See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber Than A 5th Grader?
Source:
Rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general76/truther.htm
Published: Apr 13, 2007
Author: Douglas Herman
Post Date: 2007-04-14 21:15:20 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1520
Comments: 157
Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber The most subversive show on television is on the Fox TV network. Maybe you've seen it. Hosted by a guy named Jeff Foxworthy, the show is called "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" Hopefully, the show is broadcast to every nation of the world, including China, the Middle East and the English-speaking nations of the former British empire. Why? To show the rest of the world what they already suspect: that most Americans are a bunch of greedy nitwits, numbskulls and knuckleheads. Truly, most Americans are Not smarter than a fifth grader. Indeed, judging from the shows I've seen, quite a few American adults are dumber than a FIRST grader. The adults--and I use that word loosely--who participate on the show are college graduates with good jobs. Some of them graduated with honors--whatever that means in collegiate circles. Uniformly, they perform badly. If ignorance is bliss then most of the adults on the show are positively delirious. They win a few thousand dollars, sometimes a quarter million, but for the most part, look like greedy imbeciles. They ALL remind me of 911 truth deniers. First question: What is jet fuel? Don't know? Yes, you are dumber than a fifth grader. Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved. Sorry, wrong answer. You are dumber than any first grader possessing a basic understanding of a barbecue grill. I'm forever delighted by the faces of the wise children everywhere. They remind me of "Truthers," those citizens concerned with nothing so much as unraveling a great crime against America, convinced we can persuade even the dumbest Americans--and God knows there are millions of them---that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can. Okay: How many sides to a trapezoid? Every Truther, and fifth grader on the show that I happened to watch, knew the answer to that. Four, as in the shape of the WTC-7 foundation. Indeed, one of the World's Most Famous Smart Persons, a professor at MIT named Chomsky, said the perplexing anomalies of 911 didn't really matter to him. Huh? That would be like asking a group of fifth graders how did the Titanic sink? And then remarking to them to ignore the iceberg altogether and focus instead on the weight and volume of the water that filled the ship. All while manipulating computer models to show that a few open portholes caused the Titanic to sink. Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years. They have ignored the obvious, ignoring the iceberg, focusing on the floodwater. Are Americans dumber than 5th graders? Yes, especially most of the top scientists working for the US government. For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition. Indeed, you could show that same videotape to those 5th graders and get the same answer. The chief difference? Neither the Dutch expert nor the 5th graders depend on the US government to pay their salaries, or fund their think tanks or universities. Thus they can answer honestly and without fear of retribution. Magna Cum Laude in Cowardice? Simply look around. Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right. Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES? We really are a dumb race of people if we believe 9-11 was a case of incompetence. Dumber still if we accept the excuses from our government officials and haven't demanded the indictment of even ONE person that allowed close to 3,000 citizens be murdered. Debunkers would have you believe the official lie. And it is a masterful lie. They want to keep you dumb; that is their whole purpose. To keep you dumb. To keep you from asking too many questions. But mostly to keep you from demanding answers, and then demanding indictments and convictions. But debunkers are relatively few, and mostly shrewd, manipulative liars. 911 truth deniers, on the other hand---the millions of ordinary folks who adhere to the official story--would have us simply give the US government the benefit of the doubt. When you ask them why, when you point to the string of lies before and after 911, when you point to the murderous government policies post- 911, they stare dumbly, like contestants on that TV game show. On that TV show, however, the 5th graders can sometimes help those dumb adults. But only IF the adults want to be helped. Five years after 911, we Truthers are the fresh-faced students, trying to awaken our compatriots to the correct answers. And in this case, they have a whole lot more to win or lose than a few thousand dollars. Footnote: I would like once again to thank my compatriots at 911blogger.com who provided the illustration. As you can see, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand 911. Indeed, most American rocket scientists are probably too dumb. Simply put: Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity? Sure it can, as long as the object is falling through a heavily-insured white elephant housing sensitive government offices. USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and clearly understood the scam of the NORAD standdown within a few months after 911. He wrote the recent Rense feature, Why No Norad On 911?
Than A 5th Grader?
