Some more 9/11 truth

[nomo]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>I think 911myths is disinfo. </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Ah. Okay. I guess that settles it then. <!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img117.exs.cx/img117/9585/q9crolleyes.gif"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

Well, here's at least one answer to my earlier question on Ockham's razor, from a Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I receive many unsolicited e-mails daily, this one I chose to respond to. The below mentioned premise that an F4 Phantom fighter jet hitting that hardened concrete barrier is akin to the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon is like oil and water; they don’t mix, and they serve to muddy the issue. The issue is 911 was filled with errors in the ‘official report’ and ‘official story’ of that day, and, what happened that day. We all know and saw 2 planes hitting the WTC buildings, we didn’t see the 757 hit the Pentagon, nor did we see the plane crash in Shanksville PA. Both the PA and Pentagon ‘crashes’ don’t have clues and tell-tale signs of a jumbo-jet impacting those zones! <br><br>The Pentagon would have huge wing impacts in the side of the building; it didn’t. Shanksville PA would have had debris, and a large debris field; it didn’t. <br><br> Getting back to the F4...The Pentagon isn’t a nuclear hardened structure, so I can’t follow your weak logic that since an F4 vaporized itself in a test impact on a nuclear hardened structure that the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon should have exhibited the same characteristics!<br><br>I say Occums razor is the best way to deduce this ‘day of infamy’; if you weigh all options, do some simple studying you will see 911 was clearly not executed by some arabs in caves with cell phones and 3 day old newspapers! I mean how are Arabs benefiting from pulling off 911? They have more war, more death and dismal conditions, so, how did 911 benefit them? Answer: It didn’t. So, who benefited from 9-11? The answer is sad, but simple; The Military Industial [sic] Complex.<br><br> It’s not a paranoid conspiracy to think there are conspiracies out there...and, it’s not Liberal Lunacy either, nor is it Conservative Kookiness! People, fellow citizens we’ve been had! We must demand a new independent investigation into 911 and look at all options of that day, and all plausabilities [sic], even the most incredulous theories must be examined.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=426&z=54" target="top">www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=426&z=54</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

A bit afield from 9-11 itself, but there are some very interesting discussions of late among legal academics that, while important purely on the merits, are also somewhat illustrative of academic culture in law certainly, and probably in the social sciences more generally that I was talking about in a prior post in this thread. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/evidence-and-ideology.html" target="top">balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/evidence-and-ideology.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>(The debate about "originalism" as a proper method of constitutional interpretation is raging again. While certainly theoretically interesting, query why legal academics actually spend so much time to debate this stuff, when almost everyone concedes that courts pay very little attention to it as the basis for actual constitutional decisionmaking.)<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/originalism-history-and-objectivity.html" target="top">balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/originalism-history-and-objectivity.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2006/08/brian_leiter_ha.html" target="top">lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2006/08/brian_leiter_ha.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2006/08/the_debate_spar.html" target="top">rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2006/08/the_debate_spar.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>And two responses to Dick Posner's WSJ op-ed on terrorism, NSA, and the courts. I suspect readers here can come up with even more problems with the Posner's arguments that the two posts fail to mention. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-should-we-be-boxed-in-by.html" target="top">balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-should-we-be-boxed-in-by.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/dicey-versus-posner-on-ordinary-courts.html" target="top">balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/dicey-versus-posner-on-ordinary-courts.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 8/22/06 9:30 pm<br></i>

[isachar]

