Peter McKenna
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Peter McKenna
-
-
Peter-
I think its a good overview explanation of the collapse of the Towers. I haven't been able to really go through it in detail (maybe this weekend). One quick item - I'm not sure how much weaker the central core columns were compared to the outer columns, especially considering they acted as a system because they were tied together at each floor by the concrete slab. You may want to elaborate on that.
As for the Kansas City Hyatt - IRRC the structural engineer of record lost his PE license because of the collapse. What has always shaken me up about that incident is how obvious the mistake was once its been pointed out, and the realization of how easy of a mistake it was to make. I think about it often when I'm reviewing shop drawings.
A bit off topic but some thoughts on the 9-11 truth movement in general:
<get on soap box>
I've come to the conclusion that the truth movement is divided primarily into two camps - one out to make a buck / or get their 15 minutes of fame and couldn't care less about the truth and the second camp believe the nutty CT's simply because they want / need to. There is a third group, people that truly think we haven't been told the whole truth and really want to know what happened - this group is relatively small and many believe the Towers collapsed due to the impacts and fires - they're just not sure of the specifics of who flew the planes, who they worked for - etc.
I've decided to stop debating this with people I perceive to be members of the two primary camps because the 9-11 attacks still evoke great emotion for me and I find it too frustrating when one side appears to simply make things up and refuses to answer simple questions while I'm trying to deal with real life engineering, science and demonstrable facts. Besides, no mater what I or anyone else says, they don't really want the "truth" - just your money or your confirmation of their preconceived notions.
<step down from soap box>
Thank you Steve
-
Were the fires on the east side of the 80th and 81st floors of the South Tower too weak to have weakened the floor trusses?
Sid seems to think so. Perhaps then he can explain these photos from the NIST report and stills from a video, which show a lot of smoke and some flames coming out the windows and the perimeter columns noticeably bowing in.
The bowing of the columns on the east face of the South Tower can be seen even more clearly in this video clip shot from in front of Trinity Church about 200 feet from the base of the doomed building, heavy smoke and some flames can be seen as well.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546
This is a still from the video linked above
So much for the ‘the South Tower fires were weak/going out theory’.
Bowing also occurred in the North Tower as can be seen in the NYPD aviation unit video I mentioned previously. Clips of the video can be seen in this excerpt of a documentary (starting 3:34 from the beginning). Not only can we hear them giving a warning that the top of the building was tilting and buckling a few minutes before the building collapsed but one of the cops on board and Jim Dyer who spoke to some of the others are interviewed and discuss what they saw, the cop said he could see “red hot” metal in the tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAy9oe1snbU...ted&search=
I guess the red hot steel 20 minutes before collapse, smoke, flames and bowing of the columns was caused by “super (duper) therrmate”.
Steve Ulman,
Could you do me a favor?
I wrote the following just as am alternative POV for the WTC Twin Tower collapse. Would you mind checking it and making corrections (if needed) please?
I would appreciate it.
This is only a point of view of how the Twin Tower collapse was possible, as seen on TV and subsequent videos.
Response to 9/11 CT on the twin tower collapse:
There are suspicious, inconsistent, and unusual facts to the 9/11 events and the events leading up to them. It would be even more suspicious if there were no inconsistencies or unusual facts associated with the building collapse on 9/11.
There has been considerable conjecture concerning the twin tower collapse, much of which has been passed off as fact, simply because there is no available contradictory evidence. So far, I have read nothing which convinces me that the twin tower collapse was rigged, the result of a controlled demolition, or the result of inside jobbers ‘working’ on the building prior to the crash of 9/11 (including the theories presented by the conspiracy theorists).
As to the twin tower collapse, the building failure seems as likely to have been caused by the airplane collision and the resulting damage from the collision and fuel, as anything else.
Collision of the falling floors with floors below and possible mode of floor loading failure:
There are two types of collisions, elastic and inelastic. If a collision is elastic, some of the impact may be absorbed, and much of the force reflected and will remain as kinetic energy in the material (“bounce”). In this type of collision, there is considerably less force imparted to the object struck than in an inelastic collision.
In an inelastic collision, practically all of the force is absorbed by the object struck. This object will translate the forces to the connecting structure while some amount is translated to elastic behavior (like a guitar string, a span will resonate some).
In a frame structure the weakest points are typically at the connections (welded type connections are typically stronger than bolted or riveted) and at drastic changes in geometry (such as at “T” or “L” intersections).
