Jeanette continues to push 911 lunacy

November 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 am by David Farrar

The Herald on Sunday has confirmed that not only has endorsed a 911 conspiracy theory book (and the book is barking mad) but she met the author yesterday in Wellington.

Fitzsimons said after her meeting with Gage that there were “some unexplained matters”.

“What I’ve found is that there are a lot of highly trained people who say [the Twin Towers] could not have collapsed the way they say it did.”

Asked if she was a sceptic, Fitzsimons said: “I would say I’ve got an open mind. I’m not interested in , I’m interested in evidence.”

That is disingenous bullshit. hiding her prejudices. Planes flew into the WTC, and they collapsed. There was no secret Government conspiracy where they rigged up explosives and faked the planes. When Jeanette says she wants evidence and is not interested in conspiracy theories, try reading it like this

“I’m not saying the moon landings did not happen. There are some unexplained matters and a lot of highly trained people saying the landings were not possible they way they happened. I’ve got an open mind on the moon landings – I’m not interested in conspiracy theories – I’m interested in evidence.

The Herald continues:

Matthew Dentith, an Auckland University PhD candidate who is writing his doctorate on conspiracy theories, said Fitzsimons’ meeting was “naive” and would add credibility to groups with fringe and anti-semitic agendas.

“You want politicians to have ethical standards and who judge things with reason – and all the 9/11 conspiracies collapse when prodded.”

Of course they do. But Jeanette’s nuttiness actually has consequences. In some parts of the world, great segments of the population do believe 911 was faked by the Jews and the US Government. They go around preaching that. And Jeanette’s actions gives such stuff a degree of respectability.

Tags: , ,

118 Responses to “Jeanette continues to push 911 lunacy”

  1. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,069 comments) says:

    Not to defend Fitzsimmons and the 911 truthers but wouldn’t it be fair to say that . . .

    I’m not saying climate change is not happening. There are some unexplained matters and a lot of highly trained people saying the rises in tempreture were not possible they way they happened. I’ve got an open mind on climate change – I’m not interested in conspiracy theories – I’m interested in evidence.

    Sums up your position on the issue?

    [DPF: Pathetic. No not my position. I have always said greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. To what extent is up for debate in my opinion. But even then your analogy is puerile as you are trying to compare a witnessed event with theories of global temperature.

    The better analogy would be having a house burn down after a car smashes into it - witnessed by thousands. And a small group of people insist the exploding car could not have caused the house ot burn down, and instead it was as a result of global warming]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Whafe (650 comments) says:

    In all seriousness, are we at all surprised that this is the views coming from the Greens? NO not at all……

    I have seen many programs on the fact that the WTC could not have collapsed etc etc, but in reality they did. Conspiracy theories are just that, many like to go against the grain, for many it is human nature… A big difference between being an individual and going against the grain for the sake of it…..

    The Greens and the general left view in this country is a joke, and an makes a country like ours look like idiots to those that visit and take the time to see the political BS in this esthetically pleasing country….

    Mzzzzz Fitzsimmons, put the bong down…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RainbowGlobalWarming (288 comments) says:

    Danyl,

    Nope, one eg WTC is verifiable down to planes flying into them causing them to burn and fall over, the other eg climate change is a completely different beast that is probably influenced at some marginal level by man made gases, most probably a natural cycle of the earths climate that would occur anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    One also involves a rather odious an bizarre plot by members of one’s own Government to fool millions of people by carrying out the most audacious crime in the History of the World whereas the other one is a bunch of Scientists arguing over the meaning of a bunch of data on climate.

    Which do you think is the more rational to be skeptical of Danyl Mclauchlan?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Whafe (650 comments) says:

    Gosman (121) Vote: 0 1 Says:
    November 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 am

    Which do you think is the more rational to be skeptical of Danyl Mclauchlan?

    Am very interested to see the response to this question also Gosman…

    Having been in the US of A last week for work, it is was disgusting to see Al Gore on TV talking his shit on the topic of Global Warming. The man makes me puke..

    My work leads me to work with many large scale commercial vegetable farmers, ask a farmer about Global Warming?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RainbowGlobalWarming (288 comments) says:

    Ooooh, the hissy neg karma bitches [STILL] have their panties in a twist this morning.

    Meeeeeeoooooooow.

    edited: 7:45

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Chuck Bird (4,884 comments) says:

    I wonder if Jeanette supports Al Gore’s belief that the interior of the earth is several million degree hot?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Whafe (650 comments) says:

    Chuck, I am sure she does, with her and Al Gore being the first living brain donors, anything is possible…..

    Sorry DPF, not wishing to derail the thread topic of 9/11….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RainbowGlobalWarming (288 comments) says:

    He he he {snicker} – everyone knows that the land of lost is at the centre of the earth. pfft.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. petal (706 comments) says:

    DPF, it would seem offering a contrary opinion would be akin to having to stick up your hand during a secret union ballot, but can I at least offer the idea that a lot of people have hard data, hard physical evidence, as well as eye witness reports from people that were actually there, like the police and firemen risking their lives, that does NOT fit with the officially accepted version of 9/11? Sure, go ahead and ridicule me by attacking the player instead of the ball, or suggesting there weren’t any planes, it’s all CGI, or whatever. Such extreme statements just show you never actually looked at the data and are just parroting MSM story lines. We all know the US MSM is a paragon of accuracy, don’t we? There are many recognised experts in their own fields, that have legitimate questions about the presented 9/11 account. They include commercial and military pilots, engineers and scientists. And let history be our teacher: do we NOW know AND ACCEPT that the attack on Pearl Harbour was already known about, but allowed to happen for political reasons? Why should 9/11 be so cut and dried? Are we ever told the *full* truth about anything by those in politics? You should know the answer better than most. There’s always the story behind the story, the motive behind the motive. The 9/11 account has a lot of elements that are verifiable and unassailably established as facts. But take a position, like you have, suggesting that the MSM account is all there is to it, and that anyone looking at all the data, not just information presented by the government of the day, is somehow deranged and immediately judged as a crackpot, and you’re just as much a 9/11 redneck as those who say it was ONLY the US Government. You like history DPF – how many major historical events went down as the people committed it to the history books?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    How come the guy who invented the internet isn’t able to use it to dig up basic information so he doesn’t look like a shrieking idiot ? LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RainbowGlobalWarming (288 comments) says:

    The spaceships from Area 51 actually ray gunned the Towers down while the populace of NYC were held in time stasis, and all those Jews were fudging up dodgy swap default instruments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    I see dumb people. Walking around like regular people. They don’t see reality. They only see what they want to see. They don’t know they’re dumb. They’re everywhere in the left.