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
4-13-7
Most 911 debunkers love to quote the number of top US scientists, engineers and architects who deny 911 was an inside job. Luckily, we Truthers can demonstrate that many of these top experts are just plain dumb. How? We need only point to a show like "Smarter Than A 5th Grader," a show that readily indicates how dumb so-called educated American people can be. Even ones with advanced degrees and Cum Laude after their names.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
(Edited)
BeAChooser is dumber than a 5th grader. It's so obvious that 9/11 was an inside job that it really makes pro-government theory defenders look like total morons. They have the power and license to kill, but they are still scared to death of the 9/11 truth movement.
God is always good! True. The psychological profile of a 9-11 truth denier is the same as that of a jailhouse snitch. It is emotion which compels them to slavishing repeat the official story, as if they were agents of the government, which, of course, they are.
This is the sticking point for me. The USAF has spent the last half century thinking long and hard on how to defend US airspace from Soviet bombers and other airborne threats. The best they could do on 9/11 is run around like chickens with their heads cut off and in the days that followed 9/11 they spent lots of time threatening to shoot down single engine float planes in Alaska on their way to pick up chartered hunting and fishing groups way out in the wilderness. If 9/11 is any indication on the level or readyness of the USAF, WWIII would have been over in 5 minutes as Soviet bombers dropped nukes and vaporized cities while USAF pilots were still eating breakfast or sleeping in that morning.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
IMO, the failure of NORAD to act, coupled with the control of NORAD to shoot down being transferred to Cheney, who was in control that morning, is the biggest indicator that THEY did 9-11. Mohammed Atta didn't make the Air Force stand down or go the wrong way instead of intercepting.
I agree, it points to "who".
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Where did the govt say the steel beams melted? The 9/11 report stated the fire weakened the structural steel enough to cause strength failure. That is why I feel the 9/11 truth people in acts of ignorance demonstrated in the Rense article are destroying the investigation in the 9/11 plot by people who think the govt is involved on some level but are then grouped in along with moonbats who not only say stupid things but they even get the facts about what the govt said wrong. So therefore http://Rense.com - where UFO nuts go and hang out - proves that they also are not smarter than a 5th grader as well. OK, the following I will explain ahead of time for the slow witted among you. The only reason I am posting the Popular Mechanic article segment on the steel is to show that no one in the official govt story ever claimed the steel melted. Hence this proves whoever wrote this Rense article is either a willful liar or a fool or both. Again, I am posting the following to disprove Rense's accusation that the govt official story says the steel melted. CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site http://AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength-- and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
There are only 16% of Americans who believe the president's story on 9-11. Congratulations for being in that group.
THE WHO! Tell me Who, who, who, who ... Good tune, and appropriate here.
http://www.purelyrics.com/index.php?lyrics=rqeavqzt
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
What most people miss is that the FAA was the facilitating agency of 9-11. They blocked airport security, controlled the fighters and covered up the reality of 9-11, via non-availability of the radar data and ATC tapes. The fighters were under FAA control & kept from visual and electronic contact with the 9-11 events. See - http://home.comcast.net/ ~skydrifter/timeline.htm
Congratulations for being in that group. Snaps fingers in front of your face---FOCUS> This article is not about believing the govt's story - this article said - and you agreed - that the govt said the steel melted. Right? Still with me? I then posted showing the govt did not say the steel melted - only that the fire weakened the steel. Did you not read what I wrote? A 5th grader would have. Do you concede that this Rense article is incorrect in this fact and that the govt did not say the jet fuel melted the steel?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Except that is not what the government says. What this article is doing is putting forth a strawman. A logical fallacy. All the jet fuel did is start a very large fire that then burned very hot due to the type of material available to burn. Melting steel is not what caused the collapse of the towers. But strength reductions of the steel and sagging of the steel due to high temperatures is the cause. This is another strawman. The WTC towers did NOT fall at the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity would imply a collapse time of about 9-10 seconds. But videos and still photos taken on 9/11 show quite clearly that the towers took about 15 to collapse. They show the first exterior panels ejected from the tower took about 9-10 seconds to reach the ground. And the photos show those panels were way ahead of the collapsing level of the towers. And I've pointed this out to you over and over. Are the members of the *Truth* movement incapable of learning? Are logical fallacies all they have to offer? And this is just downright false. WTC7 has not been ignored. Now tell readers the rest of the story. That Dutch expert (Jowenko) was not told the structure had been hit by debris from the collapsing towers. He was not told that the structure had been burning for almost 7 hours without much in the way of fire suppression. He was not told that firemen on the scene observed the building starting to lean long before the collapse. He was not told that fireman at the scene believed the building was going to collapse long before the collapse. He was not shown all the videos and photos available showing damage to the building and the extent of the fires. And one more thing, this same expert also said that the collapse of the two towers were definitely NOT controlled demolitions. This is also downright false. The Indian paper which initially made that claim retracted the story and ended up saying an entirely different person actually provided the money. The problem with CT'ers is that they latch onto the first incriminating thing they hear and then never listen to another fact regarding that event or claim.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 10 posts I'm allowed each day.