Failure of structural steel frame structures could be due to excessive bending stress, shear stress, or torsional stress. Since the falling floors would have spanned the floor section below, the failures were likely due to shear, and some torsion (but mostly shear failure), and either ductile failure or fracture (complete break) would result.
If the failure were due to shear, the breakage would be almost instantaneous, since the steel would not deform (any significant amount) prior to failure. As the falling mass was increasing as it fell, the force would increase a corresponding amount (F=MA). Due to the size of the mass, the air resistance would be negligible, and have little effect on the speed of descent, or the impact.
The forces between the floor trusses and the center columns (at the building center, around the elevator shafts) was also translated to the center columns (and center framing), and apparently, a sufficient amount of force was translated to the center to result in the collapse of the center steel, also. The center steel was significantly weaker than the perimeter steel, as the WTC twin towers were “Curtain Wall” design, and the live load was almost entirely supported by the exterior wall. This design approach was used to maximize the building’s resistance to wind loading, an extremely high load in comparison to the dead load or “Weight” load for tall (1300+ feet tall) buildings. Using the perimeter wall maximizes the ‘moment of inertia’ of the building, however, the building was not designed for the 9/11 event.
Some torsional failures likely occurred due to some degree of eccentric forces as the center mass fell, but the majority of floor and floor truss failures were apparently due to shear. Structural failures that were the result of torsion (which would slow the collapse) likely occurred at the onset, prior to the falling mass reaching a significant amount. Once the collapse of the building internals had developed significantly, lack of stability, and the downward force of the floor materials pulling on the walls, resulted in a collapse of the tower perimeter walls. This would account for the speed of the collapse.
If the floor loading failures, esp. the lower floors (below the ~60th/70th floor), were due to shear stress failure, the falling mass would fall quickly. Time would be added if the floor failures occurred from ductile failure due to bending and/or torsional stress, in which case the structural steel would behave like taffy and it would take time to be “pulled” apart.
Minor ductile failures, where the loading due to the falling mass exceeded the strength of the connections, which failed under bending or torsion, by a significant amount and where the falling mass resulted in primarily shear failure in the floors below, would also fail quickly, since the resistance to the falling mass would be insignificant. This may account for the interior “core” steel both being pulled down with the flooring and the speed of collapse of the interior steel.
With respect to the lack of availability of the damaged building materials; Some reticence on the part of officials and building owners to provide the “evidence” for scrutiny by any person who asks (if anyone is even asking) should be expected as there are billions of dollars at stake and there were thousands of lives lost, so may be a tangible fear of a challenge to liability, in the building design, vulnerability of the airlines, security, municipal and state government liability, etc. (e.g. The blueprints had to be approved by the City, and the buildings had to be inspected). In the Hyatt Skyway collapse in Kansas City (1983), Civil and Criminal investigations were performed and a public furor was raised. The question of liability focused on the Structural Engineers responsible for specifying the bolting. Per the New York Times,
“ …. It will be months before the results of almost a score of investigations begin to emerge, and they are virtually certain not to agree.”
“What is just as certain is that litigation will follow. All of the principal figures involved in the construction of the year-old Hyatt Regency, the architects, the contractors, the engineers and the owners, have refused to speak publicly about the hotel, its design or its construction, and city officials responsible for building codes have also been silent.“
Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A967948260
Also, much of the information stored in these buildings was probably highly confidential so there was likely reticence about the “Cleanup” and how it was approached.
The planes were loaded with fuel when they struck the towers. Fuel is stored in the wings. Since much of the fuel could not be ignited prior to leaking/flowing into the floors below the strike point, and as there was damage occurring, including fire, much of the fuel could have been heated to its vapor state, making it highly volatile.
A Fuel-air bomb is one of the most powerful explosives used by the military. Relying on aerosolized diesel fuel, it has tremendous explosive power (for example, the explosive used in the movie “Outbreak” to destroy villages and towns was a fuel air bomb).
The ejection of structural steel referenced on the 9/11 CT forums can have been caused by an aerosolized fuel - air mixture explosion.
A fuel-air explosion would create a large concussive force upon detonation. Also, the concussive force from falling mass can create what appears to be an explosion.
It should be noted that structural stell, likely ASTM specification A-36 type, would lose significant strength when heated in excess of 700 degrees, which would contribute to the failure of the steel near the fire(s).
The “puffs” of smoke, or “squibs” visible in the video from the top few floors may have been caused by the falling floors and the concussive force blowing out the side of the building. The “puffs” didn’t appear as violent explosions.
If a “controlled demolition” were to have been used to help the collapse, and the location or direction of the explosives were projected outwards to the outside of the building, it seems that the observed effect should have been more violent then the images pointed out by the “truthers” as indicating a controlled demolition.
