| Jul 16 @ 12:01 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Jgoose Why do you think there aren't any third party candidates in the debates?
Probably because it would be as relevant as Bill Gates holding an executive meeting and including the cleaning lady of one of the offices. Debates are not mandatory and to debate with somebody that has nothing to lose gives them upside beyond belief while the major players are simply wasting time and risking all.
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 16 @ 12:10 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
You seem to have been brainwashed with talking points from the far left of the Democrat Party.
Naah...those aren't my people...
...and here you are getting all your info from wiki again. The NIE was the document from the CIA that along with testimony from Tenet the Congress relied upon in assessing the risk of Iraqi WMDs and terrorists. I brought it up because Nova wants to rely on it as proof that the President was ignorant of the lack of threat from Iraq. Intelligence memos about meetings with the President as well as his position as big boss of the CIA belie his assertion of ignorance or misinformation -- tho the redactions of 84% of the original report support the fact that little of the information in the report was passed on to Congress.
I am with SG in the belief that Congress (for the most part) dropped the ball by rubber-stamping Presidential actions with so little to go on. I think we should fire them all. Of course, it may be a moot point if martial law is declared due to 'race riots' or 'food riots' or war with Iran or some other contrived national emergency.
|
| |
|
| Jul 16 @ 12:23 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
vinnytmd
Posts: 6,004
|
Lacy, you said this-
They wrote the report which I quoted above your post. They are the ones who got 14 pages of the NIE -- and that was four more pages than originally rec'd.
It is flat wrong. Then you post something different about the NIE. I am having a hard time following you.
I posted who and what the NIE is. Wiki or not it is true. I can alsosee you are deeply invested in this troofer stuff.
The missile hitting the pentagon question is my litmus test. You passed! 
Have fun.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 16 @ 12:34 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Washington D.C., 9 July 2004 - The CIA has decided to keep almost entirely secret the controversial October 2002 CIA intelligence estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that is the subject of today's Senate Intelligence Committee report, according to the CIA's June 1, 2004 response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the National Security Archive. They wrote the report which I quoted above your post. They are the ones who got 14 pages of the NIE -- and that was four more pages than originally rec'd. (in response to your suggestion that I check out the Senate and House Intelligence Committees) It is flat wrong. ??
|
| |
|
| Jul 16 @ 12:35 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Lacy Of course, it may be a moot point if martial law is declared due to 'race riots' or 'food riots' or war with Iran or some other contrived national emergency.
Why on earth would martial law be declared for a food riot or a war with Iran Lacy? Please explain. there have been riots and wars before (and recently) yet martial law has not been enacted.
Lacy??
You can read up on it here Lacy. Congress got what they needed to make their decision.
The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (sometimes referred to as SSCI) is dedicated to overseeing the United States Intelligence Community—the agencies and bureaus of the Federal government of the United States who provide information and analysis for leaders of the executive and legislative branches.
[Edited on 7/16/2008 12:43 AM]
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 16 @ 12:51 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
footnote 5 of your wiki link - a report that says they did not have valid information A long-delayed Senate committee report endorsed by Democrats and some Republicans concluded that President Bush and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda.
The report was released Thursday after years of partisan squabbling, and it represented the close of five years of investigations by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence into the use, abuse and faulty assessments of intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
That some Bush administration claims about the Iraqi threat turned out to be false is hardly new. But the report, based on a detailed review of public statements by Mr. Bush and other officials, was the most comprehensive effort to date to assess whether policy makers systematically painted a more dire picture about Iraq than was justified by the available intelligence.
The 170-page report accuses Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its findings were endorsed by all eight committee Democrats and two Republicans, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Why on earth would martial law be declared for a food riot or a war with Iran Lacy? Please explain. there have been riots and wars before (and recently) yet martial law has not been enacted.