You are never going to get him to listen to facts and admit that. He's made his mind up and apparently doesn't realize that with such inaccurate claims the *Truth* movement is only destroying any hope of finding out the truth of 9/11.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 10 posts I'm allowed each day.
I'm referring to the poll taken by the New York Times and CBS in October of 2006, which revealed that only 16% of Americans believe the official 9-11 story, and 57% believe Bush had actual, prior knowledge of the attacks. You can take up YOUR points with someone on the thread who cares about whatever obtuse point you think you're making. I'm commenting on the fact that you're in the small minority who hover over every word of every government statement, as if it were Moses bringing down the tablets.
EX-cel-lent!
I know the government's position better than you two ever will. I don't feel it's necessary to respond to those who want to require me to consume time in some pointless dialogue where you think you're going to prove something. The government's fairy tale about the collapse of the towers is well known, and it requires something that is impossible: steel and concrete vaporizing in a gravity collapse. If you can't SEE that the buildings were exploded, all the discussions in the world won't get your head unstuck from where you have it lodged.
The fighters were under FAA control & kept from visual and electronic contact with the 9-11 events. It wasn't the FAA which kept the fighters from scrambling and engaging. It was Cheney, who was in personal control of NORAD that morning during war games, drills to simulate airplanes being used as missiles to hit the Pentagon and other locations. The FAA made several communications with NORAD, and after the first crash, NORAD was automatically in the loop and heard everything the FAA did, in real time.
The NORAD aircraft which launched were under the control of the FAA - not NORAD! Yeah! There's the rub. Sure, Cheney was in it up to his ears.
So, why did the 47 steel columns in both towers collapse simultaneously? C'Mon BAC, you treasonous queer; 'splain that one! How many seconds did it take the buildings to fall? Give us a figure that you'll stand by. Well ....?
And don't forget that FEMA arrived the night before, to be ready for their DRILL in Manhattan on the morning of 9-11, that turned into the WTC attack response effort. The coincidences that day just keep on keepin on.
Don't you know?! The planes hit the towers and the collision knocked all the fire proofing off the hundreds of steel beams on the exterior and inside the support grid near the elevators. Then the jet fuel burned, and although it never got hot enough to melt steel, it got hot enough to cause the welded support pins for the trusses to fail under the weight, and begin a pancake collapse that pulverized and turned into dust most of the steel, concrete, and contents of the towers. At gravity speed, instead of at pancaking speeds. What a load of malarkey!
See - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871 I'm assuming this is the same as the DVD that I just watched. It's limited to the 9-11 WTC issues, but it's damned good. If you want a WTC encapsulation, this is a great one. {This commercial is NOT approved by BAC!}
Tom Kenney's team did, but FEMA was already in place on Pier 92, as "Operation Tripod II." Rudy 'fessed-up. Kenney's team did NOT go to the hotel to sleep on 9-11, as BAC would have everyone believe!
That is a great video. There are many very good videos. Google video and youtube both have many.
Let's use this figure BAC. No, not at the open-air falling speed, but so radically far from a "collapse" speed that "controlled demolition" is the only possible explanation. Add the molten steel in the three Silverstein buildings. You're way busted BAC! You're a wannabe deceiver - doing a lousy job.
that BAC is dumber than a 5'th grader. and he does it on purpose - only way he could think what he thinks. He thinks that jet fuel burns hot enough to produce molten steel. We've told him 100 times it just doesn't burn hot enough and he says 'yeah but if it was a big fire ... ' nonsense. if it don't burn hot enough it don't burn hot enough and doesn't make any difference what quantity of jet fuel. If you add in paper or wood or office furnishings and that only makes it burn less hot. yet BAC still insists on the fantasy that jet fuel melted steel to liquid form. He accepts that the steel was liquid because honway showed him pictures, but he insists it became liquid because of burning jet fuel. dumber than a 5'th grader and a TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Sorry to hear this. Is this temporary or permanent?
