matter along the lines you suggest, 60 Minutes would have outed that years ago.

    “It stretches credibility that anything happened to the towers other than what everyone sane thinks anyway”

    Yes morgan, that’s a good reason to ignore the facts and the science, isn’t it. You don’t also believe in AGW, do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Jack5 (4,208 comments) says:

    Patrick Starr (5.57 post) raises the Melon Party allusion.

    It’s an apt description for the Greens. I always thought it was because they were environmentalists (green) on the surface and far-leftists (red) underneath.

    Fitzsimmons by falling for the twin towers conspiracy loopiness suggests Melon Party may refer to members’ heads rather than the colours and layers of their politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Reid: Your an idiot.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

    I’m sure you don’t want to debate, …

    There is also this one…
    http://www.debunking911.com/

    In particular the Tower construction:
    http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

    I think your qualified architect may have got his diploma out of a wheeties box

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Manolo (12,607 comments) says:

    Wait for the Luddites to request an investigation on the Moon landings, because we all know they didn’t happen.

    To think this pack of morons, imbeciles, and dimwits had political clout during the Labour years, it is mind-boggling. They are back to what they should always be: irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    I’m certainly NOT saying that the Towers were blown up by militant Greens who will resort to murder, genocide, and all sorts of evil in order to reduce the population of the World so that less CO2 is generated. And I’m NOT saying that these same Greens murdered millions of Rwandans and Cambodians to further these same twisted aims. And I’m absolutely NOT saying that Fitzsimmons was the leader of these militant Greens and is therefore guilty of crimes against humanity. But there are definite holes in the official story. I have an open mind on the matter. I think an official investigation is required to determine whether Fitzsimmons and the Greens were guilty of these crimes, otherwise doubts will always exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Jeanette Fitzsimons = ‘the smiling assassin’

    Nasty smiling bitch

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    Bevan, you’re an idiot if you think Popular Mechanics addresses the relevant issues.

    Those sites are strawmen built for people who don’t want to think the unthinkable. I prefer the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Steve (4,313 comments) says:

    Does Jeanette think the US Government blew up the Twin Towers?

    No, Jeanette does not think, she gathers small bits of repeated information.
    Bit like a magpie.
    Then puts them in a mixer and spreads the commie bullshit to the believers.
    Hail Jeanette our Saviour

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Anyone who thinks that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, must seek help from a psychiatrist.

    Reid said…
    why did it fall into itself and not topple over and fall into the street below as it should have done if the laws of physics were operating properly on that day and on and on and on and on. And then there’s WTC7, and the Pentagon, and the plane that crashed in the field. And then there’s other things like why did the 911 Commissioner himself + his deputy back away from their own report and on and on and on and on.

    It means that one has to rewrite the laws of physics if the conspiracists are to be taken seriously. But hang on, classical newtonian physics has nothing left to be discovered, it’s already being well understood and there is nothing new there that we haven’t already known. So, 9/11 conscipracists are really daft.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” I prefer the truth.”

    Lunacy. What about the plane passengers and crews? What about the telephone conversations with their loved ones? What about the video of the hijackers boarding the planes. What about Bin Ladens boasting?

    Have you ever been involved in managing any kind of major project Reid? I don’t think so, for if you had, you’d know how impossible it would be to organize an event of this magnitude and keep it secret.

    What if the planes had never made it to the towers? Why didn’t explosions occur in the target that was never reached?

    Don’t answer those questions, they’re rhetorical, and really, if it wasn’t for the utter preposterousness of the claim, it wouldn’t be worth referencing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    Reid, how is the observed mode of building collapse against the laws of physics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. chrisw76 (82 comments) says:

    “I prefer the truth”

    Crap. You prefer thinking that the truth is being hidden from you. Right now, there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. Even if there was a full independent enquiry, no matter the result, the nuts would always say that the truth is still being hidden by a shadowy conspiracy even if it confirmed their fears of a vast conspiracy between members of the government, Wall Street, defence contractors, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Masons, Rotary and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance.

    Cheers, Chris W.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Leonidas (1,157 comments) says:

    On the one hand, I have seen pictures of columns with straight, diagonal cuts common in controlled demolition. On the other, I have seen video analysis in which you can very clearly see a plane hitting the Pentagon.

    but none of this proves GWB did it.
    And there is nothing to say this evidence hasn’t been tampered with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Positan (376 comments) says:

    Other than reid’s comments, I’m quite amazed at the lack of intelligent discourse here. So many contributors seem instantly accepting of what can only be sheer rubbish advanced as fact. Rank stupidity is evident in so many of the “Comments.”

    1. Steel framed buidings do not collapse in the way the towers did. As reid said, if weakened sufficiently at one point, the top part would bend and probably break.

    2. WTC 7 fell all by itself. A WTC executive said on camera “The decision was made to pull it.” “Pull it?” Thereafter, the item was quickly removed from all news bites. WTC 7 collapsed in exactly the same way as the twin towers but, because it wasn’t hit by a plane it had to have been a controlled demolition from charges already pre-installed.

    3. Extraordinary security measures were set in force during the removal and disposal of the buildings’ rubble – even at the point of dumping. Why? Was someone afraid of something untoward like explosive residue being found? Again, many references were made from widespread sources as to all the “cruciform” (cross-like) pieces of girders that had to be moved. That fact alone almost screams that demolition explosives had to have been used.

    4. The “plane” that hit the Pentagon seemed to lack both wings and a tail structure. Again, extraordinary efforts were made to secure the debris and prevent any media access to, or TV coverage of, the site.

    There is so much more – and no, I’m not remotely Green or even kindly disposed to that party. I just want the true facts and to be left to make my own judgement.

    Those who won’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Brian Marshall (181 comments) says:

    Bevan, you bet me to the popular mechanic’s link. Having seen the doc on the 11/9 terrorist attacks myths being debunked by popular mechs, it put my mind to rest about conspiracies in this case.
    (And I love a good conspiracy story) anyway try this link Reid.
    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

    More to the point about how nutty the greens are, I caught a real short snippet on Nat radio the other day quoting Catherine Delahunty moaning about some ETS bill or something. Then it cut to what I could only assume to be her, saying something like “It will ruin the forest peoples way of life blah blah blah”. I thought I must have been off my rocker or something. Did I dream it or did anybody else catch it?
    I was so stunned about someone elected to parilment just sounding so friggen dumb, that I’m doubting what I thought I heard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Why didn’t explosions occur in the target that was never reached?..”

    they did..red..

    ..it’s called building seven…

    (and here’s the ‘fun-fact’ about building seven..

    it was a storage place for evidence for upcoming corruption-trials..and the like..

    all destroyed..

    in the building that wasn’t hit..but collapsed in the same way..

    ..as those that did..

    funny that..!..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Brian Marshall (181 comments) says:

    Positan, you haven’t really read the pop mech 11/9 myth bust have you???