Read the last post on page 3
|
| |
|
| Jul 16 @ 1:00 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Your link Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, on Thursday called the report a “selective view” and said that the Bush administration’s public statements were based on the same faulty intelligence given to Congress and endorsed by foreign intelligence services. Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the committee’s top Republican, called the report a “waste of committee time and resources.”
Last post page 3"Congressman John Olver expressed the prevailing view in government circles when he told twenty of his constituents at a private meeting in Massachusetts on July 5, 2007, that he could not support a movement to impeach Bush. According to an attendee, the reason the Congressman gave was that, “The President would declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and suspend the 2008 elections.”
I thought that you understood that every president had this power. Lincoln imprisoned Senators for crying out loud so once again Lacy, I ask;
Why on earth would martial law be declared for a food riot or a war with Iran Lacy? Please explain. there have been riots and wars before (and recently) yet martial law has not been enacted.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 16 @ 1:46 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Because Bush can.
|
| |
|
| Jul 16 @ 2:15 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Lacy Because Bush can.
While you say you are not from the left, you sure are a bit loony and conspiracy orientated. I once asked you what freedoms you have lost due to the patriot Act as you were bemoaning that point to a great extent, your response was (with my comments in brackets);
Lacy
Freedom to communicate on the internet without having my traffic monitored warrantlessly,
(Yes, I can see that your internet activities are so ..... so .... guarded. So many pro government posts you are making, all out of fear.)
Lacy
freedom to board an airplane without taking off my shoes and/or being patted down,
(It was like that pre 911 in a lot of places Lacy.)
Lacy
freedom to move my money around without question of money-laundering or support of terrorists,
(Kidding right? This is a problem for you? What the hell do you do that this is a big problem?)
Lacy
freedom to carry a mobile phone without a tracking device, freedom to drive a car without a tracking device...
(You have tracking devices in your car and phone? tell me about it please as I have never heard of this. Does everybody have one?)
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 16 @ 7:30 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Vinny said:
Read how the Senate Intelligence committee operates and who was on this committee.
Also read about the Congress[House] Intelligence Committee
Nova said:
No doubt Vinny. That traitor Rockerfeller was the second in command there and you want to know he was willing to do anything to screw Bush around. even wrote a memo to the effect to his fellow disgruntled Democrats. In any case, if there was anything he could do to screw Bush using his fellow Dems he would have done so.
I said:
 Make no mistake...They are on the same team.
Jane Mayer appeared for a Washington Post chat today and the following exchange occurred: New York, N.Y.: In your interview with Harper's yesterday, you said this about why war crimes prosecutions are unlikely: "An additional complicating factor is that key members of Congress sanctioned this program, so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised."
What did you mean by that? Who specifically is compromised "who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge" -- Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Jay Rockefeller? -- and how are they "compromised"?
Jane Mayer: The ranking members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were briefed dozens of times about the CIA's interrogation and detention program over the past seven years -- so any member who has held one of those posts has arguably been complicit. Some say they tried to object, internally. But either because of the threat of violating national security, or, because of the fear of the political price of dissent, these figures in both parties would find it very hard at this point to point the finger at the White House, without also implicating themselves.That's rather definitive. Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman and Jay Rockefeller were all previous ranking members of the Intelligence Committee, all received these briefings, and were thus "compromised" and "complicit" in exactly the way that Mayer just described, because -- as Mayer put it -- they "would find it very hard at this point to point the finger at the White House, without also implicating themselves." That is one very significant reason why so many Congressional Democrats -- including the leadership -- are so supportive of immunity for Bush lawbreakers and the blocking of any investigations into the lawbreaking. Source
"Congressman John Olver expressed the prevailing view in government circles when he told twenty of his constituents at a private meeting in Massachusetts on July 5, 2007, that he could not support a movement to impeach Bush. According to an attendee, the reason the Congressman gave was that, “The President would declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and suspend the 2008 elections.” I thought that you understood that every president had this power.