God is always good! That's a new one. I haven't heard of that one before. Ah well, we have video evidence and no leaning is observed. But even if it was leaning, that only means in a collapse it wouldn't have come straight down. I guess that new line won't work chooser, back to the drawing board.
God is always good! Once again, Red Jones just demonstrates that he doesn't know what he is talking about. http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html Which is why he must resort to strawman arguments. In other words, claiming I've said things that I have never said. Pathetic, Red. Really pathetic.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 10 posts I'm allowed each day.
BAC, You're an asshole, by any standard. Truth means nothing to you, except a challenge to distort it - to the benefit of the Jewish State of Israel. Your queerness knows no bounds.
TREASONOUS QUEER! you used to agree that the molten steel really happened. and now you link me to a site that says molten steel didn't exist because for it to exist there must've been something besides jet fuel & the ordinary debris from the office & furnishings in order to produce the molten steel. Well the molten steel is reality. it was reported right in mass media about the hot spots, so for you to sit there and say that the hot spots didn't exist because it would've required something more than jet fuel to produce them is just plain more TREASONOUS QUEER! garbage. NASA flew a plane over the site in the day or two after the event and measured the hot spots. it was reported right in mass media. and you sit there and deny it because you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! You used to agree with us that the molten steel did happen. We've talked to individuals on the internet who live 2 blocks from there and they told us that in personal conversations with firemen they heard stories of the molten steel & the hot spots. and now you change your story. TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Didn't BAC say he was only "experimenting" for a few years? ;) Or was it he was only investigating, like Reverent Haggard? Oh well, as Bob Seger said "turn the page." (Or was that Mark Foley?)
Whether molten steel caused the collapse or not, what caused molten steel? Molten Metal Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. [1] A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements. Corroborating Reports There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." [2] A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." [4] A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. [5] A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." [11] [image] This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground, with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven stories deep. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00
Well Jesus H. Christ - I am talking about this article and it's first claim. Stay on topic. I guess you are not an empiricist - you don't care for the truth - whatever that truth may be - you just care about the fantasy scenario you have accept - every bit as fanciful as the govt thesis. That you don't want to discard evidence or claims proven false tells me you value the story over the facts.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Stay on topic. I guess you are not an empiricist - you don't care for the truth - whatever that truth may be - you just care about the fantasy scenario you have accept - every bit as fanciful as the govt thesis. That you don't want to discard evidence or claims proven false tells me you value the story over the facts. Well aren't you in a snit?! It's a poll. I referred to it. If you don't like it, tough titty. Why don't you go look up the poll, read the source data, specifically found at page 30, question 78? That's the TRUTH you're so afraid to admit.
Do you accept as false Rense's claim that the govt said the steel beams melted? Then we can go from there - this survey was never mentioned by me and your attempt to introduce is is an attempt top skirt the issue.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I never said anything about Rense. But I'm pretty sure you're supposed to do it twice.
BeAChooser says he is not gay. This causes him a lot of problems on Log Cabin. People wonder what he is doing there if he isn't gay. Here is an example from the other day.... #40. To: Romping Fairy (#34) But I'm not gay. I'm married with children. I rarely I blow more than a couple of guys per month. And I sometimes do it with my wife when she starts to get nasty about it. Now is that gay in your book? BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-13 10:41:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
The number of Republican activists who are gay is astonishingly high. Gary Bauer? super gay!! John Fund of Wall St Journal? Ga-ay!
Thanks Trace for those insights. and thanks Paul Revere for your expert analysis above. BAC in the past has accepted that molten steel was in the pile of rubble. and he said previously also that this molten steel was caused by jet fuel burning. It is impossible of course because jet fuel doesn't burn anywhere near hot enough to cause the steel to actually become molten. We know beyond shadow of any doubt because of the NASA plane that flew over and measured heat that there were hot spots which cannot be explained by burning jet fuel or office furnishings fire either because those hot spots were way too hot. So per this link BAC provided above he's apparently changed his view. He now says that because the jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to create the molten steel or the hot spots either, that therefore there was no molten steel. Despite witnesses. despite photographs. despite even the two owners of the demo companies used to remove the debris saying that the molten steel pools were real, despite all that he now says that the molten steel didn't exist. Because apparently the molten steel can only be explained by a chemical device like thermite and BAC therefore denies that the molten steel was there. that's why he's a TREASONOUS QUEER!!!!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Comments (41 - 157) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#2. To: robin (#0)
#3. To: robin (#0)
Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES?