qutb, did you read the article in the Washington Post about 3 - 4 weeks back by Dan Eggen that confirmed there was a military exercise by NORAD involving hijacking of civilian airliners on 911?<br><br>This was perhaps the most visible acknowledgement by the MSM that such exercises were occuring that day. Just wondering how you might explain Bin-Laden's exquisite sense of timing to run his multi-plane hijacking operation on the very day the U.S. military was running a classified multi-plane hijacking exercise? Serendipity?<br><br>And, how might one explain the utter failure of the U.S. military to so much as fire a sling shot at Flight 77 as it passed within a few hundred yards of the White House on its way to a bulls-eye first floor hit on a four story building by an amateur pilot whose flight instructor wouldn't trust him with a single engine cessna?<br><br>The WH and Pentagon have air defense systems in place. Cheney and Mineta's testimony confirm that this flight was being tracked minute by minute on its approach - thus impeaching Gen. Myer's befuddled claim that NORAD's radar couldn't 'see' the flight. Whose radar was Cheney being fed, and if he could get it, why couldn't Rummy or Myers?<br><br>And, why did Rummy say he was working at his desk in the Pentagon that morning, unaware of any attacks on the WTC's (or the approaching plane) until after the Pentagon was hit. For crissake, he was in the chain of command to respond to such threats and we're supposed to believe no one bothered to knock on his door and let him know the WTC's had been hit and another hijacked plane was being tracked as it approached the heart of WDC?<br><br>The official story is a hoax and a fraud and you've bought it and made yourself the chief apologist for the hoaxers. The recent book by two members of the official whitewash commission confirm that they know Myer's and others had lied to them. For crissake, get a clue. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 8/23/06 2:42 pm<br></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Isachar, Qutb has had thread after thread, discussion after discussion packed full of not only "clues" but voluminous factual, accurate and scientific evidence exposing the Gov. backed hoaxed we call 9-11. He chooses to ignore all of it and insult our intelligence with this weak drivel purporting to "disprove" the most obvious evidence of all: The use of controlled demolition at the WTC. The real question we must ask ourselves is why? Obviously this is a very smart individual. Obviously he has extensive time to spend researching this. He either has a very deep personal commitment to holding up the present regime or ---------(fill in the blank). Right now I would have to say it's--------. <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm1.showMessage?topicID=2.topic">Beyond trolling and disruption, posts subject to deletion or locking will be those which<br><br>3. suggest a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation. If you have suspicions, IM me.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I've posted many times on the blog my own position that "controlled demolition" has become a wedge to divide skeptics of the official version and a distraction from more profitable avenues of inquiry. You're free to post your arguments for CD, but insinuating that members of the board must be disinfo agents because they disagree with you is unacceptable. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

sorry. <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

interesting that qutb has yet to show any interest in responding to these points on his own thread.<br><br>qutb, you there? knock-knock. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

That seems to me to be both the most "profitable area of inquiry" AND the one with the most physical evidence, the molten steel and photos of the thermate actually burning in the Twin Towers!<br><br>So I'm cross-posting this Steven Jones metallurgical and photo analysis from another thread. Sorry for the huge photos. I hate when they spread the page out, too.<br><br>>>><br><br>The recent 9/11 panel shown on C-Span included BYU Physics professor Steven Jones who showed a nugget of molten steel with thermate (thermite with added sulfur to maximize cutting power) which was sent to him by a woman who had saved in a box some clods of dirt from a Ground Zero steel beam used as a memorial. <br><br>(Anyone have the link for the C-Span video with Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Robert Bowman, Webster Tarpley?)<br><br>Jones says on camera that when she read of his metallurgical analysis of the molten steel she looked in her debris box and found materials which she then sent him for analysis.<br><br>So while this might seem like an 'iffy' chain of custody for physical evidence on par with FBI or LAPD negligence, there is also lots of photographic evidence of the thermate on collapsing beams and photos of the aftermath.<br><br>See Mr. Jones' work for the photographic evidence and metallurgical analysis.<br><br>The pools of molten steel beneath Ground Zeros speak for themselves and corroborate the most likely explanation for controlled demolition-<br>Means, Motive, Opportunity, Precedent, Evidence = beyond a reasonable doubt.<br><br>Steven Jones paper with photos-<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html">www.physics.byu.edu/resea.../htm7.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7_files/image006.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>WHAT BURNING THERMATE LOOKS LIKE-<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h5.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/BYUthermitereaction.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>HERE IS THE COLLAPSE WITH THERMATE SHOWING-<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/intbox.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/MoltenCloseup1.JPG" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

excellent photos, especially that last one. It would seem nigh to impossible that the fiery liquid pouring out of the side of the building is a melting jet plane body as has been alleged, when the aluminum on the siding is still quite intact. Something else is going on here. I will add this to my bag of tricks to convince people....never give up!! 9-11 must out and that will stop them in their tracks. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

So...what would have happened if, say, the planes had been loaded with bags of thermite? Would there have a been something like a time release thermite reaction?<br><br>Even though I'm a believer in remote control on 9/11, I just can't see thermite being placed in the future impact zone, ready to be crashed into.<br><br>And I still haven't been convinced that there couldn't have been accidental thermite reactions, with the molten aluminum and metals and shearing action.<br><br>Just some thoughts and questions. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