    (oh and I found the link about Catherine Delahunty and can see if it was ever to be enacted into law, what a sh$T show of hell it would ever work. It (illegal tropical forest logging) hasn’t slowed where it’s illegal already. Still a dreamer, just not so nutty).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. chiz (1,090 comments) says:

    Why is this a surprise? The greens pal around with creationists and AIDS-denialists and medical quacks. They clearly have difficulty with evidence assessment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and i guess most of you haven’t seen the footage of the explosions going off..as the buildings collapsed..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Paul G. Buchanan (301 comments) says:

    I think that it is a very sad commentary on the level of distrust felt by the US public and others with regards to the USG that such conspiracy theories can take wind. I would imagine that Jeannette falls into this category rather than the outright nutter category, and lets be honest, there is enough USG bad behaviour to justify skepticism of a lot of its claims and denials. But not this one.

    As I said to someone who interviewed me about “Loose Change” (for those of you who do not know, it is a 9/11 conspiracy movie with all of the points mentioned in this thread), we should never underestimate the ineptitude of the W. Bush administration when it came to ignoring clear, repeated warnings that civilian aircraft would be used as guided missiles for attacks on the mainland, and never underestimate the ability of the USG to cover up that fact as well as the fact that its much vaunted NORAD-based air defense system was nothing more than a Potemkin village defense in light of shifting strategic priorities after the Cold War.

    For saying that I got vilified on a 9/11 conspiracy website and had some nasty videos posted claiming that I was a Nazi war criminal who orchestrated the attacks (true story!). At that point I realised that, whatever concerns there might have been about controlled demolitions and other discrepancies in the official story line, most of the people pushing the conspiracy line were a few slices short of a loaf.

    And even if there was a controlled demolition because a system to that end had been put in place in case of a catastrophic failure of the buildings as well as due to the presence of the NYC emergency command centre in the complex (so as to minimize the damage to surrounding neighborhoods and ensure that that the command centre was not left exposed), that would have been part of a legitimate ex-post cover up done out of respect for the families of the victims, not part of a USG conspiracy to launch the attacks in the first place (in order to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and thereby control the world, presumably. Boy, did that NOT work out as planned!). And even then, I find the controlled demolition scenario to be far-fetched simply because in a loose-lipped society like the US we would have heard about that by now.

    Bottom line: the less transparency there is in USG revealing full details of the event, the more persistent these conspiracy theories will become. If the USG has revealed all that it knows, then the conspiracies are here to stay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. PaulL (5,774 comments) says:

    Philu, some of us have things to do with our time that are vaguely useful. So we prioritise what we’re going to look at based on likelihood. My view of the likelihood of there being any solid evidence of anything seriously untoward in 9/11, and nobody in the media having done anything, nobody in the US govt doing anything, no third candidate standing in the election on a platform of “the 9/11 conspiracy”, is that it is exceptionally unlikely.

    The fact that a druggie on the internet who cannot write coherent grammar or get a job, and who has a web site that gets 2 visits a day by people who clicked on the link by accident, says that there is something to it, makes no difference at all to my assessment of the likelihood. Because I assign precisely zero credibility to your beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    philu

    Never saw the explosions but I want some Penta-Lawn 2000 so I can park my car on the lawn and never leave any marks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..we should never underestimate the ineptitude of the W. Bush administration when it came to ignoring clear, repeated warnings that civilian aircraft would be used as guided missiles for attacks on the mainland, and never underestimate the ability of the USG to cover up that fact as well as the fact that its much vaunted NORAD-based air defense system was nothing more than a Potemkin village defense in light of shifting strategic priorities after the Cold War..”

    and that’s it..?

    that the foundation of your ‘reassurance’..?

    and..

    “..At that point I realised that, whatever concerns there might have been about controlled demolitions and other discrepancies in the official story line, most of the people pushing the conspiracy line were a few slices short of a loaf..

    um..!..no..!

    as already noted many of the doubts expressed are by people regarded as experts in their fields..

    engineers/demolition experts/physicists/et al..(hardly the loony-tunes crowd..eh..?..)

    and seeing the approbrium heaped on them..only strengthens their credibility on this..(as in reputation-risk..

    ..surely you can see this..?..)

    and..

    “..And even then, I find the controlled demolition scenario to be far-fetched simply because in a loose-lipped society like the US we would have heard about that by now…”

    really..?..you answer all those questioning/disbelieving experts..with that..?

    well..you’ve ‘cleared up’ nothing there..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Steve (4,313 comments) says:

    Phool = Max Headroom
    1985 blipvert

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chuck Bird (4,401 comments) says:

    David, next your are going to tell us you do not believe in Area 51.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Because I assign precisely zero credibility to your beliefs…”

    not exactly talking about my ‘beliefs’..

    why don’t you focus on the questions of the experts/engineers/demolition experts..etc..?

    an ad hominem on me..?

    meh..!

    eh..?..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Crusader (225 comments) says:

    Green = Red.
    Just a new branding for the old commies.
    The earnest undergraduates voting Green are just following a brand, like the Nikes the wear on their feet and the Starbucks they drink in the mall. One day they grow up. While there are students and naive kids, the commies have a constituency – whatever colour they call themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Oh gawd, here’s Pablo who manages even to find a way to blame the Bush administration for all the conspiracy nutters out there. There’s no end to these loons and their obsessive finger pointing at GWB. Hey Pablo, bet you’ve never criticised the Chicoms for “excessive secrecy”. Deranged. Completely deranged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Paul G. Buchanan (301 comments) says:

    Hmmm. I have Phil and RB both disagreeing/hating on me now. I must be doing something right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    It really is sad how 9/11 trutherism is so prevalent. No doubt they’ll use the KSM trial to add more “facts” to the delusion they’ve built around themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. jackp (668 comments) says:

    It really doesn’t matter what Fitzimmons thinks or you people for that matter. It is so big and ugly it took me years to accept it. I agree with her for once, things don’t add up. But, who cares because no one will do anything about it. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Why did Bush say he wasn’t interested in finding him after the most cowardly acts upon United States soil ever!!! All you have to do is just see who benefits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    1. Steel framed buidings do not collapse in the way the towers did. As reid said, if weakened sufficiently at one point, the top part would bend and probably break.

    What about weakening on all supports simultaneously? The sort of weakening that occurs on heating metal to the temperature of burning aviation fuel? You do realise that at those temperatures, the yield strength of the steel supports would probably be 10% or less what it is at room temperature. Under those conditions, it is extremely likely that the structure would buckle under its own weight and collapse. Don’t comment on the ignorance of others when you don’t understand such a fundamental property of materials.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    DPF – read Jeanette’s quote again:

    “There is so much that does not make sense about the official version of 911. I have read all 600 plus pages of “Crossing the Rubicon” and it appears to me to be well researched, though I still have an open mind on the matter of what exactly did happen. It is time we knew the truth one way or another, and an independent enquiry is the way to achieve this. If we do not know the truth of our history it will compromise our future.”

    Evidence, DPF, evidence! There are a hell of a lot of conspiracy theories abounding – New Zealand’s own Ian Wishart is responsible for a lot of them. But “Crossing the Rubicon” is not in that league.

    I have seen it several times. It convinces me not that the “official US version” of 9/11 is incorrect. But it does convince me that there are serious questions that need to be asked and answered, because the official US version has not done that.