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

    Possibly Gore mis-spoke, explaining famed AGW denier Plimer’s claim that the sun is made of iron may be a little more difficult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Michael E (274 comments) says:

    I suggest anyone who thinks that the Bush regime might have had something to do with 911 attacks should look at some of the more credible debunkings – Popular Mechanics showed how you would demolish a large building like the Conspiracy Theorists claim the US Government would, and there would be no way anyone could not notice the work being done.

    Personally, I blame the great (but fictional) TV show “X-Files” for being the cause of the popularity of “conspiracy theory” nutters being given a platform.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RainbowGlobalWarming (288 comments) says:

    Ha ha, Trevor Mallard will be overjoyed that the Hutt has been interred while is junketing in the UK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    “You like history DPF – how many major historical events went down as the people committed it to the history books?”

    LOL !!!!!!

    Petal, Petal, Petal, it is a little stetch to say that some events in History were not exactly as they seem to postulate the September the 11th attacks involve a massive conspiracy involving elements of the US stat apparatus.

    If you fail to see that then really there isn’t much hope for you.

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

    So what’s your favourite theory Petal? That it happened as generally accepted but that elements within the US government knew of the attack in advance, or do you favour some more complex theory?

    Are you saying that we now know that the US knew about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Blue Thunder taught me that the first sign of insanity is to lose one’s sense of time – can’t tell one minute from one hour , but from looking at these loon sites I’m starting to think the first sign is to lose all sense of page layout.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Whafe (650 comments) says:

    The less Al Gore says or speaks is a blessing of more significance that his verbal shit on the un founded topic of Global Warming..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pita (373 comments) says:

    So when same logic is applied to AGW

    “Highly trained people” say that its not happening and that she is “Not interested in theories (conspiracy) she’s interested in evidence”

    Strikes me she has closed her mind to what “highly trained people” are saying and that she is not interested in “evidence” only in a “theory”…she obviously doesn’t listen to nor understand what she says!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Apologies for Godwin’s Law, but imagine if Jeannette said this:

    “I’m not saying the holocaust did not happen. There are some unexplained matters and a lot of highly trained people saying the murder of 6 million Jews was not possible in the way they happened. I’ve got an open mind on the Holocaust – I’m not interested in conspiracy theories – I’m interested in evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. peterwn (3,273 comments) says:

    So basically, Jeanette has unwittingly aligned herself with those who treat women as third class citizens including stoning and whipping them for ‘crimes’ such as being raped, wearing slacks etc.

    The Taliban and Islamic terrorist groups will no doubt be highly delighted at receiving Jeanette’s implied support.

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

    “..Are you saying that we now know that the US knew about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance?..”

    um..!..yes..!

    prior to the attack..the american public were adamant they did not want to be involved in europes’ war..

    and roosevelt knew that allowing the attack..would change that public attitude..

    also..prior to the attack..america had been enforcing a sea blockade on japan..

    stopping them gettng essential supplies..

    such as oil..

    in fact..when japan attacked..they only had about a weeks supply of oil/fuel left..

    so..all is not always as it seems/is sold..eh..?

    thus it is with this 9/11 ‘attack’..

    there are more unanswered questions/cgasms in logic..

    than you can point a stick at..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Simon (724 comments) says:

    Philu thinks Pearl Harbor is in the North Sea.

    One weeks supply of oil. Yeah the Pacific war ended 10 days after the Pearl Harbor attack. This is par for the course for a 9/11 thread.

    Perhaps the other Green MPs would like to express an opinion on 9/11.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Bob (497 comments) says:

    It appals me to think Fitzsimmons could be in parliament influencing our governance when she gives credence to such ridiculous theories.

    It was a bit of a mystery why the building next to the twin towers also collapsed when it wasn’t hit. However an engineering report showed how the heat from the burning towers was enough to bend the steel supports and break the joints in the building causing it to collapse.

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

    simon..you are really trotting your ignorances out for all to see..eh..?

    the oil blockade of japan is an historical fact..

    go and do some reading..!..

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    [DPF: … I have always said greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.

    Plenty of scientists say otherwise DPF:

    Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, before voting on the ….cap-and-trade” legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:

    * There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    * Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at http://www.petitionproject.org

    * Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

    Back on-topic, Jeanette is being a complete nutter here, so the more oxygen this story gets the better for showing up the Greens. Well done DPF

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

    Petal, thank you, you explained it very well. David, you might listen to Petal. You folks are doing the same thing as Helen Clark did, kill the messenger. IT is time to leave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Senility, dementia? What is it with the former Luddite chief?

    Let her undisturbed in her rest home in the Coromandel. I don’t want to hear from the lunatic anymore.

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

    PhilU: “america had been enforcing a sea blockade on japan.”

    The USA had imposed trade sanctions against Japan in response to Japans invasion of contiental Asia, if you’ve got evidence of a blockade against Japan (a military action) by the US prior to Pearl Harbor, provide a link.

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

    “Petal, thank you, you explained it very well.”
    What? Petal didn’t “explain” anything, all she did was make vague claims!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    This bitch (yes bitch, sorry there is no other word for it) and other like her has got some nerve.
    She screams down climate change skeptics who have vast amounts of evidence and then latches on to far nuttier theories.

    This is 100% illogical
    If you won’t tolerate an innoffensive alternative theory held by a significant and growing minority in most countries (now a majority in America), you have absolutely no credibilty even thinking about far more extreme alternative viewpoints held by fringe elements, and the so called ‘evidence’ can be dismissed out of hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Is Jeanette gonna do a comeback? Doesn’t she like Russel now that Sue has left?
    All shades of Winston’s type comeback. Why waste time and space on these cretins?