No, not every president has had the power to obliterate the Fourth Amendment's limitation on government to search and seize. Not every other president has had the power to suspend habeas corpus for other than the requirements of public safety. Not every president has had the power to blackmail Congress, and no president -- that I am aware of -- has had such a will to violate Constitutional principles.
Nova said:
While you say you are not from the left, you sure are a bit loony and conspiracy orientated.
Quit trying to label (and discount) me and let's stick to the issues.
To recap:
1) A majority of Americans do not feel we have heard the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, (so help me God) from our government about the events of 9/11. The official government story is that it was a conspiracy, so get off (derisively) labeling anyone who questions the lack of a real investigation as a conspiracy theorist.
2) Impeachment (as in examination leading to exoneration or removal) is in order for substandard accumulation if not outright misrepresentation of intelligence regarding Iraq before going to war. Impeachment is unlikely to occur though for two reasons (and there may be others):
a) Leading members of Congress were complicit in the deception
b) Bush/Cheney et. al. have Congress terrified that martial law will be imposed for one reason or another should impeachment proceed.
3) The assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon of 9/11/01 may have been a radical Muslim declaration of War on America, but the assaults on freedoms prior to and increasingly since are an insidious governmental War on America.
[Edited on 7/16/2008 7:57 AM]
|
| |
|
| Jul 17 @ 1:11 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Lacy Make no mistake...They are on the same team.
No they are not. While troops were getting killed, Rockefeller was not doing his job, instead, he was squirrling away intelligence to effect a political gain for his party while in a bi partisan position.
LacyNo, not every president has had the power to obliterate the Fourth Amendment's limitation on government to search and seize. Not every other president has had the power to suspend habeas corpus for other than the requirements of public safety. Not every president has had the power to blackmail Congress, and no president -- that I am aware of -- has had such a will to violate Constitutional principles.
Wrong;
Clinton - Federal Preparedness Circular 65, "Federal Executive Branch Continuity of Operations (COOP)", July 26, 1999
George H. W. Bush - PDD 67 National Security Directive 69, "Enduring Constitutional Government", June 2, 1992
FPC 65 Federal Preparedness Circular 61, "Emergency Succession to Key Positions of the Federal Departments and Agencies", August 2, 1991 NSD 69 National Security Directive 37, "Enduring Constitutional Government", April 18, 1990
Reagan - Executive Order 12656, "Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities", November 18, 1988
and NSD 69 NSDD 55, "Enduring National Leadership" September 14, 1982
Carter - Executive Order 12148, "Federal Emergency Management", July 20, 1979
Truman - National Security Act of 1947, July 26, 1947
LacyQuit trying to label (and discount) me and let's stick to the issues.
Lacy, from the US being a terrorist state to your rights being violated and everything including 911 being a governemt plot isa your brand of logic. So, to hear this new one where Bush, simply because you have found out that leaders of countries have powers they can enact in time of crisis naturally leads you to a new conspiracy. All without a shred of proof.
ome dictator, you can't even provide a meaningful example of any right you have lost and, don't you think that after signing the order he would have not bothered to go through a second election?
LacyA majority of Americans do not feel we have heard the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, (so help me God) from our government about the events of 9/11. The official government story is that it was a conspiracy, so get off (derisively) labeling anyone who questions the lack of a real investigation as a conspiracy theorist.
Have you ever seen your own file after it has been released from the government after a decade or two? when you look at it the first time, there are lines blacked out and you wonder WTF? Then, when the information has been completely declassified, and you can see what was blacked out the stuff they classified was meaningless. A name, a date, a location where you were at etc. Same shit. They classify lots of stuff as it is simpler to do that in a broad stroke rather than have thousands of people going over and over the stuff to see if anything in it might be classified. It's an ongoing investigation to the nation and is not public entertainment or, open to private citizens sad to say.