    And remember that Cheney and Bush are now beyond doubt condemned in the court of public opinion for lying to Congress about the supposed weapons of mass destruction that were used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    Without wanting to get into conspiracy theories, I think an investigation is needed into 9/11.

    “Crossing the Rubicon” provides sufficient doubt to require investigation beyond those initiated by the politically controlled agencies of the Bush administration that have so far provide the “official” version.

    [DPF: How about the moon landings? Should they also be investigated?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. francis (712 comments) says:

    gag. one of the principal arguments of the conspiracy group seems to be the presence of thermite residue in the aftermath. Just gotta say that there were a LOT of government agencies with classified documents on the site and they would have strict protocols requiring thermite being wired to their filing cabinets. That may have contributed to the heat. It doesn’t, however, imply that they were conspirators. Hey, we ALL saw the plane hit the Towers. And NONE of us saw controlled explosions where planes didn’t hit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    And here comes frogboy defending Jeanette’s lunacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. kiki (425 comments) says:

    I would say that so many lies have been spread for so long that nothing can be taken on face value anymore. Everything from British pilots eating carrots so they can fly in the dark to the tonkin incident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident). Bombing aspirin factories (http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html) and did anyone really believe Saddam had WMD?

    Even our own politicians (horror), did anyone really think that national would complete their tax cuts?.

    The papers, TV and internet are full of lies, it’s all spin and unchecked PR material from many sources and restrictions on employees, greed or fear prevent anyone from investigating the facts and if someone tries they are attacked personally.

    Expect people to see conspiracy because there is so little truth that most things are a conspiracy in some form.

    of course all the links I’ve given are possibly lies

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. big bruv (12,319 comments) says:

    Toad

    It would be a damn sight easier if you (and the rest of your party) told the truth, why not come out with the statement that we all know you are bursting to release, hell, I will even do it for you.

    “The Green party of New Zealand/Ayotearowa would like to announce that should we ever be in a position to form a government we would immediately cut all ties with the USA.
    The Green party of New Zealand/Ayotearowa cannot and will not have contacts with a country that embraces capitalism and allows the republicans the chance to govern”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. francis (712 comments) says:

    Hey, pretty much EVERYONE – except Hans Blix – believed that Saddam had WMDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War Even Saddam thought he had them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    I would like to know if it is official Green Party policy to ask the US Government to reinvestigate the events surrounding September the 11th 2001?

    Maybe while they are at it they can ask the US to look at the Moon landing, the JFK shootings, and whether or not Aliens crash landed at Roswell New Mexico.

    LOL!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    Hey Toad I didn’t see you responding to this when I posted it on Frog Blog a good hour before it hit this site. Why is that?

    Were you checking with your handlers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. kiki (425 comments) says:

    Don’t worry BigBruv John will only cut ties with the US if China tells us to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Oh, gota love the 9/11 truth movement.

    “Steel doesn’t do that” – then a few months later a petrol tanker blows up under a steel bridge and that’s “part of the conspiracy”.

    Funny how so few mention that building 7 was severely damaged on the tower side, and was re-enforced since a subway ran through the middle and there were no supports there. Thus the floors didn’t break up as they went down and from the other side it looked like there was no reason for it to fall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    Do any of the two negative-karma cowards actually want to refute my statement that the yield strength of steel drops at high temperatures?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. A1kmm (91 comments) says:

    Jeanette’s quote seems to imply that she thinks more investigation is required, and I agree with the sentiment; the complete failure of three large and supposedly well-engineered buildings, even after two plane strikes, should be well understood, if we don’t want this to happen again to another building. Apparently, most large buildings are the site of a major fire at some point in their useful life – and if this can make them fail, then it would be good to know how they fail, and what can be done to prevent this. This is especially true for the WTC7, which was never hit by a plane. There has never really been a detailed forensic investigation of what happened – and indeed, I understand much of the evidence has been shipped away to be re-used.

    There are lots of inconsistencies which have never been properly explained; for example, http://www.911scholars.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf – the author of that document jumps to conclusions a bit, but the contradictions pointed out are valid.

    Merely pointing out contradictions in a theory does not make someone a conspiracy theorist. To be classified as a conspiracy theorist, one would need to actively advance as fact an alternative theory which lacks plausibility and does not have the requisite amount of evidence to back it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. jackp (668 comments) says:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

    Paradigm, read above. It should raise questions to keep you searching. I know Kennedy was not shot by a loan assassin. There were more involved but we will never know. I suppose we could have found out if Bobby or John Jr were alive but both are dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    DPF (and bruv) – everything that is challenged with valid evidence should be investigated. DPF, I don’t think there is any evidence to challenge the moon landings.

    But “Crossing the Rubicon” does provide evidence to challenge the official US version of 9/11. I would suggest you watch it before responding, and evaluate the the evidence for yourself.

    For now, I have an open mind about this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. bill hicks (100 comments) says:

    Jan thinks Global Warming/climate change brought down the twin towers…..the greens are fucked.Act steal to have holidays……Labour are a bunch of Gays……Maori party are racist…..Peter Dunn and Jim who???And now national are becoming a police state just about on a par with helen clark…..WE have to pay soon for some make believe carbon fairy dust………This country and world is becoming a money go round.Bring back buck……………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    hardly ‘hating’..

    more puzzled at yr blinkers on this subject..

    when you know what duplicitous evil scumbag bastards they are..eh..?

    (now..that’s ‘hating’..see the difference..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    Don’t you just love it when they say they have an open mind about something like a giant conspiracy involving hundreds, and possibly thousands of US citizens who engage ina devillishly complicated plot to kill thousands of their fellow countrymen just so they can create a condition where they might just possibly convince people for a short time to go to war which will mean that more preople will die and billions more will be spent for no real benefit.

    Why do we give these people the time of day again?

    BTW Toad why didn’t you respond on Frog Blog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I know Kennedy was not shot by a loan assassin.

    “..I just asked the guy to get rid of my mortgage, but instead he went out and shot the bloody President.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. big bruv (12,319 comments) says:

    Toad

    “And remember that Cheney and Bush are now beyond doubt condemned in the court of public opinion”

    That statement of yours is proof that you have far from an ‘open mind’ about anything to do with the USA.

    For some fucked up reason you and your fellow Greens have an irrational hatred of Bush, you even insist on continuing with the line that “Bush lied” and conveniently overlook the fact that nearly every world leader was of the same opinion at the time.

    You really need to let it go, you really need to get over the fact that Bush did indeed beat Al Gore in 2000 and move on, the world is undoubtedly a safer place because of Bush and Cheney, god knows what sort of fucking mess we would be in if Al the fraudster Gore had actually won the election back in 2000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    “BTW Toad why didn’t you respond on Frog Blog?”

    Toad is a slippery greenie who does not respond to common sense questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    jackp there are some very dubious assumptions in that calculation: a cursory examination notes the assumption that the concrete is heated to the same temperature as the steel. Given the relative thermal conductivities of concrete and steel, i find this unlikely. In reality a lot of heat would quickly transfer to the steel, while a comparatively small amount would go into the concrete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    I just had to respond to Redbaiter’s comment for it was so funny.