These are just some thoughts on the collapse of the twin towers. There may be some inconsistencies between what I have written and information presented in the CT sites or even with the NIST report. I am not trying to pass this off as some kind of comprehensive study (I have not performed a comprehensive study), just some ideas on the twin tower collapse to stimulate thought. Nothing I have yet read convinces me that the twin towers were brought down by anything other than the observed plane collisions, and while I must admit that other reasons for the collapse are possible, other, less controversial reasons seem more likely.
-
I quite agree. Mr Fetzer is nothing if not sincere in his beliefs.
I'm wondering if there is something a little different about the 9/11 conspiracy; some believers in it seem to eager to turn on each other. I haven't noticed this behaviour regarding other conspiracy theories.
Many of them appear to be very young.
John Dolva has an excellent post on "Groupthink" in the JFK Assasination thread.
It seems some (or several) of these 9/11 forums are practicing textbook "Groupthink" as John's post defines it.
-
I'm continually amazed by that Loose Change crowd; they turn on one another at the drop of a hat. Apparently they now think that Jim Fetzer is a disinfo agent!
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=6978
Now, I don't see eye-to-eye with Mr Fetzer on most matters, but a disinfo agent?! Oh, puh-leeze!
It’s amazing how the Loose Change crowd will treat someone like Fetzer. I also don’t agree with his views, some of them seem pretty aberrant to me, but then so do most of the Loose Change statements and theories, anyway. Their video appears to be largely flash over substance. It’s hard to believe that these ‘kids’ produced it.
But talking about Jim Fetzer so rude and abusively is very bad form. He is one of their own, after all. They speak about him like he’s a neophyte to the 9/11 movement:
“ ***Treat him like an immature child that needs to be taught TABLE MANNERS****. “
“ Whenever I see or hear him speak, I can't help thinking of that descending scale tuba bit they used to do on the Flintstones whenever Fred was flabbergasted. He is a very hard person to listen to. Phlegmatic is a term I'd use (incorrectly) but the word sounds like he does - phlegmy. “
“If you want to really kick him in the balls - ask him and then turn his volume down and play some elevator music for a minute or two, he's going to deny it and waffle anyway.”
“But thats how it works, you (meaning Fetzer) can't turn up dressed as a pink elephant and infiltrate a movement to destroy it - you need to do some legwork first to prove yourself and work your way into the group - then at the crucial moment, you do your thing.”
Granted that he can appear “out there” but to suggest that he is a neophyte, that he hasn’t paid his dues, and is a disinformation-agent is absurd. Jim Fetzer certainly has put serious effort in conspiracy theories. These kids (the loose change bunch) are definitely showing their age and their colors. Like a pack of rabid hyenas.
-
Larry Chin writing in Online Journal is not optimistic - see Is UK-Iran marine incident part of larger war provocation plan?. He sees a potential leading role for Britain in the threatened assault on Iran and reminds us of British black ops of the recent past.....
Anyone knowing the date of an attack is poised to make a killing in the market, as they say. Lucky neocons! War: the ultimate racket.
Wait a Minute - I thought Bush was going to invade Iran in March, right? I read it right here in the title of this post - Bush is going to invade Iran in March.
That bet is lost, right?
It is April and no invasion.
I'm glad I didn't bet the house on it.
So now, what is it, double or nothing on April?
The USA doesn't need to invade Iran, all it needs to do to counter the Islamic Revolution of Iran is to foster the American revolutionary ideals of freedom, free trade, liberty and justice, and feed the ever growing legion of Iranian teenagers what they want and the government won't let them have - rock & roll.
BK
I saw the movie Syriana last night. Good movie.
Is there such an organization as the committe for the liberation of Iran? They were made out to be fairly clueless concerning Iranian intenal poltics in the movie.
-
I looked up Rosie O’Donnell’s web site to see what she had to say about 9/11. It’s a very busy site.
There was a “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” link, which was mostly composed of Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, and David Ray Griffin’s sites. I followed a link to Steven Jones site and was directed to the “Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth” or “MUJCA-NET”.
Mujca-net had another link entitled ‘Scientific Panel on 9/11: “Terror Attacks of 9/11 Were Faked”’ which I accessed and lo and behold it was an article by Dr. Steven Jones “Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC”, postulating that Thermite-sulfur was used to destroy structural steel in the WTC, beginning ~ 30 minutes after the plane(s) struck. I didn’t see any “Scientific panel”, though.