LacyImpeachment (as in examination leading to exoneration or removal) is in order for substandard accumulation if not outright misrepresentation of intelligence regarding Iraq before going to war. Impeachment is unlikely to occur though for two reasons (and there may be others):
a) Leading members of Congress were complicit in the deception
b) Bush/Cheney et. al. have Congress terrified that martial law will be imposed for one reason or another should impeachment proceed.
Read up on Rockefeller. His intent was not to do his job, rather impeach the President. and, he had the intelligence of the government at his fingertips.
LacyThe assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon of 9/11/01 may have been a radical Muslim declaration of War on America, but the assaults on freedoms prior to and increasingly since are an insidious governmental War on America.
Lacy, here is wisdom; It is the natural state of a government of any sort, to attempt to control more,, not relinquish what control they already have. You are simply singling out one government and finding little mysteries to substantiate it.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 17 @ 1:29 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
You are simply singling out one government and finding little mysteries to substantiate it.
Right! I am singling out the government of my country -- because it is me and my family and friends and neighbors they are attempting to micromanage and it is my Constitution they are trampling.
Oh...and btw, there were presidents before Truman...in fact they go all the way back to George Washington.
|
| |
|
| Jul 17 @ 1:37 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Lacy Right! I am singling out the government of my country -- because it is me and my family and friends and neighbors they are attempting to micromanage and it is my Constitution they are trampling.
No it's not. If it were, there would be a democratic victory after the impeachment tomorrow. It is the same plan that has been going since Truman when the Continuation of Operations was made. Not a vile way to trample your rights but to keep you with a functioning government when your country is in ruins due to attacks from outsiders.
For God's sake Lacy, you haven't lost a damm thing rights wise so what the hell are you going on about in every thread?
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 17 @ 1:44 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Huh?
|
| |
|
| Jul 27 @ 10:49 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will be at least one, usually several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it.
"Mahatma Ghandi's ghost throttled Hendrix"
"Saddam Hussein was breeding an army of genetically modified Yeti".
"Hitler was half Werewolf"
"Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc, etc.
The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.
So it's hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.
One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."
Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.
Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.
These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unaware by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able to. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - which remains uninvestigated, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours , crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.
The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more stupid stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus it has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.
It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked.
As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed.
Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more.
This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)logical conclusions.
According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives ,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.
The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist.
For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes.
If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists.
But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist.
With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious.
However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ?
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 27 @ 10:51 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage. "Excuse me sir, why do you have a box cutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?" "A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get." "Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or box cutter and gas mask.
And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."
Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis.
They will point to the fact that the hijackers passports were allegedly found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.
Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?" "You numbskull ! They assumed the identities of other passengers!"
And so on%u2026 Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unravelling of this marvellously stupid story.
"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? " The answer of course is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...
This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive", in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to suggest it, and then speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to try to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world).
There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.
Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do.
Hijacking it without the crew being able to alert Air Traffic Control (ATC ) is almost impossible.
The crew needs only to punch in a four digit code to alert ATC to a hijacking.
Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the crude method of threatening people with box cutters and knives, shooting and stabbing passengers to try to lure the crew out of the cockpit and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously).
And yet, miraculously they were able to take control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four.
At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.
So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah.
Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms", it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will for this dreadful deed.
Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -really impeccable Islamic behaviour - and then got up at 5am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history.
This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find. It gets better.
|
| |
|
| Jul 27 @ 10:54 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skilfully guided them to their doom.
If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi- believable.
Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that for a plane to instantly blow itself up into nothing like that, it would have to be packed with explosives.
Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash. But lets humour the conspiracy theorists and suppose that this crude cartoon designed to hide whatever really hit the building was actually a real plane.
Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vaporising the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along. There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosene, and usually burns at about 400c has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 70 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke.
Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 23 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about four times that of the normal combustion temperature of kerosene. And forget about the boiling point of these metals, which is what would be required to vaporize a plane.
And then there's about 47 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosene. For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo".
This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute.
Determinedly ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vaporised into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins. "Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact!" they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie!" "Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies?"
At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner into which they have backed themselves and plan their escape by means of another stunning back flip.