    Unless its to take our minds away from the abject failure of the National; govt. to actually do anything that will assist NZ and Nzer’s to survive in the future without being 3rd world in 20 years.
    DPF has had little to say about the ruling classes of late. Not that there is nothing. Like Clarks behavoir of managing the news for discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Rod (180 comments) says:

    Seems to me this at last explains why Helen could not work with the Greens. Couldn’t understand, myself, why she preferred to work so closely with Winston. But perhaps I didn’t appreciate how far beyond reality the Greens were (are?).

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

    andrew w..

    my 9.36 am..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. NeillR (351 comments) says:

    Has anyone ever bothered to ask the conspiracy nutters how many people would have had to have been involved in arranging a couple of planes to fly into some towers, loading several truckloads of explosives into the basement of said towers, re-arranging NORAD, fooling Air Traffic Control, the Fire Dept, Police, their wives husbands and lovers……….

    The list is so extensive that the only people who weren’t in on it were the conspiracy nutters themselves. And none of “us” are telling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Was climate change responsible for 9/11?

    Think about it….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. somewhatthoughtful (465 comments) says:

    Don’t get my wrong, I think loose change and zeitgeist are two of the worst films ever made and a testament to the fact that the low cost of digital media removes the filtering effect of the high cost of analog media. however, what is wrong with her seeking alternative view points on the matter? I thought free speech was to be encouraged? you formed a coalition about it and made some retarded bill boards, remember? or is that only when it’s criticising a left wing govt.?

    They are calling for another independent report with subpoena power. considering the (ahem) gravity of the event and the endemic corruption of the bush white house around other issues I hardly see this as an unreasonable demand. Empirical analysis, when done properly, is always interesting. Hysterical crap from both sides is not. excuse me for being open to new ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    I wonder how many people who don’t think there are massive holes in the official 911 story also think that Saddam really had WMDs, that AIPAC has no influence in US politics, that Israel really did use minimal force in Gaza last Christmas and that Bush really was a good President, he was just misunderstood?

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

    Poor Reid. He postures as a Conservative but is intellectually imprisoned by the brain dead propaganda of a myriad of left wing nut job web sites, because he cannot perceive the politically reality that the left are first of all liars, and can alway be identified by this proclivity.

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

    Jeanette really should join Kiwiblog just for her conspiracy theories

    She would quickly feel right at home :-) :-)

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

    Reid “..Bush really was a good President, he was just misunderstood?”

    Don’t you mean “misunderestimated”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Phool you clearly don’t understand what the word “blockade” means. Get a dictionary, look it up, and explain to us your evidence that this is what happened. While you’re at it, look up “work”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. backster (2,172 comments) says:

    PETAL…Babe……Can you help with the real mystery..”Who really killed Marilyn.”

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

    See what Buzz Aldrin thinks about moon landing deniers (short video clip available):

    http://www.csicop.org/news/show/buzz_aldrin_punches_moon-landing_conspiracy_theorist

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

    For Phil
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. tautokai.baxter (162 comments) says:

    9/11 had many unexplained aspects. Look at the Pentagon, the plane could not have burned up completly at that temprature and the hole made would have been much bigger if it were a plane the size they told us. And FBI Agents went and got all the footage of the ‘plane’ 2 minutes after the crash and never reveled the footage.

    And on the Twin Towers, those planes could not have taken down those towers, its almost scientificly impossible. Many planes have hit towers in the past and started fires and none of them have fallen down, plus it would not fall straight down! I think people underestimate American big buisness that controls the flimsy, highly curropted Government.

    Because of it they could pass the Patriot Act, gear up two wars (huge profits in their tax payed military budget for military producers), put in far more security in total disregard of civil liberties and make the whole Western World paranoid fools at the hint of the word terrorism.

    Im not saying America planned, i don’t know, but they very likely had prior knowledge and did nothing to stop it. Did George look surprised when reading to those kids? I don’t think so. And I do think they shot the Pentagon with one of there own missiles. They had just put more defence on all of the other areas apart from the one the missile hit. Convinient ae?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Nicholas O'Kane (168 comments) says:

    That is disingenous bullshit. hiding her prejudices. Planes flew into the WTC, and they collapsed. There was no secret Government conspiracy where they rigged up explosives and faked the planes. When Jeanette says she wants evidence and is not interested in conspiracy theories, try reading it like this

    “I’m not saying the moon landings did not happen. There are some unexplained matters and a lot of highly trained people saying the landings were not possible they way they happened. I’ve got an open mind on the moon landings – I’m not interested in conspiracy theories – I’m interested in evidence.

    A much better analogy, because 9/11 involved many people being murdered, unlike the moon landings, is:
    “I’m not saying the nazi holocaust did not happen. There are some unexplained matters and a lot of highly trained people saying the alleged deaths of 6 million jews were not possible they way they happened. I’ve got an open mind on wether the nazi holocaust happened – I’m not interested in conspiracy theories – I’m interested in evidence.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. kD (12 comments) says:

    Redbaiter. American paleoconservatives were the first and most outspoken critics of the official story. Don’t worry, it’s not only right wingers – 36% of Yanks believe it was a false flag.

    Can any experts tell us the official ‘reason’ for the attacks, as defined by the 911 commission? Basic knowledge for someone with even a superficial interest in geopolotics.

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

    “American paleoconservatives”

    Piss off moron. I’m done with this issue. What a truckload of fucking fruit cakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. kD (12 comments) says:

    Aww come back fuck head? Why are you done with it all of a sudden?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. kD (12 comments) says:

    Wiki “Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, U.S. funding of its allies abroad, foreign wars, and welfare.[1] They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the “therapeutic managerial state,”[4] the “welfare-warfare state”[5] or “polite totalitarianism.”[6] They see themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[7]”

    I’ll let you do your own search for what a “Neocon” is, okay. I recommend Google.

    The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski (Ex US National Security Advisor)

    Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky (MIT Institute Professor)

    Both informative reads for beginners.

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

    To those arguing over the difference between “blockade” and “embargo” the difference is pedantic. If you control the resource and starve someone of it you can call it a big mac and fries or a zinger works, the result is the same. You don’t get it you go hungry.
    Some of the attempts people go to here to score some perceived point are tragic.