    ” I prefer the truth.”

    Lunacy. What about the plane passengers and crews?

    Er, I don’t know, since I didn’t mention them, what are you hallucinating I said here, RB?

    What about the telephone conversations with their loved ones?

    Yes, mightily peculiar wasn’t it, given that in 2001 cellphone calls from airliners at altitude could not reliably connect to ground stations and maintain the connection, that so many cell phone calls went through? Who woulda thunk.

    What about the video of the hijackers boarding the planes.

    What about it? And what do you think about the BBC report that said some of the hijackers were walking around alive in the ME some years after the event?

    What about Bin Ladens boasting?

    Amazing isn’t it how OBL seems to be a different person each time he periodically pops up at the most convenient moments and how he manages to consistently for years evade the efforts of what must be the most well-resourced manhunt in history.

    Have you ever been involved in managing any kind of major project Reid? I don’t think so, for if you had, you’d know how impossible it would be to organize an event of this magnitude and keep it secret.

    No, project management is not my field RB, for it bores me. However, I’ve been involved in plenty of large projects. And I agree. Luckily for the integrity of my argument, I went to great pains to point out that this particular issue was quite irrelevant to what I thought was a very elementary point.

    What if the planes had never made it to the towers? Why didn’t explosions occur in the target that was never reached?

    Er…

    Don’t answer those questions, they’re rhetorical, and really, if it wasn’t for the utter preposterousness of the claim, it wouldn’t be worth referencing.

    Oh but firstly, I don’t really give a fuck what you prefer, RB. Secondly, I thought I would because you’re so funny.

    Reid, how is the observed mode of building collapse against the laws of physics?

    Thanks paradigm for a sensible question which was most welcome after reading RB’s. The significant things in the twin towers (and please note that WTC7 is a separate story again), are:
    speed of collapse
    degree of materiel pulverisation
    maximum possible temperature generated by a kerosene and office material fire on steel girders – yes they would weaken and bend and maybe the rivets would pop out causing collapse of some floors but what about all the other intact floors that weren’t affected?
    complete destruction of the core
    heat generation way beyond what you would calculate that event would generate, resulting in pools of molten metal being found at the basement and satellite infra-red images showing extremely intense hot-spots for months afterward

    All of this is freely available, I suggest you look at it if you’re interested, but just to illustrate the point about the speed of collapse: Both buildings fell at free-fall speed. If you dropped a tennis ball from the top, those two buildings fell at that same speed within tenths of a second, falling THROUGH THE PATH OF MOST RESISTANCE. The official story says each floor collapsed on the others. Newton’s law of conservation of momentum says that when that happens, each intact floor (which all were beneath the destruction zone) sets up resistance, slowing the fall. This is NOT what we all observed.

    “I prefer the truth”

    Crap. You prefer thinking that the truth is being hidden from you. Right now, there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise. Even if there was a full independent enquiry, no matter the result, the nuts would always say that the truth is still being hidden by a shadowy conspiracy even if it confirmed their fears of a vast conspiracy between members of the government, Wall Street, defence contractors, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Masons, Rotary and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance.

    Cheers, Chris W.

    Yes Chris, why don’t you read my first comment again and find out what I really said, as opposed to what you’re hallucinating?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..big bruv (4890) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
    November 20th, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    Toad

    “And remember that Cheney and Bush are now beyond doubt condemned in the court of public opinion”

    That statement of yours is proof that you have far from an ‘open mind’ about anything to do with the USA..”

    um..!..bruv..

    i think it has something to do with all those lies they told to justify the invasion of iraq..?

    so yes..they are ‘now beyond doubt condemned in the court of public opinion”

    this is also the reason blair didn’t get the european presidency..

    lies/condemned/public opinion..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. jackp (668 comments) says:

    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

    I am sure there is an explanation for this. It was Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld that said Osama Bin Laden is the culprit. Remember we were all eying those camel jokies living next to you?? Why doesn’t it say that on the fbi poster?? Sure, they forgot, some asshole bureaucrat forgot to put down the twin towers. He probably was told to but decided to go home that day. My mistake, sorry I brought it up. Only 3000 plus 100′s of thousand Afganistani and Iraqi lives lost. Small potatoes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    To many false flags by governments looking to warmonger as well as massive distrust with establishments world wide, little wonder people see conspiracy behind every major event.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    Oh, gota love the 9/11 truth movement.

    “Steel doesn’t do that” – then a few months later a petrol tanker blows up under a steel bridge and that’s “part of the conspiracy”.

    Haven’t heard that and don’t know the incident scrubone, but what do you think about the strangely odd Madrid skyscaper fire much fiercer and longer than the twin towers which burnt the steel to a skeleton yet it remained standing.

    Of course, that was different, wasn’t it. How?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    Whether or not you like or dislike the previous US administration and whether or not you think invasions of Afhanistan and/or Iraq were valid surely you should be able to agree that a giant conspiracy involving elements of the US Government were not behind the attacks on Spetember the 11th 2001.

    If you can’t do that then you are a Nutjob conspiracy theorist in my book. Might as well believe in the faked moon landing and Alien crash landing in New Mexico amongst others. In short you are not rational.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    “little wonder people see conspiracy behind every major event”

    Banana, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean you’re not being followed…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    Reid, There was two major forces involved in the falling of buildings on September the 11th 2001.

    One was heat by fire, which you mention.

    The other was the force of the the initial impact. This blew off a lot of protective material from the structure. This is also something not dealt with well, if at all, by nutjob conspiracy theorists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    “a giant conspiracy involving elements of the US Government”

    Who the fuck is saying that, gosman? Or are those words you’re trying to put into people’s mouths?

    Gosman, re: the insulation, who gives a fuck? The main point mate, is that the physics re: temp, gravity and thermodynamics don’t add up. Anyone who doesn’t know those details, hasn’t looked much, or has left it at the polopuler mekanics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    “Anyone who doesn’t know those details, hasn’t looked much.”

    LOL!!!

    Spoken like a true Conspiracy theory Nutjob Reid.

    Nice to see you coming out on that side of reality.

    So all the many thousands of professionals and Scientists who disagree with you and your Conspiracy Theorist friends are either in the pay of the US Government or incompetent right?

    (Just checking you level of insanity BTW) ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    True but you see how one can use plausible deniability in such a climate Reid even if it was just blowback from the 80′s

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    Newton’s law of conservation of momentum says that when that happens, each intact floor (which all were beneath the destruction zone) sets up resistance, slowing the fall. This is NOT what we all observed.

    I thought it took at least 10 seconds for the building to collapse, as opposed to the <8 seconds that it would have taken were the building in free fall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. jackp (668 comments) says:

    Paradigm, what it is saying is that if using jet fuel, it could not raise the concrete or steel to temperatures up to the melting point. Most of the fuel was blown out of the building thus seeing the dark smoke and the fires were there only a short time. Witnesses felt the heat but only for about 15 or 20 seconds, You are saying the temperatures reached high levels to melt the steel. We saw most of the fuel blow out of the twin towers, I don’t know physics nor combustion and steel to heat ratio but witnesses said something completely different. I know kerosene is a low grade fuel which burns at lower temperatures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    It’s certainly true that steel loses it’s strength at fire temperatures. I’ve seen a steel-framed haybarn burn and it collapsed completely. And that was just a wet hay fire, i.e. no flames, just lots of heat and smoke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Positan said…
    Steel framed buidings do not collapse in the way the towers did.