"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin. "Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vaporised into nothing." "But not big planes, with that much fuel ! ", they shriek in hysterical denial. "Or that much metal to vaporise." "Yes, but not hijacked planes !" "Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?" "Now you're just being silly".
Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vaporise into nothing. What's so special about hitting a building? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."
Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves (if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vaporisation of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention.
Round and round the fruit loop. But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even creative more uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosene.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 27 @ 10:56 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers as well as building 7, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosene.
This makes it necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy.
You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vaporising a 70 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts starting fires all through the building.
When I was at school there a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Their insane eyes glinting madly, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosene is enough to : completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft : have enough left over to burn so ferociously for over an hour at the impact point that it melted massive steel construction beams ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel ). : still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.
Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporised. And never again will I take kerosene lamps out camping.
One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vaporised into nothing - along with the rest of the camp site - with still enough of the deadly stuff left to start a massive forest fire.
These whackos are actually claiming that the mythical raging inferno allegedly created by this miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.
Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel girders softened they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.
Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of kerosene, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-invented the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way? All three buildings fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors.
But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knows no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the towers at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures, originally designed to withstand many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a large passenger jet straying off course.
Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why. "Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir" "No miss, the kerosene heater blew up and vaporised everything in the street, except for my passport." "You see sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms." Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.
The ferocious heat generated by the ghastly kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by such heat.
This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft
|
| |
|
| Jul 27 @ 10:57 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing. So there you have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time. This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space in between of lower building height. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar depth of lower level space between the rings. The missile which the Bush regime fired into it, went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat hole less than 20 ft wide, less than 20 ft high through three rings-about 250 ft into the building A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft , and a tail height of 40 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible. But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of kerosene, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity, the second law of thermodynamics, and invented imaginary properties for building materials, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy nut, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts with their mad delusion, so it must be wrong although trying to get then to explain the specifics of how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour. Conspiracy nuts fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They shriek that the plane was vaporised by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behaviour. (Fruit loop warning!!) Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly back flip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage). As for what happened to the wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat. When it suits them they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from above. How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity. Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks. As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and prevent his endless war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime. At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery which was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged. Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia. It's time to stop the loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11. ~ Wish I'd written this... |
|
| |
|
| Jul 28 @ 7:10 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
Here's some figures for the blue-pill-eaters to work on. The World Trade Center towers were roughly 200 x 200 feet square. Just in case your tiny minds can't handle the math, that's 40,000 square feet. A Boeing 747 fully loaded with fuel holds about 55,000 gallons of fuel. It would have taken roughly 300,000 gallons of fuel to cover one floor to a depth of a foot in jet fuel (7.41 gallons in a cubic foot). So, that fully loaded 55,000 gallons would have covered one floor of the trade center tower to a depth of about 2 inches. Go get yourself some kerosene, pour it into an open container to a depth of 2 inches and light it. And tell me how much less than an hour has passed before the fuel is entirely consumed. (And that's not even counting what burned up in the initial explosions, the fact that neither of the planes hit just one floor, what ran down the piping, stair wells and elevator shafts, etc., etc.) To be more realistic, make it a 1/2-inch deep puddle of kerosene (that's like spreading the spilled fuel from ruptured tanks across only four floors) and light it and tell me how it burns long enough and hot enough to soften steel.
I don't need proof of what did happen to know that what they're telling us isn't what happened. I don't care what alphabet some jackass expert is carrying around behind his name, when he tells me 2 + 3 = 11, I know he's full of crap.
Edited to add:
I see in another thread that at least one expert has backed up and admitted the fuel probably only burned for about 10 minutes. It was all the other stuff in the offices that burned that softened the steel. Which makes the WTC towers the first Steel and Concrete buildings to be collapsed by fire of contents. Ever.
[Edited on 7/28/2008 7:22 PM]
|
| |
|
|
|
|