    I am not one of philu’s 2 accidental followers on whoar, however the point he was making was accurate. Why can’t people discuss the point without clutching at irrelevance?

    Some FACTS.
    The Japanese called it the ABCD encirclement (American, British, Chinese, Dutch) and they certainly saw it as an act of aggression. They were deprived of resources however it was done.

    The US population did not want a bar of the war, in the days after after Pearl Harbour 1 million Americans enlisted.

    There is much evidence (not proof) to suggest there was advance knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbour and that it was allowed to happen to facilitate an entry to the war.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

    As for 9/11, I certainly don’t believe the official version of events, far too many questions that could and should have been put to rest quickly yet haven’t. Why not? Wouldn’t you shoot it down quickly before it gets to the point were 36% of Americans don’t beleive the official story? Why would you let a lie like that perpetuate when you could quickly dispell it?

    Nor do I believe G. Dubya and Dick Cheney hatched an evil plot (bwahahaha!) in conjunction with a cast of thousands. Bush couldn’t plan what socks he was wearing the next day. The truth will never be known in my lifetime but there have been many cases of the use of false flag operations throughout history.

    To all you that are so sure of the “truth” try this fairy story:

    Do you really believe a bunch of sand jockeys from Saudi Arabia (not Iraq), controlled by a bearded raghead with kidney failure (and living in a cave in Afghanistan) were able to infiltrate the most powerful nation on earth, ever, fly planes through internal US airspace using manouevres described as impossible by many real pilots (pilotsfor911truth.org), bring down the 2 of world’s tallest buildings and somehow bring down another building (WTC 7) in a similar manner (straight down) which is acknowledged as strange even by the conspiracy sceptics (“The collapse of 7 World Trade Center is remarkable because it was the first known instance of a tall building collapsing primarily as a result of uncontrolled fires.”) and generally wreak havoc on this scale armed only with stanley knives? (We won’t even mention the Pentagon).

    And nobody had an inkling that there was something up???? CIA, FBI et al had not a single clue that something was amiss????
    If the official story is completely accurate then the US should be able to be conquered by the suicide squadron from Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” armed with a couple of plastic spoons and a gun with a hankie that comes out the front saying “BANG”.

    FFS that is as unbelievable as the other extreme that Bush did it all himself! I think there might be a shortage of foil hats soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. tautokai.baxter (162 comments) says:

    Why do you have to be so hateful Redbaiter? You just seem like a sad, angry man with serious issues. And then you try take it out on people on political blogs because your probably so socially demented in public.

    Anyone who is informed and thinks there was nothing wrong with the 9/11 Comission is completly caught in the system that is denying freedom of thought.

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

    “To those arguing over the difference between “blockade” and “embargo” the difference is pedantic.”

    Bullshit, you’re just boasting about your own lousy English.
    Embargos are similar to economic sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to trade, whereas a blockade is an effort to cut off food, supplies, war matériel or communications from a particular area by force.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Petal said…
    …and that anyone looking at all the data, not just information presented by the government of the day, is somehow deranged and immediately judged as a crackpot,,…

    Petal, I have the following publications if you want to read them, then indicate back here so I can send them to you (or perhaps you can get them from DPF since I can send them to him)? You will get all the scientific facts about the collapsed (ie, the physics & the hows’) . Read the facts and not blindly believe in unsubstantiated opinions (even if the conspiracists are expert themselves, ie, physicists, engineers, etc,…) because there is no truth that is higher than experimentation. I mean , the the published papers are formal studies and not some opinions? Put much weight on (scientific) studies and not on opinions (as already stated ,even if those opinions originated from expert themselves).

    #1 “How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory”

    #2) “Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires”

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

    Regarding the sanctions against Japan, these were in response to Japanese military aggression, Japan had the choice of ceasing hostilities against her neighbours or the embargo, she chose military aggression.

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

    fuck you are a moron..andrew w..

    the end result..(which was the point)..was that japan was pushed into an embargo/blockade corner..

    (call it ‘noddy’ if you fucken like..)

    you fucken unreconstructed dipshit..

    (as you are so terminally fucken dumb..

    you are now on the ignore-list..

    (i mean..who can be fucken bothered..?

    do you know which way is ‘up’..?

    yr elbow from yr arse..?

    you and star- (‘jon voight is a dirty commie/leftie!’)-bored should mate..

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    You are a stupid little wank aren’t you phil?

    Japan went to war with her neigbours, that’s including China, Korea, and the USSR before the Pearl Harbor attack. The parallels with Hitlers own expansionist designs in Europe are striking, and as with Hitler, appeasement was never going to stop her.

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

    once again w..you miss the fucken point..

    the ‘point’ being that japan was pushed into a corner..

    i’m not debating the merits or not..of that..

    just stating that fact..

    as an example of..

    ..’don’t believe the bullshit..!’..

    but you..?..

    hey..!..sail on sailor..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    Andrew W – what has my “lousy English” got to do with it? Didn’t I make the point clearly enough?

    I’ll explain again using small words.

    No matter what you call it the intent of the “action/embargo/blockade/siege/incentive/threat/sanction” was the same as was the result. Maybe we should have called it an “inducement”? Of course if I take off the inverted commas it changes the whole meaning and might come across as a bribe doncha think?????? That would make it waaaaaayyyyy too confusing eh?

    Are you an English teacher who gets their bowels in a twist if someone gets where, wear and were out of context? Should I write 500 lines out for you?

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

    Little Wank, Japan was the aggressor, the embargo’s were a response to her aggression.

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

    Kaya, it’s very simple, you claim “blockade and “embargo” have the same meaning, they don’t. Next you’ll be claiming the “war” and “trade” are the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Leonidas (1,434 comments) says:

    They do! in War, you Trade ordinance. But I have to ask, what has this to do with Fitzidiot endorsing fringe conspiracy theories?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. somewhatthoughtful (465 comments) says:

    I didn’t realise so many people in NZ were “qualified” experts on 9/11 until reading this thread.

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

    ‘andrew w’..

    new shorthand for..

    ‘thick as pigshit’..

