[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Condi, Osama and Lee, and a Good Question for Investigative Reporters Condi, Osama and Lee, and a Good Question for Investigative Reporters Submitted by Kevin Ryan on Sun, 08/19/2007 - 10:24pm. Lee Hamilton | Osama Bin Laden | WTC collapse Last year at about this time, 9/11 Commission chairman Lee Hamilton was interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This interview is incredible, to say the least, and represents an outstanding example of the need for 9/11 truth. http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html At the time, Hamilton was trying to sell his new book, “Without Precedent", in which he and co-chairman Thomas Kean described how frustrated they were with repeated misstatements by the Defense Department and the Federal Aviation Agency during the investigation, and how they considered an investigation into possible deception. But the interview also showed how utterly clueless Hamilton actually was, and apparently still is today, about the most basic aspects of the events of 9/11. When asked about the demolition hypothesis, Hamilton said – “The charge that dynamite, or whatever, brought down the World Trade Towers, we of course looked at very carefully - we find no evidence of that. We find all kinds of evidence that it was the airplanes that did it.” Hamilton then clarified – “What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse.” For those who don’t know, only Osama bin Laden himself still promotes the “super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure” theory, or so says the US State department. According to Ms. Rice’s debunking page “The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories”, Osama claimed in his confession video that “Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building.” http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=A... (Continued after the jump...) Condi, Osama and Lee might want to check with FEMA or NIST, or really anybody, on that one, because on this issue, they are several false stories behind the curve. Apart from the fact that the jet fuel at the WTC was gone in 5 to 10 minutes, long before the towers fell, we all know that jet fuel fires can’t melt steel. Here’s a reference for those who are interested in the temperatures of turbulent, diffusion flames, like those of a hydrocarbon pool fire. http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html “ Slightly above the base of the fire begins the continuous flame region. Here the temperatures are constant and are slightly below 900°C.” “Above the solid flame region is the intermittent flame region. Here the temperatures are continuously dropping as one moves up the plume. The visible flame tips correspond to a temperature of about 320°C.” “Finally, beyond the flame tips is the thermal plume region, where no more flames are visible and temperature continually drop with height.” That pretty well explains why NIST measured steel temperatures of only about 250 °C. (Condi, Osama and Lee might note that steel melts at 1530 °C.) Of course, to be fair, in October 2004, NIST tried to convince us that vast quantities of steel in the WTC towers had “softened”, leading to collapse of the buildings. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf When I challenged them on this, noting that steel softens at around 1000 °C, they started having closed door meetings and put their report off another seven months. Interestingly, the word “softened” does not appear anywhere in NIST’s final report. So maybe Condi, Osama and Lee shouldn’t feel so bad after all. But here’s another kicker. When Hamilton was asked if he, himself, had any unanswered questions about 9/11, he responded -- “I could never figure out why these 19 fellas did what they did. We looked into their backgrounds. In one or two cases, they were apparently happy, well-adjusted, not particularly religious - in one case quite well-to-do, had a girlfriend. We just couldn’t figure out why he did it. I still don’t know. And I think one of the great unanswered questions - a good topic for investigative reporters - would be: why did these 19 do what they did? We speculated in the report about why the enemy hates us, but we simply weren’t able to answer the questions about the 19.” Amazing but true. I guess that WOULD be a good question for investigative reporters. You know, because among other things we have killed around a million people, and thrown out our constitution, based on the story that Condi, Osama and Lee are selling. Maybe it is time to understand just why “the enemy hates us.” More importantly, maybe it’s time to understand who the enemy is.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
The forbidden question. They hate us cause were free is the "right" answer.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||