Comments on: Does Jeanette think the US Government blew up the Twin Towers?

By: bjchip

bjchip — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:02:44 +0000

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.

By: jackp

jackp — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:12:40 +0000

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.

By: kaya

kaya — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:57:55 +0000

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.

By: philu

philu — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:53:07 +0000

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)

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:15:57 +0000

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

By: Hurf Durf

Hurf Durf — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:09:31 +0000

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

By: philu

philu — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:57:22 +0000

“..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)

By: dime

dime — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:28:12 +0000

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.

By: Hurf Durf

Hurf Durf — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:05:58 +0000

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.

By: philu

philu — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:01:29 +0000

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)

By: Put it away

Put it away — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:20:39 +0000

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

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:13:35 +0000

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.

By: Put it away

Put it away — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:39:20 +0000

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.

By: jackp

jackp — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:09:13 +0000

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.

By: jackp

jackp — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:42:22 +0000

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.

By: Put it away

Put it away — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:24:47 +0000

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.

By: Redbaiter

Redbaiter — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:22:54 +0000

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)

By: jackp

jackp — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:16:41 +0000

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.

By: malcolm

malcolm — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:03:12 +0000

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.

By: malcolm

malcolm — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:49:57 +0000

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?