    Show me where in the physics/engineering literatures that says what you’ve just stated above? Show some publications where they stated that such experiments had been performed and observed in the way you claimed ?

    Phil U,

    I said to you in one of the threads here at DPF in the past that your claim of Masters degree from University is no more than a toilet cleaning degree. WHY? You believe in psychics, which obviously contradicts physics, and you also believe 9/11 conspiracy which as I stated above, you have to re-write the laws of physics if Conspiracists are to be taken seriously. For those who keep quoting opinions of architects should not put too much weight on that (ie, Conspiracist architects). Architects are not physicists or engineers. They’re not trained in mechanical modeling & simulation to fully understand structural stability, however they do work alongside or collaborate with engineers, and this is where engineers come in.

    C’mon Phil U, think like a trained masters degree person. Even with my poor English, I can differentiate between fantasy & reality (via learning from English literatures and not Tongan ones).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    “I’ve seen a steel-framed haybarn burn and it collapsed completely.”

    Yes malcolm, do you think the hay barn was built using similar materials to those used to construct the twin towers?

    “I thought it took at least 10 seconds for the building to collapse, as opposed to the <8 seconds…"

    paradigm, that's why I said in my first post that I'm over the debates. Look it up if you're interested, it's there, for all to see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. redqueen (342 comments) says:

    Good to see the Greens are maintaining a high standard of thought. Having been in the US at the time of the attacks, I’m pretty sure that the US Government didn’t blow up the towers for the fun of it (or even to do anything creepy). While it’s always good to pull out the circumstantial evidence and make baseless claims about who’s a ‘Bush Administration supporter’, it’d be nice for some actual hard evidence. Like you’ve said, DPF, we should really look into verifiable evidence about the Moon Landing. We only have two real eye-witnesses and can they be trusted?

    I say we hold an independent inquiry into the matter, full fo people who haven’t been involved in anything space-based, and who are all born at least ten years after 1969. This way we can truly truly ‘know the truth about our history’ and make up our minds about things we know nothing about. Or we could just stop using P and settle down with reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. paradigm (507 comments) says:

    ou are saying the temperatures reached high levels to melt the steel. We saw most of the fuel blow out of the twin towers, I don’t know physics nor combustion and steel to heat ratio but witnesses said something completely different. I know kerosene is a low grade fuel which burns at lower temperatures.

    I never said melt the steel, I said heat sufficiently that the strength of the steel is reduced. This starts happening at a far lower temperature than the melting point of steel.

    Another important factor was probably the nonuniform nature of the heating. If different support beams/pillars were heated different amounts, they would expand different amounts, straining the structure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    Reid, you have no idea what materials were used to construct the Twin Towers or whether they could have fallen due to the stresses they received thatb day. Basically you are making statments from a hole in your arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Yes malcolm, do you think the hay barn was built using similar materials to those used to construct the twin towers?

    Yeah pretty much. Steel beams. Bigger and thicker in a high-rise, but steel is steel when it comes to losing strength when it gets hot. Any mechanical engineer will tell you that. They’ll also tell you that gluelam wood beams often perform better in a fire than naked steel beams – the wood chars and then burns very slowly. The steel gets hot and goes like a noodle. Of course they do things to limit this in big buildings, e.g the foam they spray on to the steel etc, but it only does so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I believe

    if anyone cares

    that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK off his own bat, just because he could

    and that Sirhan Sirhan shot Robert Kennedy off his own bat, just because he could

    and that Armstrong took one small step for mankind

    and that the US government ignored warnings about planes flying into buildings because, well, it’s a bit far fetched, isn’t it, until it actually happened

    and most of all, I’m enjoying watching all the usual conspiracy theory devotees here dumping on a conspiracy theory

    priceless!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. lilman (658 comments) says:

    Shit I wish she was my wife, then she would believe Im 9 inches and can go all nite.

    Silly bitch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    9 inches, lilman? You’re a modest littleman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    Positan:
    “Those who won’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”

    Is that socialists you are talking about there?

    Toad:
    “DPF (and bruv) – everything that is challenged with valid evidence should be investigated. DPF, I don’t think there is any evidence to challenge the moon landings.”

    So you are all in favour of an investigation into the evidence that reveals that Gorebal Warming is not caused by mankind then Toad.

    Bloody hell, you bastards are as crooked as a dog’s hind leg!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    “Yeah pretty much. Steel beams. Bigger and thicker in a high-rise, but steel is steel when it comes to losing strength when it gets hot.”

    Well malcolm, structural engineers will disagree. Ever heard of heat dispersion? You know, a sewing needle heats up in seconds when heated under a cigarette lighter whereas apply the same lighter to say a pair of plyers it takes a lot longer to heat em up. That’s because as we all know, metal conducts heat.

    Hello?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Jack5 (4,208 comments) says:

    I hope no-one confuses my posting name, Jack5, with the similar pseudonym, JackP, who with other nut jobs thinks the 9/11 attacks were a US Govt conspiracy.

    However, I am intrigued by JackP in his 10.12 post: “I know Kennedy was not shot by a loan assassin.”

    So does everyone else JackP, Kennedy never dealt with loan sharks, he owed them nothing, they had no motive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    “Reid, you have no idea what materials were used to construct the Twin Towers”

    I do actually gosman because I’ve troubled myself to carefully look into it.

    Have you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Hello?

    Sure, but IIRC the temp at which steel is pretty much a noodle is something like 500C. Not much really. If you set fire to a few floors in an office building, throw in some kerosene, plus all the furniture etc and there would be plenty of energy.

    The real question is how well insulated and protected the steel beams were. But even that only does so much. It increases the fire duration time, but ultimately the steel will get hot enough to fail. If the insulation is broken off or not present then it would be much quicker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    A widely adopted methodology today in physics and engineering in general for structural analysis is FEM (finite element analysis) and mechanical engineers use it in their design work too. It is complex subject (software implementation-wise), since it involves heavy matrix algebra and differential calculus, but there are commercial software already available for engineers to use, without them worrying about the need to know the complex math, all they need to understand is which button to press or which block model to be used, etc. The collapsed of the twin towers was consistent with the physics as we know it and there have been lots of comments or expert opinions from some physicists/engineers who are conspiracists themselves that all just talk , not even managing to come up with some steel load FEM, because these (steel) structural modeling in general have been done before, such as the followings, which I have found online:

    Stochastic finite element analysis of steel structures, Journal of Constructional Steel Research

    “Simulation of Structural Collapse with Coupled Finite Element-Discrete Element Method”
    http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication3/FEM_DEM_CSE09.htm

    “Simulation of the dynamic behavior of steel structures under impact loading”
    http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT15/B07-4

    and there are more references on the net.