    (do you hear whistling sounds all the time there..andrew w..?

    as most things just fly straight over your head..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    Andrew W – Why keep dragging this out? I never claimed they have the same meaning, I said the INTENT and the RESULT are the same no matter what you call it. I know what the technical difference is!
    Deprivation of something (usually a resource) by whatever means possible. A blockade requires military intervention because someone is not playing the embargo game. Now do you get my drift?

    BTW You say embargo is “generally considered legal barriers to trade”. Considered legal by who? Not the country being embargoed therefore it is as much an act of aggression as a blockade.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. petal (706 comments) says:

    I was one of the FIRST people, years ago, to stick my hand up and denounce AGW as insignificant based on NASA data. I was completely cut down for it. But I notice as time marches on, the charlatans are exposed, one by one. Peace prize or not.

    I understand why you think I am a crackpot. It’s easier to just repeat what you heard, what you read in the newspaper, what seems “common sense”. No need to actually do any work, or think. And it’s much more fun to make light of people that ask questions like [about WTC 7 collapse]

    “Reinforced concrete does not disintegrate to dust under those circumstances. So what science don’t we know, or, what else happened to explain the physical evidence?”

    No, it’s easier to make fun of everyone highlighting outstanding scientific questions as crackpots. Immediately!!

    And lumping them all together as a group. Chuck in JFK, Marilyn, Elvis, some ETs. Hey, why not?

    It’s easier than thinking for yourself.

    @Falafulu Fisi – I admire people that at least READ and form an opinion. You have my respect.

    And to people who think the history books contain what REALLY happened? (where do I start…)

    What if I told you that there is hard evidence for a people before the Maori having called New Zealand home, but, it’s ***politically*** no longer possible to say so – too much is invested in Maori being the UN recognised “indigenous” people? What’s wrong with the TRUTH? Simple: it upsets the “Honewira” apple cart. The Treaty would be a contract with the people squatting the place instead of owning the place; invalid.

    http://www.celticnz.co.nz/Silverdale/Silverdale%20Boulders.htm

    Or maybe it’s just a fanciful idea?

    But one thing is sure, and very easy: call ‘em crackpots. NEXT!

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

    Leonidas – what it has to do with Fitzshithead is Andrew W giving us an English lesson because philu used the word “blockade” instead of “embargo” (OMFG!!) in a post about possible false flag operations.

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

    Fine, now, you guys recon the embargo was an act of aggression, I recon it was a nonmilitary response to Japanese aggression.

    Are you disputing the Japanese attacks that occurred prior to the introduction of the embargo? Are you suggesting that further Japanese expansionism would not have occurred without the Embargo? Perhaps you’d like to argue that if only the Western powers had ignored Hitlers invasion of Poland. that that would have been the end of WWII?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Leonidas (1,434 comments) says:

    So sweet f.a.? May I suggest Phull go back to his echo chamber and improve the I.Q. of both blogs?.

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

    Petal, why do you assume that other people haven’t read widely about 9/11? Just because their opinion is different to yours?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Actually Andrew, the point you are making is obvious and well-defined. Japan was militarily aggressive. The US tried diplomacy then trade sanctions. There was no embargo.

    Phool is trying the “abuse strategy” to deflect attention away from being made to look like a fuckwit.

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

    Chthoniid – no debate that Japan were militarily aggressive, as for there being no embargo –

    “A third agreement with Vichy France enabled Japanese forces to move into Indochina and begin their Southern Advance. The United States responded to this growing threat by temporarily halting negotiations with Japanese diplomats, instituting a full embargo on exports to Japan, freezing Japanese assets in U.S. banks, and sending supplies into China along the Burma Road.”

    That’s from the US Department of State.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/88734.htm

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

    Andrew W – not arguing any of your points re Japan’s military ambitions, I entered the discussion re whether or not there was prior knowledge of an attack on Pearl Harbour. I got dismayed at the discussion moving to what was the correct description of the US actions against Japan rather than dealing with the actual topic being discussed.

    As for it being a “nonmilitary response to an act of aggression” – I would agree, technically, but from the POV of the country being embargoed it is seen as aggressive. Can you imagine the reaction of the US if a number of countries stopped supplying them with oil? Do you think they would consider it aggressive? I reckon they would see it as an act of war.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    LOL at the wikipedia entry “…A blockade should not be confused with an embargo or sanctions… “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    Simple couple of questions for all those 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists out there.

    Have you read the NIST reports on the causes of the collapse of the three WTC buildings?

    If so what objections do you have to these very thorough and scientific studies (please be specific and not the usual wishy washy arguments from insinuation you guy’s normally take)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Back to topic, someone said yesterday Hill tore Gage a new one yesterday on her show.

    That person is wrong. Profoundly. Listen to it, objectively. (Bet you can’t.)

    Hill tried to put ridiculous suppositions and postulations into his mouth. He stuck to facts throughout. When discussing 911, there is a glaring gap between what people actually say about this and what others think they are saying in their own hallucination. Many, perhaps most people can’t face those facts squarely because of the implications of what that means to their own world view.

    18:30
    [Hill] On the 2 WTC towers the planes would have cut some of those support columns, ignited fires sufficient to weaken the remaining steel structures. The perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapse of the top stories generated a momentum, the rest of the building couldn’t stop.

    [Gage] This is the official story

    [Hill] Why couldn’t that have happened?

    [Gage] Because we have something in Western civilization called Laws of Momentum, Newton’s Law. You can’t have a building falling as fast, just about, as fast as the debris is falling outside the perimeter. You can’t have a building falling that fast through 80,000 tons of structural steel designed to resist that with a safety factor of three to five. These buildings are that much stronger than they need to be to resist any such collapse and by the way there was no pile driver driving the rest of the building down, it’s destroyed itself. The point – the 15 storey section above the point of jet plane impacts – has destroyed itself. There’s nothing driving the building down after that. The photos and videos are very clear, the building’s tearing itself apart, at almost free fall acceleration and ejecting perimeter wall units 600 feet laterally at 50-70 mph (I don’t know the conversion there, but it’s very, very fast). These can only be propelled by explosives.

    [Hill] You point to puffs of smoke coming out of the structure and you assert that they are the controlled explosions, yeah?

    [Gage] Indeed. These are…

    [Hill] Why can’t they just be puffs of smoke?