Below the main article were several donation requests and mission statements, et al. A couple of statements were particularly interesting:
“MUJCA-NET can help arrange for a 9/11 Truth outreach person to speak to a priest, imam, rabbi or minister in your area. We can also help arrange for a speaker to visit your church, synagogue or mosque and/or meet with members of your religious group (all religions welcome). We can also provide 9/11-related educational materials as finances permit.”
“MUJCA-NET needs your support. We are a non-profit organization and the scale of our activities depends entirely on your generosity. We would like to get copies of David Griffin's two 9/11 books (see above) into the hands of every religious leader in America. And we would like to push 9/11 truth onto the front pages of every newspaper in America. But we can't do it without your help. If you would like to donate to MUJCA-NET, CLICK HERE.”
“Jews, Christians and Muslims from around the world are uniting to pray for 9/11 truth every Friday afternoon. (Muslim congregational prayer occurs shortly after noon on Fridays)…”
“David Griffin, one of America's most eloquent and influential theologians, has summed up the overwhelming evidence for US government 9/11 complicity in in his bestseller The New Pearl Harbor. Dr. Griffin's follow-up book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, demolishes the last shreds of doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, and the official story a transparent cover-up.
It’s a welcome site to see an argument established on its own merits without having to rely on the endorsement of religious organizations.
I really don’t get the religious overtones …Why are Dr. Jones, et al, so hot for religious endorsements? Is it me or does this seem ridiculous?
The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show.Here's the link to the MUJCA - NET site:
-
I looked up Rosie O’Donnell’s web site to see what she had to say about 9/11. It’s a very busy site.
There was a “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” link, which was mostly composed of Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, and David Ray Griffin’s sites. I followed a link to Steven Jones site and was directed to the “Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth” or “MUJCA-NET”.
Mujca-net had another link entitled ‘Scientific Panel on 9/11: “Terror Attacks of 9/11 Were Faked”’ which I accessed and lo and behold it was an article by Dr. Steven Jones “Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC”, postulating that Thermite-sulfur was used to destroy structural steel in the WTC, beginning ~ 30 minutes after the plane(s) struck. I didn’t see any “Scientific panel”, though.
Below the main article were several donation requests and mission statements, et al. A couple of statements were particularly interesting:
“MUJCA-NET can help arrange for a 9/11 Truth outreach person to speak to a priest, imam, rabbi or minister in your area. We can also help arrange for a speaker to visit your church, synagogue or mosque and/or meet with members of your religious group (all religions welcome). We can also provide 9/11-related educational materials as finances permit.”
“MUJCA-NET needs your support. We are a non-profit organization and the scale of our activities depends entirely on your generosity. We would like to get copies of David Griffin's two 9/11 books (see above) into the hands of every religious leader in America. And we would like to push 9/11 truth onto the front pages of every newspaper in America. But we can't do it without your help. If you would like to donate to MUJCA-NET, CLICK HERE.”
“Jews, Christians and Muslims from around the world are uniting to pray for 9/11 truth every Friday afternoon. (Muslim congregational prayer occurs shortly after noon on Fridays)…”
“David Griffin, one of America's most eloquent and influential theologians, has summed up the overwhelming evidence for US government 9/11 complicity in in his bestseller The New Pearl Harbor. Dr. Griffin's follow-up book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, demolishes the last shreds of doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, and the official story a transparent cover-up.
It’s a welcome site to see an argument established on its own merits without having to rely on the endorsement of religious organizations.
I really don’t get the religious overtones …Why are Dr. Jones, et al, so hot for religious endorsements? Is it me or does this seem ridiculous?
[/Quote]
The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show. -
The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show.
See John Gibson and Michelle Malkin Whip Up Frenzy Over Rosie O'Donnell and ABC
Sid,
Is this a quote from Rosie O'Donnell? Or are you re-posting the '9/11 truther's' Theory?
Not a Rosie O'Donnell quote. What I quoted was a comment to the News Hounds asrticle (I did explain this). It was, I thought, a succinct and fairly accurate account of 9-11 sceptics' essential problem with the official story of the WTC collapses. It was written by someone called "brisa".
It wasn't clear. It is now. Thank you.
-
The saintly folk at News Hounds, who watch FOX so the rest of us don't have to, have been keeping an eye on campaigns to have Rosie O'Donnell fired from the ABC's The View show.
See John Gibson and Michelle Malkin Whip Up Frenzy Over Rosie O'Donnell and ABC
163 comments have been posted to this article and counting. A hot topic!
I couldn't resist re-posting this comment here. IMO it puts the CD argument clearly, in relatively few words.