#4. To: Pissed Off Janitor, robin (#3)
#5. To: Paul Revere (#4)
#6. To: robin, RickyJ, Paul Revere, Pissed Off Janitor (#0)
Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved.
#7. To: Destro (#6)
#8. To: robin (#5)
I agree, it points to "who".
#9. To: Paul Revere (#8)
#10. To: Paul Revere, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#4)
IMO, the failure of NORAD to act, coupled with the control of NORAD to shoot down being transferred to Cheney,
#11. To: Paul Revere (#7)
There are only 16% of Americans who believe the president's story on 9-11.
#12. To: robin, RickyJ, ALL (#0)
Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved.
-that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can.
Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years.
For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition.
Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right.
#13. To: Destro, Paul Revere, ALL (#11)
Do you concede that this Rense article is incorrect in this fact and that the govt did not say the jet fuel melted the steel?
#14. To: Destro (#11)
(Edited)
#15. To: robin (#9)
#16. To: BeAChooser (#13)
#17. To: SKYDRIFTER (#10)
What most people miss is that the FAA was the facilitating agency of 9-11. They blocked airport security, controlled the fighters and covered up the reality of 9-11, via non-availability of the radar data and ATC tapes.
#18. To: Paul Revere, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#17)
It wasn't the FAA which kept the fighters from scrambling and engaging. It was Cheney, who was in personal control of NORAD that morning during war games, drills to simulate airplanes being used as missiles to hit the Pentagon and other locations.
#19. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#13)
Except that is not what the government says. What this article is doing is putting forth a strawman. A logical fallacy. All the jet fuel did is start a very large fire that then burned very hot due to the type of material available to burn. Melting steel is not what caused the collapse of the towers. But strength reductions of the steel and sagging of the steel due to high temperatures is the cause.
#20. To: SKYDRIFTER (#18)
#21. To: SKYDRIFTER (#19)
#22. To: Robin, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Aristeides, Diana, All (#0)
#23. To: Paul Revere, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#20)
And don't forget that FEMA arrived the night before, to be ready for their DRILL in Manhattan on the morning of 9-11, that turned into the WTC attack response effort.
#24. To: SKYDRIFTER (#22)
#25. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#12)
But videos and still photos taken on 9/11 show quite clearly that the towers took about 15 to collapse.
#26. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, TREASONOUS QUEER! (#18)
#27. To: BeAChooser, chrsitine, Zipporah (#12)
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 10 posts I'm allowed each day.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#28. To: BeAChooser (#12)
He was not told that firemen on the scene observed the building starting to lean long before the collapse.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#29. To: Red Jones, ALL (#26)
If you add in paper or wood or office furnishings and that only makes it burn less hot.
yet BAC still insists on the fantasy that jet fuel melted steel to liquid form. He accepts that the steel was liquid because honway showed him pictures, but he insists it became liquid because of burning jet fuel.
#30. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#29)
#31. To: BeAChooser (#29)
#32. To: Red Jones (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: BeAChooser, robin, RickyJ (#12)
All the jet fuel did is start a very large fire that then burned very hot due to the type of material available to burn. Melting steel is not what caused the collapse of the towers.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel [3]
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. [6]
Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. [7]
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. [8]
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. [9]
... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. [10]
* Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on georgewashington.blogspot.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02 [cached]
3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02 [cached]
4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02 [cached]
5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com , [cached]
6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine , [cached]
7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org , [cached]
8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3
9. Ground Zero, 12/01 [cached]
10. American Ground, , page 32
11. Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04
#34. To: Paul Revere (#14)
I'm referring to the poll taken by
#35. To: Destro (#34)
Well Jesus H. Christ - I am talking about this article and it's first claim.
#36. To: Paul Revere (#35)
#37. To: Destro (#36)
Do you accept as false Rense's claim that the govt said the steel beams melted? Then we can go from there - this survey was never mentioned by me and your attempt to introduce is is an attempt top skirt the issue.
#38. To: Paul Revere (#32)
Didn't BAC say he was only "experimenting" for a few years? ;)
#39. To: Trace21231 (#38)
(Edited)
#40. To: Trace21231, Paul Revere, BeAChooser (#38)
.
.
.