    [Gage] Because they’re 160-200 feet per second, that’s their speed. Ah, we need a conversion there but these speeds can only be propelled by explosives and indeed they occur 20, 40 and even 60 stories down below the canopy of destruction in each of the twin towers. And they’re perfectly engineered to [unclear] between the mid-points of the columns and they are not puffs of air, they are pulverised building material that are being blown out of the side of the building. It’s very clear.

    I haven’t seen on either of these threads any analysis of science but I have seen plenty of angry, confused people alleging that it couldn’t have happened in any way other than the official story simply because they don’t know how it could have been done otherwise. That’s childish, simplistic and plain fucking stupid. Listen to him and analyse his evidence. Try not to get all emotional.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Gosman @5:49, listen to that interview and read what he’s said on his site. In several weeks, after you’ve read THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS, try not to be wishy-washy in your response.

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

    Jews did 9/11.

    There is no threat from Islamism.

    Japan was as innocent as the virgin snow.

    Etc.

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

    clintoiid..

    you really must stop just making shit up..eh..?

    it’s makes you look like a real dumb dickwad..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    Reid, perhaps if you read this thread, you’ll have a better grasp of the physics involved.
    http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/lunatics/#comment-433

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Sorry Andrew, you’ll have to do better than that. Please analyse what he said and let me know where he’s wrong.

    Dickhead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. petal (706 comments) says:

    @Andrew W, apart from two other posters, nobody actually claims they have. That would be a great start for making an assumption :) Why would I assume you have read War and Peace, even though you never claim you did? I’ll wait until you tell me, and assume you didn’t until then. If you like to join the debate, by all means lay the groundwork.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    Have YOU READ the NIST report’s Reid?

    Why are you unable to answer a straight forward question?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. poneke (280 comments) says:

    Reid, perhaps if you read this thread, you’ll have a better grasp of the physics involved.

    I can hardly believe I am being quoted in support of the most bizarre conspiracy theory in history.

    My actual article was the opposite of what is claimed in the comments section referred to:

    http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/lunatics/

    The real conspiracy today is global warming, which has been blown asunder by the release of thousands of emails showing its proponents have engaged in a huge act of falsifying information. See:

    http://poneke.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/leak/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    “Have YOU READ the NIST report’s Reid?”

    Yes, Gosman.

    Have YOU READ the counter-analysis to the points made in the NIST report on that link I gave you @ 5:54?

    And please let me know which specific science you disagree with.

    (Hint: try not to dissemble and pretend it says something other than what it actually does.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Leonidas (1,434 comments) says:

    Are you the same Ried who was waxing lyrical “such as when Dan Rather on CBS a few years ago suggested the Zeebruge film actually shows Kennedy’s head falling forward. “? Well, if you have any spare time to waste on youtube, just search for the ZAPRUDER film + forward thrust or Zapruder + stable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Leonidas, I’m amazed that someone is so obsessed with what I say they can recall comments I make “a few years ago.”

    Firstly, should I be frightened of you, secondly, what’s your point and thirdly, what do you think about the several thousand comments I’ve made between then and now?

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

    I’m scratching my head a bit about Poneke’s comment, does he think I’m arguing in favour of the 9/11 conspiracy theories?
    If so given his unbalanced blogging lately (85% of NZ parents are “child bashers) I’m not really surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Well Andrew, poneke has always been a lightweight, I visited briefly, but the dick didn’t understand the diff betw robust debate and ad homina.

    Anyway, how are you going with addressing those questions raised by the site, or don’t you want to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Leonidas (1,434 comments) says:

    #1: I just followed Andrews 6:12 link

    #2: Absolutely amazed that you are ignorant of the name Zapruder.

    #3: Perhaps you comment too much?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Leonidas (1,434 comments) says:

    reid (3395) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 2 Says:
    November 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    Leonidas, I’m amazed that someone is so obsessed with what I say they can recall comments I make “a few years ago.”

    I assure you, you rate yourself too high.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    You’re the one who called it, Leonidas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    So is NIST in on this monumental Conspiracy as well Reid?

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

    well Reid, I’m not sure what points on the site you link to that you think need addressing, as far as I can see there’s little that hasn’t been already, some of the claims made would need to be verified independently before I’d accept them as correct.

    Regarding the Hill interview, there’s this about the puffs of smoke/dust from the stories below the “canopy of destruction” [Gage] “Because they’re 160-200 feet per second, that’s their speed. Ah, we need a conversion there but these speeds can only be propelled by explosives”

    That’s just nonsense, compressed air is quite capable of moving gases at those sorts of speed, in comparison gases from explosives move at speeds of around 2 km/second.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Leonidas, of course I know about Zaprudar, but I still don’t get your point.

    Gosman, well done. Do you think that blog offers a solid refutation of the thermite argument, or not? And why?

    Andrew, calculations please.

    Before you all answer, the actual point is, which I’ve been making since day one, is that the official story is full of holes and merits full investigation which is precisely what it hasn’t had and what Gage said, repeatedly. Instead, it’s been left up to private people with comparatively few resources to make points that the MSM should have been making since 12 September 2001. The Fourth Estate has chosen to not only abrogate their role but act obstructively, which they have also done in other incidents such as JFK. I’m surprised people like you who seem otherwise astute, seem sanguine about it. Especially since 911 gave birth to seismic geopolitical shifts. Has it not occurred to you and others that there is even the slightest whiff about all of this? If not, I’m fucking staggered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    Reid,

    I have requested you to look at those arguments and come back with your opinions. If you have decided to not to do that it is your choice but don’t expect me to do your dirty work for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    reid, your grasp of engineering, physics, logistics and common sense are full of holes. Because you choose not learn enough to actually understand the real explanations, you accept nonsense instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Leonidas (1,434 comments) says:

    My point is the ZAPRUDER film is one of the biggest pieces of arguably the most well known conspiracy/ shady investigation going, yet twice now you fail to address it correctly. how can we take what you say seriously when you refuse to acknowledge this basic error?

    I don’t particularly like or dislike you, ried, but it seems fairly inconsistent given the amount of detail you go into here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Stoner (1 comment) says:

    THe lunacy is that you BELIEVE that 911 was casued by towel heads setting in a cave…call me…I got a bridge for you.