    Even if conspiracists use FEM software to support their claim, they will be disappointed since the simulation will show that they’re wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Jack5 (4,208 comments) says:

    Hansen at 11.27 posted:”…I believe …if anyone cares…”

    Sorry Lucy, no-one does. No-one gives a fat rat’s arse for Lucy Hansen’s take on historic events or on clashes of religion or civilisations.

    At the rate you have been blathering on Kiwiblog all day, Lucy, you are either a pseudonym for two or more lefty Islamophiles or you have some sort of compulsion mania that has you wearing down your fingers and wearing out keyboard after keyboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Reid, I take your point about heat dispersion etc. But it always helps to throw some numbers around to get a feel for what is and isn’t possible:

    1] Specific heat of carbon steel: 0.49 kJ/kg.K
    2] Energy density of kerosene: 43 MJ/kg

    So how much kerosene would I need to burn to heat a 10 tonne steel ‘I’ beam from 20C to 500C (assuming no heat loss at this point):

    = (10,000 x (500-20) x 0.49 x 1000) / (43 x 10^6)
    = 54 kg.

    Guess and say 95% of the heat energy was lost out of the building during the 1 hour it took to reach that temp. So you’d need 1,080 kg of kerosene for every 10 tonne beam. Just guessing again lets say you need to get 10 beams to collapse for the building to go down. That’s only 10 tonnes of fuel. A 767 can hold 90,000 litres (approx 72 tonnes).

    So you need say 10 tonnes of fuel but there’s potentially 72 tonnes of fuel available. Lots of fuel probably got lost over the side etc etc and countless other factors, and that’s all just top-of-head guesses, but it’s well possible.

    And that’s what you’d expect, as the building did ultimately collapse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    reid

    All I know for sure is the towers did fall like a sack of shit into themselves – How did that happen given all the evidence you have referenced saying the building wouldn’t fall that fast into itself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    ..should have been 1800 kg of kerosene per beam… so 18 tonnes of fuel and 72 tonnes max available. Same conclusion though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    I found the abstract summary of the following paper relevant to the discussion about the physics/engineering of the twin-tower which describes the use of FEM (finite element modeling) as I stated above in my previous message. I tried to look for a free copy on the net but to no avail. I have sent a request to one of the co-author/s for a free copy of their paper and hopefully, he/she will send me one.

    Abstract:

    This paper uses a finite-element model to investigate the stability of the Twin-Towers of the World Trade Center, New York for a number of different fire scenarios. This investigation does not take into account the structural damage caused by the terrorist attack. However, the fire scenarios included are based upon the likely fires that could have occurred as a result of the attack. A number of different explanations of how and why the Towers collapsed have appeared since the event. None of these however have adequately focused on the most important issue, namely ‘what structural mechanisms led to the state which triggered the collapse’. Also, quite predictably, there are significant and fundamental differences in the explanations of the WTC collapses on offer so far. A complete consensus on any detailed explanation of the definitive causes and mechanisms of the collapse of these structures is well nigh impossible given the enormous uncertainties in key data (nature of the fires, damage to fire protection, heat transfer to structural members and nature and extent of structural damage for instance). There is, however, a consensus of sorts that the fires that burned in the structures after the attack had a big part to play in this collapse. The question is how big? Taking this to the extreme, this paper poses the hypothetical question, “had there been no structural damage would the structure have survived fires of a similar magnitude”?

    A robust but simple computational and theoretical analysis has been carried out to answer this question. Robust because no gross assumptions have been made and varying important parameters over a wide range shows consistent behaviour supporting the overall conclusions. Simple because all results presented can be checked by any structural engineer either theoretically or using widely available structural analysis software tools. The results are illuminating and show that the structural system adopted for the Twin-Towers may have been unusually vulnerable to a major fire. The analysis results show a simple but unmistakable collapse mechanism that owes as much (or more) to the geometric thermal expansion effects as it does to the material effects of loss of strength and stiffness. The collapse mechanism discovered is a simple stability failure directly related to the effect of heating (fire). Additionally, the mechanism is not dependent upon failure of structural connections.

    Title : How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory, Fire Safety Journal Volume 38, Issue 6, October 2003, Pages 501-533

    There are some more references at wikipedia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Oh dear, Jack5 thinks ad hominem attacks count as reasoned debate…yawn…

    But if I were Jack, I would be careful with the LUCY word – the real LUCY might have something to say about that! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. stuart munro (6 comments) says:

    Well, however much some of you people want to take a cheap shot at Jeanette Fitzsimons, I have seen nothing in the way of official or objective reporting that explains the collapse to me.

    And given that the Bush/Cheney White house established itself as the mother of all dishonest sources (WMDs anyone? No? Al Qaeda in pre-invasion Iraq? Bush family links with Saudi & Prescott’s links with the Nazis?) I don’t place any confidence in them.

    I’m not a conspiracy theorist – I have no idea what happened. But the presented explanations are unsatisfactory in way too many respects. How do they know about the box cutters? Sieved them out of the rubble did they? Sure they did :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Sector 7g (229 comments) says:

    I thought the most dishonest people to come out of the war in Iraq were the leftists holding signs that read…”No war for Oil”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    I’ve just received copies of Prof. Asif Usmani’s requested papers, (a structural fire safety engineering and computational mechanics specialist from University of Edinburgh). For engineers on this thread who are interested to read his work can send him a request, where his email is listed here as the lead co-author. I requested only paper #1 (published in 2003), but he also attached 2 more recent papers of his (paper#2 which was published in 2005 and paper #3 that was just published this year).

    #1) “How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory” (Fire Safety Journal)
    #2) “A Very Simple Method for Assessing Tall Building Safety in Major Fires” (Technical Notes)
    #3) “Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires” (both appeared in Engineering Mechanic’s Journal and also INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STEEL STRUCTURES)

    You can find a free copy of paper#2 on the net (Google), however there are no free copies of papers #1 & #2, so you need to request copies of them from Prof. Usmani himself. The other option is that I can send them to DPF to be forwarded to you if do indicate here that you’re interested. If I do send you those copies listed above, then you must not make them downloadable on the internet since the copyright holders are the publishers.

    The papers covered the physics that some have brought up here in the discussion, so it is better to see them for yourself rather than hearing unsubstantiated claims spouted by conspiracists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    I’ve just received copies of Prof. Asif Usmani’s requested papers, (a structural fire safety engineering and computational mechanics specialist from University of Edinburgh). For engineers on this thread who are interested to read his work can send him a request, where his email is listed in the reference link for his paper (“How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory”) from my previous message above as the lead co-author. I requested only paper #1 (published in 2003), but he also attached 2 more recent papers of his (paper#2 which was published in 2005 and paper #3 that was just published this year).

    #1) “How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory” (Fire Safety Journal)
    #2) “A Very Simple Method for Assessing Tall Building Safety in Major Fires” (Technical Notes)
    #3) “Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires” (both appeared in Engineering Mechanic’s Journal and also INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STEEL STRUCTURES)

    You can find a free copy of paper#2 on the net (Google), however there are no free copies of papers #1 & #2, so you need to request copies of them from Prof. Usmani himself. The other option is that I can send them to DPF to be forwarded to you if do indicate here that you’re interested. If I do send you those copies listed above, then you must not make them downloadable on the internet since the copyright holders are the publishers.