One either has to believe in the laws of physics relative to linear motion, namely, conservation of momentum, or trust that the official narrative of the 911 atrocity is true. They are mutually exclusive.Objects or buildings that fall at a free-fall rate fall with no resistance. Discounting air resistance, this is the case with WTC1, 2 and especially building 7. The widely trumpeted "pancake collapse theory" would introduce significant resistance as upper floors would have to crash through many tens of stories of undamaged structure. The actual rate of the collapse of these three structures as corroborated by unspinnable video evidence, exposes the fallacious nature of the official explanation. A free-fall rate of collapse is only possible if all structural integrity is eliminated just ahead of the collapse wave. This set of parameters can only be accounted for by the controlled demolition of these buildings.
Every American has to decide whether to trust this government and corporate controlled news media or whether to apply some critical thinking skills in the evaluation of widely disseminated information concerning the 911 atrocity. Since my government has a long history of protecting me from the truth “for my own good”, I'll stick with Newton and Galileo.
brisa
Sid,
Is this a quote from Rosie O'Donnell? Or are you re-posting the '9/11 truther's' Theory?
-
With my apologies to those who realize the difficulty that I have had in overcoming my lack of protocol, which has resulted from my only recent emergence from the Swamps of Florida, I hope that my basic tribal pride will be forgiven, when I once again state on this Forum "GO GATORS...AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN" ! ! !
Charlie Black
As I'm from Destrehan, Louisiana (between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, nearer New Orleans), which is LSU territory, I believe there is a conspiracy afoot to cement the Gators into a dominant position in College athletics. Its bad enough when the Gators football team wins a national championship.... when does it end?
-
In my opinion, FWIW, the collapse of the twin towers however, seem to be explained with credible explanations and engineering to support the explanation.
I don't mean to be rude, Peter, but you have a talent for tortuous and circular arguments, the main import of which seems to be "nothing to see here folks!"
Anway Sid, here are some photos of the steel after the collapse:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
As far as "Circular Logic" is concerned, I do not subscribe to it. You might re-read some of your arguments however, as they provide a much better example.
-
In my opinion, FWIW, the collapse of the twin towers however, seem to be explained with credible explanations and engineering to support the explanation.
I don't mean to be rude, Peter, but you have a talent for tortuous and circular arguments, the main import of which seems to be "nothing to see here folks!"
Ok Sid I'll, say it simply for you,
It apears the NOT "SOLID" (as was stated earlier) central steel columns were pulled down with the internals of the buiding when it collapsed. This is suggested by photographs of the wreckage.
-
9/11 CONTROVERSY FOR BEGINNERS on the What Really Happened website has superb photos of the WTC under construction, showing the mighty steel frame at the center of the towers.
A brief extract from the accompanying text:
I reviewed the many dubious scientific arguments of the "official story" and noticed a glaring omission. Let us assume –FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT – that 9-11 fires caused WELDED AND BOLTED steel trusses to “weaken” and the floors to “pancake”. Pray tell, what on earth happened to the solid steel cores of the two towers? ???Uh, the steel frames in the middle of the building are the column supports for the pedastel cranes. There are some steel columns, they ae the framing columns for the central shaft, but the lattice shaped structures are pedastel crane supports, which typically are moved up as each floor is completed.
Peter,
Whether the lattice shaped corner structures were temporary, as you suggest, or permanent, the point remains: what on earth happened to the solid steel cores of the two towers?
Well as I have not personally seen the wreckage up close, I would have to rely on the NIST report and the architect's evaluation (also popular mechanics did a very good evaluation, but as the loose change crew were directly confronted by the popular mechanics engineers, the PM people have been discounted out of hand):
Anyway, the information I have read concerning the twin towers, the central core strucutre was designed to support the dead weight of the floors and shaft only. The Curtain Wall (exterior wall) was designed to take the live loading, which is much greater than the dead load. As the steel could not have melted, but would have been significantly weakened due to high temperatures (which will reduce the strength dramatically when> 700 degrees F), and overloaded as the catastrophic floor failures resulted in a "domino effect" of many times the dead load would have significantly overstressed the remaining steel, I would guess that the steel center would have been pulled down with the rest of the building internals. Photographs of the wreckage did show large lengths of steel columns laying out at ground zero, and may have been the internal columns. I linked these photos to an earlier post a couple of weeks ago, if you want to see them. Let me know if you can't find them and I will look them up again.
Again, I do not know what happened to WTC 7, and I do not have an explanation which corresponds to the events of WTC 7 captured on video, so I cannot offer any credible reason why it collapsed the way it did.