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

    reid, it’s actually surprisingly complex to calculate the velocity of escaping gases, google Bernoulli’s principle to see what I mean.

    I found some simplified equations on this thread
    http://www.engineersedge.com/wwwboard/posts/15354.html

    Which firstly state that at the choke point if the absolute pressure exceeds twice ambient the air flow will be at the speed of sound ie around 300 metres/sec
    Using another equation given on the thread, I get an air speed of 120 metres/sec with a pressure difference of just 10 KPa (1.5 psi).

    Given Gage is the one claiming the observed speeds can only be propelled by explosives I’d say the onus is on him (and you as his supporter) to prove his claim correct.

    So I invite you to provide your own calculations if you dispute my conclusions.

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

    Hmm, a comment I just made vanished into thin air and when I resubmitted it I got “duplicate comment…”

    So here it is again:

    reid, it’s actually surprisingly complex to calculate the velocity of escaping gases, google Bernoulli’s principle to see what I mean.

    I found some simplified equations on this thread
    http://www.engineersedge.com/wwwboard/posts/15354.html

    Which firstly state that at the choke point if the absolute pressure exceeds twice ambient the air flow will be at the speed of sound ie around 300 metres/sec
    Using another equation given on the thread, I get an air speed of 120 metres/sec with a pressure difference of just 10 KPa (1.5 psi).

    Given Gage is the one claiming the observed speeds can only be propelled by explosives I’d say the onus is on him (and you as his supporter) to prove his claim correct.

    So I invite you to provide your own calculations if you dispute my conclusions.

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

    My comments not appearing, fourth time lucky?
    From the equations here:
    http://www.engineersedge.com/wwwboard/posts/15354.html

    I get 120m/s at 10 kpa (1.5 psi)

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

    My comments not appearing, fifth time lucky?

    I calculate an air velocity of 120m/s at pressure difference of 10 kpa, (1.5 psi)
    http://www.engineersedge.com/wwwboard/posts/15354.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. NeillR (351 comments) says:

    I want Mythbusters to do a show about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe the definition of having an open mind is ignoring the overwhelming evidence in front of them and accepting the possibility of the fanciful, the extraordinary and the impossible.

    What cracks me up is the Jeanette has a so called “open mind” on 911 yet anyone who dares to question climate change or even ask for more information is treated as a holocaust denier.

    Regarding Japan and WWII no one forced Japan to attack China, Korea or the USSR and Pearl Harbor (just one of the many attacks on US, British and European colonies/protectorates that opened the Pacific War) was designed to knock the US out of the war long enough for a massive land grab by the Japanese before negotiating a peace with the US. The oil embargo is just a convenient tool for historical revisionists who want to place the US as the bad guys. The US had indications of the war coming but did not know where or when – and never underestimate the ability of a nation and its military to be unprepared. Hindsight almost always exposes cock ups. Finally, public opinion was turning in favour of assisting Britain (if not joining the war). What would have been interesting is if Hitler had not declared war against the US post Pearl Harbor but that is a discussion for another time.

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

    Strange… I know I posted something here. It is missing today. I wonder why. Someone has problems with reality.

    BJ

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

    Reid, using the equations in this link I get 120m/s at 10 KPa pressure difference
    http://www.engineersedge.com/wwwboard/posts/15354.html

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

    Well I’ve got a link Reid with some equations, but every time I try to post the link it goes to the spam filter.

    The equations give an air velocity of 120m/s for a pressure difference of 10 KPa.

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

    The ‘lunacy’ your correspondent refers to in this cut and paste propaganda piece , was listened to by between six hundred and seven hundred adults at Te Papa, Soundings theater, Oceania room overflow.
    Te PAPA – OUR PLACE. which it was for these 4 learned hours of presentation by AIA Architect, Richard Gage [American Institute of Architecture], who, using the analytic method of question/answer/dosn’t add up/re-question/answer etc until it DOES, described the destructive elements required to explode the three WTC towers that terrible day in new york 2001 – the atrocity of 9 11.

    In polite manner,one step at a time, this man pointed out to those hundreds of listeners the key materials utilized to destroy the buildings in the manner seen : The aircraft as patsies, and the Highgrade -military mix – super nanothermites, sequenced to explode the structures into dust before our eyes at just under free fall speed, in the case of towers 1 and 2, and AT free fall in the case of WTC7, the third building and ‘smoking gun’ of 47 stories brought down in 6.5 seconds at the end of that horrific day.

    A science paper produced after two years of study, open to peer review -Bentham open Science Journal – found the evidence of both ignited and unignited thermitic materials in the dust of that event. This dust, This fairy dust that has us all under a spell, has us see “collapse” when it is “explosion” , that has us ‘toe the line’ in the “War on Terrorism.” Dust that produces the “nut-job conspiracy theorists” and ” planes and fire bought down the buildings alone” conspiracies so quickly adopted by, and now held dear to heart by our intellectuals in mainstream and other press . There are going to be some sorry arse journalists around when this one breaks .

    The question is, Where are our engineers and architects in the discussion of the ‘removal’ of 60,000 or so tonnes of structural steel in the270 odd columns per tower destructive event, allowing a “sequential pan-cake collapse of 110 stories in 11.7 seconds -close to FREE FALL – into dust??? Yeah right. .No pancakes there fellas. no pancakes and no resistance. Just dosn’t happen.

    6 to 7 hundred people watched this, and to my knowledge only ONE of them at the end of it all could be called ‘barking mad’ or anywhere near it.
    and after listening to his argument,
    he was better left that way.

    You could hire him as editor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    And those who are fond of quoting the 9/11 Commission might like to reflect on who didn’t appear before the Commission and why.

    John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI — Mr. Cole worked for 18 years in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division as an Intelligence Operations specialist, and was in charge of FBI’s foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr. Cole had knowledge of certain activities that directly related to the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. He notified the 9/11 Commission during its investigation, but never received a response. His name and contact information was provided to the Commission as a key witness by other witnesses, but he was never contacted or interviewed.