    The papers covered the physics that some have brought up here in the discussion, so it is better to see them for yourself rather than hearing unsubstantiated claims spouted by conspiracists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    DPF, I pressed the Submit Comment twice and both my comments, just disappeared into a black hole. Both messages are the same except one contained a very long url (which perhaps your spam filter categorised it as a spam), and the second one, was without the long url. Please only post one, if they’re being forwarded to your spam folder (or for moderation reason), since the 2 messages are the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. peterwn (2,932 comments) says:

    I want inderendent inquiries on:
    1. Whether the Earth is flat.
    2. Whether the Earth is made of green cheese.
    3. Whether Galileo rigged the experiment when he dropped the two balls of different weights off the leaning tower of Pisa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. jcuknz (648 comments) says:

    These conspiracy theories are complete nonsense but they do not alter the fact, which was my immediate reaction when viewing the shots of the planes crashing the twin towers, that the americans had brought this on themselves through their actions in previous years to create the anger and hostility at big bisiness and their wild west operations then centred in the twin towers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. noskire (796 comments) says:

    Was the Death Star attack an inside job also?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    reid
    All I know for sure is the towers did fall like a sack of shit into themselves – How did that happen given all the evidence you have referenced saying the building wouldn’t fall that fast into itself?

    Well that’s the whole point isn’t it burt. If the laws of physics don’t explain what we all witnessed then either the laws of physics were suspended on that particular day or something else was going on such as explosives taking out the support columns.

    As I keep saying, if you believe the official story then you have to conclude that the laws of physics weren’t operating correctly on that day. There is no other choice, because the laws of physics say that if the building collapsed in the way the official story explains it then it would have taken longer and we would have observed a different format for the collapse such as that large piece at the top toppling over onto the street. The fact we didn’t observe that means that the official story is complete bollocks, not according to me but according to the laws of physics.

    You can if you like choose to imagine that the laws of physics weren’t operating correctly on that day and apparently, many people do. Words cannot express how profoundly idiotic that conclusion is, but nevertheless, that is in fact what believers of the official story actually in fact believe.

    And then when you add to that the profound nature of the errors in the official story re: explaining the other events: the pentagon, WTC7, the plane crash in the field, and you still believe the official story, then crikey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “If the laws of physics don’t explain what we all witnessed then either the laws of physics were suspended on that particular day”

    or Al-Qaeda have a better understanding of them

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    “or Al-Qaeda have a better understanding of them”

    Yes, I think Newtonian Mechanics are fairly agnostic, Patrick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Reid, you’re focusing on what is possible, and not what is IMpossible.

    It would be impossible for any government, in any country to orchestrate such a thing. The number of people involved would be massive and it would be impossible to contain.

    Go to any high-rise building site and spend a few weeks fitting shaped charges on strategic columns. Oh and cutting then most of the way through as well. See if anyone notices. Then maintain all that detonation wiring etc for the next 20 years without anyone noticing, despite all the normal maintenance/refurb-work that goes on with a building. Then multiply the difficulty by a million for all the million of other things you’d need to setup. Utterly impossible to do that and keep it a secret.

    FWIW – as this was just a dog whistle to have a crack at the Greens – I’m sure Jeanette was talking about the wider issues, like how badly were the CIA operating beforehand such that they didn’t pick on what was actually a lot discrete info which could have been put together. I mean FFS, it was a 5 minute comment on a blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. reid (15,498 comments) says:

    malcolm, you’re doing what all the laws-of-physics deniers do. Ignoring logic.

    Use Conan-Doyle’s dictum: eliminate the impossible and then whatever’s left, however absurd, has to be the case.

    You simply cannot argue with the laws of physics and based on the assumption that those laws are immutable, you cannot then believe the official story. Period. Case closed. Over and out. There is no other alternative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    Quite incorrect Malcolm. Anyway you like to spin this the fact is Ms Fitzsimons responded to a direct request from a member of a 9/11 Truther organisation which requested she sign a petition which Mr Gage has been pushing. On top of that she seems to have allowed her comments and name to be used to further promote the aims of the organisation, and indirectly those of Mr Gage as well.

    Check out the following link http://www.911oz.com/weblogid/285

    I especially like the passages I have quoted below.

    “Although Jeanette wishes to emphasise that she signed the petition as a private citizen first and politician second it remains a fact that she is the first sitting front bench MP of any country willing to make a stand and sign a petition demanding a new investigation into the events of 911.”

    and

    “…when I e-mailed her with the news of the new website and the request that perhaps she would sign the petition I was pleasantly surprised to find my request fulfilled within hours.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    Let’s take Reid’s ideas to their logical conclusion shall we?

    Allt he many hundreds of people who have studied what happened on September the 11th 2001 and come to conclusions at odds with what he claims is glaringly obvious must either be stunningly incompetent or part of the conspiracy behind this.

    Is that correct Reid?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Gosman (335 comments) says:

    Did anyone else listen to Kim Hill ripping Ms Fitzsimons favourite conspiracy theorist, Mr Gage, a new one on this morning’s show on Radio NZ National?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    You simply cannot argue with the laws of physics and based on the assumption that those laws are immutable, you cannot then believe the official story. Period. Case closed. Over and out. There is no other alternative.

    Reid, you’re just trapping yourself in a false dilemma. You’re creating two possibilites, then showing that one is false and bingo the remainder must be true. Except your initial selection of two options is flawed. There are more options. You’re saying:

    1] Laws of physics cannot be contradicted.
    2] The official story about how the building collapsed is a contradiction of the laws of physics.

    You’re pretending there are only two options, so it can look like you’re considering all the possibilities. You are not. Option 2 could simply be incorrect. The collapse of a large building, after suffering some damage (but we can never know exactly what) and a fire (again we will never know full details of where/how intense etc) will always be complex. If you find a scenario were the collapse contravened the laws of physics, it will almost certainly be one of many other possible scenarios. It would be impossible to get only one conclusion on how the building collapsed, when there is so much uncertainly about the damage/fire/construction consistency/aging etc etc.

    Sorry Reid, I don’t want to get pulled into a discussion on this. I haven’t read much about it and I only got involved as I saw comments which didn’t seem to be aware of the known weakness of steel-frames in a fire. So I commented on that and now am getting dragged into the madness.

    Watch out for false dilemmas. They’re often very subtle. Religion love them: Pascals Wager and the most excellent, Jesus: Lunatic, Liar or Lord?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Quite incorrect Malcolm. Anyway you like to spin this the fact is Ms Fitzsimons responded to a direct request from a member of a 9/11 Truther organisation which requested she sign a petition which Mr Gage has been pushing.

    OK whatever. I only stepped into this madness because I tried to inject in a bit of well-known information about steel-structures in fires. Something which seemed to be a point of confusion. Now I want to back out of the sink-hole.

    I guess my point about Jeanette is that if you asked her about this, rather than stringing stuff together, you’d no doubt get a different answer to the extreme one which DPF postulated. The spectrum of 911 conspiracy theories goes from reasonable questions/uncertainty right through to bat-shit crazy.