In my opinion, FWIW, the collapse of the twin towers however, seem to be explained with credible explanations and engineering to support the explanation.
-
9/11 CONTROVERSY FOR BEGINNERS on the What Really Happened website has superb photos of the WTC under construction, showing the mighty steel frame at the center of the towers.
A brief extract from the accompanying text:
I reviewed the many dubious scientific arguments of the "official story" and noticed a glaring omission. Let us assume –FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT – that 9-11 fires caused WELDED AND BOLTED steel trusses to “weaken” and the floors to “pancake”. Pray tell, what on earth happened to the solid steel cores of the two towers? ???Uh, the steel frames in the middle of the building are the column supports for the pedastel cranes. There are some steel columns, they ae the framing columns for the central shaft, but the lattice shaped structures are pedastel crane supports, which typically are moved up as each floor is completed.
-
The "someone would have talked" argument is familiar to JFK researchers.
The response that plenty of folk talk did needs documentation. It is not a service provided by the western mass media.
There's a similar 'anti-inside job' argument.
It goes something like this: "lots of people in the know would be talking about it"
As we now know, in the JFK case, they were...
Same with 9/11.
Here's an interesting summary of comments by prominent conservative Americans about 9/11 unlikely to appear any time soon on the front pages of the controlled media:
It's worth visiting the original on George Washington's Blog, for links to the original sources.
Leading Conservatives: 9/11 Cover-UpIs questioning the government's version of what happened on 9/11 a traitorous activity? Is it something cooked up by liberals and the Democrat party to weaken the conservative movement or to undermine the President's ability to lead the country in this dangerous time?
Well, let's see what leading conservatives have to say:
Current Republican Congressman states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee, has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (if you suspect he is a closet liberal, take a look at his bio)
Former high-ranking Reagan official and very influential conservative finds "massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax"
Former Air Force Colonel and Pentagon official, who was part of the influential Office of Special Plans, and who was at the Pentagon on 9/11 does not believe the official story regarding 9/11 (see also this essay)
In addition, the following high-level military and intelligence personnel have also questioned 9/11 (it is not clear whether or not they are conservatives; but their credentials are impressive):
Retired Lieutenant Colonel who served 21 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, a fighter pilot who flew over 300 combat missions, questions the official version of 9/11 and said "This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future...Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away."
Former 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006)
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job
Former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions believes that the military was intentionally disabled on 9/11 in order to allow the attacks to succeed (see also this statement)
High-ranking general and the former chief of NATO (in Danish; hint -- he mentions bombs in the Twin Towers)
It is interesting to note that the quotes are by "Former" officials.
It would be interesting to know what if any pressure was applied to current officals, or even what retribution is 'perceived' to exist if overt prssure isn't used.
In eiher case, someone will speak up sooner or later .
-
Easiest and cheapest just to buy oil on the world market.
I agree. But you and I do not run things. The U.S. is run by PNAC zealots, led by Cheney, who stole the 2000 election, when everyone thought at the time that it was George W. Bush who stole it. It was a coup d'etat, with Bush retained as a blithering puppet. Their agenda, as put in writing before they ever took power, is American world hegemony, Pax Americana, including control of the world's oil. The latter need was put in writing by Brzezinski in 1997 in his book The Grand Chessboard, according to which the key to world power is control of the vast oil reserves of Central Asia. All that was needed to get this world conquest ball rolling was, to borrow the PNAC's phrase, "a new Pearl Harbor," which obligingly happened seven months after Cheney took office.
The result has been an absolute debacle, a world tragedy. But that's what happens when control of the world's one great superpower is handed to wild-eyed ideological sociopaths.
Zbigniew Brzeznski's arc of crisis has been the core of strategic policy in the middle east since the era of the Nadir of Soviet influence in Afghanistan, Iraq, their influence across North-East Africa and the Soviet Bloc around the Black Sea.
The strategic importance of dominating the region's oil became obvious and following the collapse of the Soviet Bloc did nothing to alter how vulnerable the world (especially the US) economies were to lost access (or threat of blackmail via control of mid-east oil) to this oil supply.
Strategic application of western control over the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf - Arabian Sea has long been at the center of policy in the middle east.
I believe that most people know, although there have been radical changes in governement, names, and faces at the forefront of mid-east controversy, the nexus of Middle East involvement and policy by the West (primarily the US) has been, and remains Oil, and the largest known petroleum reserves we are aware of.