Smithtalk asked -<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"for the record qutb, do you subscribe to theory that osama bin laden co-ordinated 19 hijackers to fly the planes into the targets and the operation was basically a success"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I do, yes. If you had asked me a year ago, the answer would have been no. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

isachar - <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"The official story is a hoax and a fraud and you've bought it and made yourself the chief apologist for the hoaxers. The recent book by two members of the official whitewash commission confirm that they know Myer's and others had lied to them. For crissake, get a clue."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>Here's the thing. You start with the conclusion and go search for evidence to support it. This is the method in the madness of most conspiracy research. Do you think the two commissioners in question would agree with you that Myers' et al's lying suggests an inside job? I haven't asked them, but I would venture the guess that they would not. Certainly nothing in what they've written or said permits you to interpret their words in that way. Do you think there might have been other reasons for lying than covering up an inside job? Such as covering up one's own failure?<br><br>The same thing goes for the Eggen article, or most other pieces of purported evidence that are routinely presented to support the case for conspiracy. It's usually seized upon voraciously without much reflection about what it actually means or implies.<br><br>For instance, did the war games - a completely routine occurrance, by the way, the military run war games all the time - really impair the response? The case can be made, and has been made quite convincingly, that it did the opposite. You have to adress this question first, before you discuss whether Osama "got lucky".<br><br>If nothing else, the idea that a real situation might happen while a wargame is ongoing is not something that military planners have never thought of and prepared for...<br><br>Furthermore, the hijackings that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>may</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> have been gamed as a routine part of routine wargames, do not appear to have been of the suicidal, building-demolishing variety, but of the conventional "fly me to Cuba" type.<br><br>A good example of this dishonest use of "evidence" is the claim that PNAC openly stated their desire for "a new Pearl Harbour", meaning a 9/11-like event, in order to justify US occupation of Iraq. Hence the title of David Ray Griffin's book. If you, as I recently did, read the entire "Rebuilding America's Defenses", from which the "new Pearl Harbor" quote is taken, you'll see that this is completely false. Which is probably why Griffin and other conspiracists only ever quote that one sentence. <br><br>The same method is used when carefully editing firemen's quotes to make it sound like they believed bombs were going off. The point is, there's a pattern here, and it's one of a profound dishonesty. So I'm tempted to return your recommendation: For chrissakes, get a clue. <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

Well, that's pretty unresponsive to my post - though not unexpected.<br><br>Qutb, you couldn't be more wrong in what has led me to the conclusion that the official story is a hoax and a fraud. Having first assumed that events transpared largely ans the Bush admin would have you believe, I began to research the various events of 911 thoroughly in early 2003 and have continued to do so since.<br><br>I think your (erroneous) criticism of my approach applies to your own. No one is going to spoon-feed you the right answers in this matter. Though Sibel Edmonds and a few others have tried to do so (Sibel in spite of being under a gag order). <br><br>You're going to have to discover them for yourself. But, in your case, you're clearly of a mindset to excuse, ignore, rationalize and disparge any and all info that fails to comport with what you've been spoon-fed.<br><br>The confidential parts of the 911 Whitewash commission that have been selectively released in the last month demonstrate conclusively that the Commission had reason to believe that they had been lied to by Myers and others.<br><br>Now, why was Cheney was able to receive the live minute by minute radar tracking of Flight 77 as it approached DC and flew within a couple hundred yards of the White House and why Myers and others testified that NORAD's radar couldn't 'see' the hijacked flights. What a crock.<br><br>Please respond to how Bin-Laden was able to run his multi-plane hijacking operation on the precise day and time during which NORAD and DoD were running a multi-plane hijacking exercise. I think even you've got enough sense to recognize the utter improbability of this coincidence.<br><br>I see you buy the crock of shit that the war games 'enhanced' the response. Bwhahahahaha. Yeah, that's why not so much as a pea-shooter or sling shot was fired in response to multiple hijackings that played out over the course of an hour and a half and they failed to defend their own HQ - the Pentagon. Yeah, they were a real big help, weren't they. Whoooha, that shows just how far you've gone to close your eyes to the obvious.<br><br>Why did Rummy state he was completely unaware of the events of that day until after Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon! What a joke!!! But you believe this sheet.<br><br>It's a crock which you've bought, and from which you continue to sup, daily.<br><br>Please go back and read my earlier post to you and try to be responsive to it, rather than to falsely characterize my diligence. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 8/25/06 4:29 pm<br></i>

[Iroquois]

I have also read PNAC's paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". Here is the full text of the sentence in question found on page 51:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>URL: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf">www.newamericancentury.or...fenses.pdf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The "process of transformation" refers to changes to US military structure that the PNAC advises the US to follow to ensure US political dominance in the 21st century.<br><br>It has been a couple of years since I read Griffin's book, and it has been on loan since. But, my recollection is that he explained the source of his title fairly accurately.<br><br>I found the following quote on wikipedia's article on the <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">New Pearl Harbor</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Howard Zinn, the author of <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">A People's History of the United States</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->*, calls <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">The New Pearl Harbor</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END-->, "the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation on the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>URL: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Pearl_Harbor">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The...arl_Harbor</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>*I am actually reading this book now, and highly recommend it.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i></i>