    John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI — Mr. Vincent worked for the FBI for 27½ years before retiring in 2002. He worked his last 8 years in counterterrorism in the FBI’s Chicago Field Office. Mr. Vincent, along with Robert Wright, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases, and certain warnings they had tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Although he was granted an interview, the commissioners’ investigators refused to let him provide them with information related to his case and the 9/11 terrorists’ network; they insisted on limiting the interview to only administrative and irrelevant questions and issues.

    Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI — Mr. Wright is a veteran special agent in the FBI Chicago Field Office Counterterrorism Unit. He had been investigating a suspected terrorist cell for three years, when he was informed in January 2001 that the case was being closed. Agent Wright, along with Mr. Vincent, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases and certain warnings they’d tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Three months before September 11, Wright wrote a stinging internal memo charging that the FBI was not interested in thwarting a terrorist attack, but rather “was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.” The FBI refused to allow Wright to testify before the 9/11 Commission, however, the Commission did not insist or attempt to subpoena Wright, despite the fact that it had subpoena power.

    Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI — Ms. Edmonds worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Turkey, Iran, and Turkic speaking Central Asian countries. She contacted the 9/11 Commission in May 2003 and requested a meeting to provide them with information directly related to the terrorist attack. The Commission investigators refused to meet with Edmonds and informed her that due to their limited resources and time they were not going to interview all witnesses. She was able to provide the commission with information and documents only after certain 9/11 family members intervened directly. Ms. Edmonds’ testimony was completely censored by the Commission.

    Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI — Mr. Sarshar worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing Farsi translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Iran and Afghanistan. He had first-hand information of prior specific warning obtained from a reliable informant in April 2001 on the terrorist attacks of September 11. Mr. Sarshar contacted the Commission directly but was refused. He was given an interview with the Commission investigators only after 9/11 family members intervened directly. Mr. Sarshar’s documented testimony was completely omitted from the commissionaire’s final report, despite his case being publicly confirmed by Director Mueller’s Office.

    Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI — Mr. German served sixteen years as an FBI Special Agent and is one of the rare agents credited with actually having prevented acts of terrorism before it became the FBI’s number one priority. He contacted the Commission in the spring of 2004, but did not receive a response. In 2002 he reported gross mismanagement in a post-9/11 counterterrorism investigation, which included serious violations of FBI policy and federal law. Mr. German contacted the 9/11 Commission during its investigation and requested that he be given an interview session in order to provide them with certain domestic counterterrorism investigations that he’d pursued. According to Mr. German there were links between certain domestic and international counterterrorism related to the September 11 attacks. The 9/11 Commissioners refused to acknowledge his request and never interviewed him.

    Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI — Mr. Graham worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office Counterintelligence Division until 2002. In February 2004 his name and contact information were provided to the Commission as a key witness with information pertinent to the Commission’s investigation. The 9/11 Commission refused to follow up and never contacted Mr. Graham.

    Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI — In May 2002, Coleen Rowley, as the Division Counsel at the FBI Minneapolis Office, blew the whistle on the FBI’s failure to pursue Zacarias Moussaoui’s case prior to 9/11, despite all attempts made by the Minneapolis division counterterrorism agents. She reported that FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and neglected to take action on information provided by her division. Despite her high-profile case the commission chose not to interview Ms. Rowley. According to Ms. Rowley, no one from the FBI Minneapolis Office (several Agents had direct information) was ever asked to provide testimony [or] information to the 9/11 Commission.

    Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA — Colonel Shaffer provided the Commission with detailed information on intelligence and pre warning information obtained by his unit’s data mining project, Able Danger. The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from Mr. Shaffer and his former team members, yet did not pursue the case, did not follow up on this documented report and refused to subpoena the relevant files. Mr. Shaffer’s testimony, together with other witnesses who corroborated his testimony and information, were censored by the 9/11 Commissioners and never made it to its final report.

    Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF — Mr. Stoltz, a veteran undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, had played an important role in Operation Diamondback between 1998 and 2001. The sting operation involved a group of Middle Eastern men living in New Jersey who were caught on tape in an ATF weapons sting conspiring to buy millions of dollars of weapons including components for nuclear bombs. The case came to a screeching halt with the arrest of only a handful of suspects in June of 2001 even though there was ample evidence that some of the people who were attempting to buy these weapons had connections with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden himself. The 9/11 Commission refused to contact Agent Stoltz despite all attempts made by several witnesses from the intelligence and law enforcement communities, and the 9/11 Family group, Jersey Moms.

    Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA — Mr. Dzakovic had worked for the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration since 1987 as a Special Agent, as a Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshals, and from 1995 until September 11, 2001 was a Team Leader of the Red Team (terrorist team). Mr. Dzakovic had tried for several years prior to the 9/11 attacks to improve aviation security in the face of the ever-increasing terrorist threat. He provided the 9/11 Commission with his testimony and documented reports. His testimony and report to the Commission was completely omitted from the final report.

    Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA — Ms. Lewis worked for 13 years evaluating and coordinating federal, state and local preparedness for nuclear, radiological and chemical weapons emergencies. Prior to September 11, 2001, she had reported numerous inadequacies and dysfunctions in emergency preparedness, including a culture of intimidation that discouraged federal evaluators from reporting inadequacies in state and local plans and preparedness. USDA officials had thwarted her efforts to bring in terrorism experts to help the agency prepare for attacks on federal buildings, including bio-weapons attacks such as the anthrax attacks of 2001. In vain, she had urged FEMA officials to develop a national emergency communications plan and require interoperability of federally funded emergency communications equipment. In the absence of these preparations, New York City firefighters and police officers were unable to communicate critical information on September 11 at the World Trade Center. Ms. Lewis contacted the Commission and offered to provide information regarding dysfunctional government preparedness, but the Commission never responded.

    Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA — Mr. Burton served as an all-source threat analyst in NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate (IAD) for most of his 16-year career. He was the editor of IAD’s premier threat document, the 300+ page ISSO Global Threat Summary, and was an adjunct faculty member at NSA’s National Cryptologic School. He provided dozens of pages of relevant information to the 9/11 Commission, but was completely ignored and never asked to testify.

    The above list does not include many others from the intelligence and law enforcement communities who had similarly contacted or reported to the commission but had been either turned away or censored, and of course many others who are still working within these agencies and are fearful of making their identities known, due to the relentless pursuit of and retaliation against whistleblowers by government agencies.

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