The fact that we no longer need fear a tactical Soviet threat in this area, the fact that we now have a military presence or allies in all but Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia, has not changed the continued and inexorable exertion of the West's policy interests with respect to Syria and Iran. We have established tactical bases of operations in locations around Syria and Iran such that if and when policy makers are green lighted for any tactical operations, we would have every advantage. Fortunately, it appears that public opinion against such an intrusive geo-political agenda is strong enough to prevent it. Some big brains have even prognosticated that an attack on Iran would initiate World War III.
The loss of access to Mid East oil, along with what appears to be a solid possibility that Latin America would deny the US access, and the lack of other viable sources (Russia would probably keep their available oil, African oil has not been sufficently accessed, and China needs all it can get for its own infrastructure) for long term assured petroleum supply places the US in a strategically untenable position. The US could not sustain a large protracted conflict, even with the technological superiority we enjoy, if we don't have sufficient fuel.
This may be a stretch, but I believe at the root of all the Middle East conflict and controversy with the West, you'll find oil. I guess this is stating the obvious.
Israel, finding itself as at the center of this conflict, and long having been seen by the Islamic world as the antagonist in the conflict for Palestine, has an obvious interest in protecting itself and maintaining its security from elements of Syria and Iran, who have consistently supported radical Palestinian elements seeking to destabilize Lebanon and to eliminate Israel from Palestine. Israel in seeking to protect itself sees Syria and Iran as the remaining bastions of anti-Israeli policy in the Middle East (there have been many reported links between anti-Israeli radicals and both Syria and Iran). It should be no mystery then that to protect itself, Israel would take an anti-Syria/Iranian position.
There has been an extreme amount of propoganda on both sides, but ever since the establishment of the anti-Jewish campaign of the Gand Mufti, Haj amin al-Husseini, the Israelis have been paranoid of radical Islamic elements in the region, and rightfully so.
American interests in the Middle East have been oriented in tactical control of oil, which is a big hitter on our agenda. This is no big secret. Israel has its own interests in self protection, again no big secret. Is Iran producing weapons grade uranium? That cannot be demonstrated unequivically, but does not appear to be much in dispute. Would Iran use a nuclear weapon on Israel? That is the big question. When Iraq was producing weapons grade uranium Saddam Hussein publicly admitted this and stated that such a weapon would be used agaist Israel, which appeared to be a tacit admission that they had a common aim to destroy Israel by any means, including the use of nuclear weapons.
Crying wolf as to Iraq's stocking of WMD has had a politically negative effect on any argument over a US campaign against Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions. In fact it now appears that there is no longer much steam behind any ambition to strike Iran's Nuclear facilities (some pundits have even prognosticated that such an attack would start World War III). Israel's paranoia over the use of WMD against them is still a very real threat to stability in this region. Hopefully Iran can see the destabilizing effect that such a weapon can have if and when such a weapon is discovered to exist.
That (Iran's nuclear capability), therefore, may be the most pressing and real threat to middle east stability, and that would be as much in a reaction to this fact as in the fact itself.
It may of some note that the architect of the "Arc of Crisis" philosophy was Bernard Lewis, a man who has been given well in excess of his due credit as a sage of middle east politics. Bernard Lewis may have had more influence than any other individual in forming US policy on the middle east.
Bernard Lewis' was Zbigniew Brzezinski's mentor and considered to be a keynote member of the Council on Foreign Relations concerning middle east politicis and policy. Lewis likely got some and maybe a good deal of the historical basis for the Palestinian conflict between Arabs and Isrealis wrong. He failed to fully consider the influence of the Mufti Haj amin al-Husseini on anti-Jewish sentiments following the rise of Nazi germany in the 1930's. Prior to that period, Jews and Arabs lived in relative peace in Palestine (at least by comparative standards today).
As Bernard Lewis' influence on Middle East policy, by way of Brzezinski and other modern day pundits, is substantial, a review of his publications should be interesting and is highly recommended. The modern West should reconsider some its policy that has been overly influenced by Lewis, his proteges, and subscribers. I recommend that people look up and review Bernard Lewis' writings, as well as criticism.
-
Duplicate Post
-
Easiest and cheapest just to buy oil on the world market.
I agree. But you and I do not run things. The U.S. is run by PNAC zealots, led by Cheney, who stole the 2000 election, when everyone thought at the time that it was George W. Bush who stole it. It was a coup d'etat, with Bush retained as a blithering puppet. Their agenda, as put in writing before they ever took power, is American world hegemony, Pax Americana, including control of the world's oil. The latter need was put in writing by Brzezinski in 1997 in his book The Grand Chessboard, according to which the key to world power is control of the vast oil reserves of Central Asia. All that was needed to get this world conquest ball rolling was, to borrow the PNAC's phrase, "a new Pearl Harbor," which obligingly happened seven months after Cheney took office.