    Infact DPFs posting was in itself a bit of a little conspiracy theory. I’m no fan of the Greens, but about every two weeks DPF stitches together something to throw at them. The abortion to combat climate change was the last one. It’s just a dog-whistle on Kiwiblog.

    Anyway I’m digging deeper but I want to get out so I’ll shut up.

    Have a nice day everyone. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. jackp (668 comments) says:

    Getting past the steel melting or weakening, Reid has a good point about the center columns underneath where the planes hit. They were massive and I believe there were 48 or 7 of them. in the centre going down to the basement. How could the building fall that fast with all those support columns that were still there and were not knocked out by the planes? The buildings were so strong to support the building in hurricanes. Yet, they fell down as Reid mentioned, very fast.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Hey Reid. Did you know the moon is really hollow, and that it was used as a space ship to travel to earth and colonise it? Superior beings still live inside it, and they exit from the dark side every now and then to visit earth and implant probes in human brains so that they start conspiracy theories. The evidence is incontrovertible.

    (Some people claim these aliens are also the reason for contrails)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    What is the point the nutters calling for an inquiry when they will only accept one answer, and that’s not the answer that any commision even remotely interest in facts and reason would get ? They would just label it more conspiracy. If anyone’s not convinced by taking a second to think about the sheer logistical lunacy of trying to do a controlled demolition under these circumstances, they are beyond hope of common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. jackp (668 comments) says:

    I think the President of the United States is accountable for such disasters whether who did it. This schmuck let 4 airplanes in the air for up to 26 minutes but was more interested in a story book, ” My little Goat”. Cheney was asked while the “plane” was heading to the pentagon if it should be shot down, he said nothing. Conspiriacy, absolutely by three assholes that went on to attack Afganistan and Iraq. These guys are cold blooded killers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. jackp (668 comments) says:

    Jack5, you have me there. I should have said “lone” assassin. I don’t like being called a nut job. When something this horrific happens, yes, most people like yourself would do anything to keep the status quo. It would be too horrible to think otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    The “Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum” claim that Reid repeats here is silly. Let’s say the 100th floor of a building collapses onto the 99th floor. Yes this does take a certain amount of momentum out of the fall in order to overcome the inertia of the 99th floor and slows the speed of fall by a certain amount. But when the remains of floors 100+99 hit floor 98, there is now two floors worth of mass falling, and twice as much momentum. Remember momentum is mass x velocity.Twice the mass is twice as hard to slow down, and the inertia of floor 98 makes only half the difference to the speed. Likewise when floors 100+99+98 hit floor 97, there’s now three floors worth of mass pounding into floor 97, and its inertia causes only one-third the speed reduction that we saw at the start. And so on and so on. Once you get say, ten floors of mass falling, the effect of the next floor’s inertia starts to become neglible and the rest of the building comes down at close to freefall speed.
    And as for the loons who say it should’ve tipped over rather than collapse in on itself, that’s what it’s DESIGNED to do. Modern skyscrapers are designed so they can be taken down with minimal damage to surrounding properties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    You’ve undersold your own argument a little PIA, in that when the buildings started to fall, it wasn’t the top floor, but blocks of about 15 and 30 of the top floors that started moving all at once.
    The fact that the collapses were rapid explains why the top floors weren’t pushed sideways by the resistance presented by the lower stories, there wasn’t enough resistance to deflect them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Ahh cheers Andrew, so it was pretty much a negligible effect right from the start…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    a worthwhile exercise is to watch the footage of bush being told what happened..

    his body-language/reaction is not one of shock..

    (as you’d expect..?..)

    it is the reactions of a person who knew it was going to happen..

    go and watch it..!

    (i think he was having an ‘oh fuck..!’..moment..

    but an oh fuck..!..they’ve done it..!..moment..)

    explain that away..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    reaction is not one of shock..

    Really? Dubya looked pretty concerned to me. Of course, my idea of shock isn’t screaming like a girl and jumping around like a coked up loser. Which is sorta like what Bush was, right phool?

    Of course, if your entire conspiracy theory is based around the reaction of a coked up loser then your theory sucks fairly hard balls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. dime (8,742 comments) says:

    George W Bush – the dumbest President in history gets away with attacking his own country.

    The GREAT Bill Clinton – can’t get away with being sucked off in his own office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..ike a coked up loser. Which is sorta like what Bush was, right phool?..”

    well..he did have his cocaine-years..

    (now that you mention it..)

    i don’t know if/when he stopped..

    and hurf..there are peoplewho specialise in reading bodies/reactions..

    and we aren’t that unique..

    there are discernible patterns/stories told by those reactions..

    and bush knew..!

    it was no surprise to him..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    You couldn’t read a picture book, phool, let alone human reactions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    He’s an experienced politician on camera, what exactly would you expect Phil?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i am not talking about me ‘reading’ him..durf..

    (do try to keep up..!..eh..?..)

    it is the experts in that field that are making that call..

    (i’m just the messanger..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    People keep saying “hundreds and probably thousands” of government employees would have to be involved in a conspiracy. I don’t think Reid has actually said anywhere that either G. Dubya or the USG were behind 9/11?

    I’m sceptical of the official version, the 9/11 Commission Report ignored all the important questions. I don’t know what the truth is but Building 7 has never been addressed and when you read a list of tenants you have to say, well bugger me, that was a coincidence……..right.
    9/11 may well have been a mixture of incompetence, sabotage, people taking advantage of an extremely confused situation, who knows. Like JFK’s assassination, the whole truth will never be known – it certainly won’t be the official version.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. jackp (668 comments) says:

    It is all about gas and oil and who benefits. The Caspian Sea has the world’s largest reserve but how is it going to get taken out of the region. A gas line and guess where that will be going through, Afganistan. Our military base is planted right on the route of that gas line. http://members.localnet.com/~jeflan/jfafghanpipe.htm

    I suggest you all , please read the above. It is a good article.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. bjchip (81 comments) says:

    Crikey

    Did even one of you clowns even think that….

    If a second team of terrorists were wearing firefighter’s uniforms/gear…

    They would have had an hour and a half of free access to carry whatever the fuck they wanted (provided it looked like emergency equipment) anywhere below where the planes hit tower 1 and prop it anywhere they wanted? With a lot MORE time for tower 2 and building 7 which wasn’t even HIT by a plane?

    It doesn’t take a US government conspiracy, just a moderately clever terrorist.

    I’ve looked at NIST and the engineering questions about the NIST now, mostly because some obsessive lunatic has pumped our general thread full of this irrelevance ( Which we have pointed out repeatedly as irrelevant ). The report on the building that WAS NOT hit by a plane is seriously lacking in engineering integrity.

    This doesn’t imply that it was a secret plot by the US government… just that the NIST report is shonky. I can think of a number of reasons why that might be, and none of them rises beyond the level of vague morbid curiosity.

    “then remind them of how Jeanette is unsure whether or not hundreds and thousands of people in the US Government actually blew up the Twin Towers themselves”

    Bullshit DPF! She never said that. YOU made it up.

    YOU need to apologize…. not to me but to Jeanette.

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.