The result has been an absolute debacle, a world tragedy. But that's what happens when control of the world's one great superpower is handed to wild-eyed ideological sociopaths.
Zbigniew Brzeznski's arc of crisis has been the core of strategic policy in the middle east since the era of the Nadir of Soviet influence in Afghanistan, Iraq, their influence across North-East Africa and the Soviet Bloc around the Black Sea.
The strategic importance of dominating the region's oil became obvious and following the collapse of the Soviet Bloc did nothing to alter how vulnerable the world (especially the US) economies were to lost access (or threat of blackmail via control of mid-east oil) to this oil supply.
Strategic application of western control over the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf - Arabian Sea has long been at the center of policy in the middle east.
I believe that most people know, although there have been radical changes in governement, names, and faces at the forefront of mid-east controversy, the nexus of Middle East involvement and policy by the West (primarily the US) has been, and remains Oil, and the largest known petroleum reserves we are aware of.
The fact that we no longer need fear a tactical Soviet threat in this area, the fact that we now have a military presence or allies in all but Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia, has not changed the continued and inexorable exertion of the West's policy interests with respect to Syria and Iran. We have established tactical bases of operations in locations around Syria and Iran such that if and when policy makers are green lighted for any tactical operations, we would have every advantage. Fortunately, it appears that public opinion against such an intrusive geo-political agenda is strong enough to prevent it. Some big brains have even prognosticated that an attack on Iran would initiate World War III.
The loss of access to Mid East oil, along with what appears to be a solid possibility that Latin America would deny the US access, and the lack of other viable sources (Russia would probably keep their available oil, African oil has not been sufficently accessed, and China needs all it can get for its own infrastructure) for long term assured petroleum supply places the US in a strategically untenable position. The US could not sustain a large protracted conflict, even with the technological superiority we enjoy, if we don't have sufficient fuel.
This may be a stretch, but I believe at the root of all the Middle East conflict and controversy with the West, you'll find oil. I guess this is stating the obvious.
Israel, finding itself as at the center of this conflict, and long having been seen by the Islamic world as the antagonist in the conflict for Palestine, has an obvious interest in protecting itself and maintaining its security from elements of Syria and Iran, who have consistently supported radical Palestinian elements seeking to destabilize Lebanon and to eliminate Israel from Palestine. Israel in seeking to protect itself sees Syria and Iran as the remaining bastions of anti-Israeli policy in the Middle East (there have been many reported links between anti-Israeli radicals and both Syria and Iran). It should be no mystery then that to protect itself, Israel would take an anti-Syria/Iranian position.
There has been an extreme amount of propoganda on both sides, but ever since the establishment of the anti-Jewish campaign of the Gand Mufti, Hate Haj amin al-Husseini, the Israelis have been paranoid of radical Islamic elements in the region, and rightfully so.
American interests in the Middle East have been oriented in tactical control of oil, which is a big hitter on our agenda. This is no big secret. Israel has its own interests in self protection, again no big secret. Is Iran producing weapons grade uranium? That cannot be demonstrated unequivically, but does not appear to be much in dispute. Would Iran use a nuclear weapon on Israel? That is the big question. When Iraq was producing weapons grade uranium Saddam Hussein publicly admitted this and stated that such a weapon would be used agaist Israel, which appeared to be a tacit admission that they had a common aim to destroy Israel by any means, including the use of nuclear weapons.
Crying wolf as to Iraq's stocking of WMD has had a politically negative effect on any argument over a US campaign against Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions. In fact it now appears that there is no longer much steam behind any ambition to strike Iran's Nuclear facilities (some pundits have even prognosticated that such an attack would start World War III). Israel's paranoia over the use of WMD against them is still a very real threat to stability in this region. Hopefully Iran can see the destabilizing effect that such a weapon can have if and when such a weapon is discovered to exist.
That (Iran's nuclear capability), therefore, may be the most pressing and real threat to middle east stability, and that would be as much in a reaction to this fact as in the fact itself.
-
In answer to your question "what does this have to do with Iran",
The original post I made was in response to alleged funding of Sunni insurgents in Iran by the US,
and it has been alleged some of the insurgents have ties to Al Queda...
Note: Only an allegation, ......
Also read Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article.
You might read the actual post I originally responded to....
I didn't ask "what does this have to do with Iran"
I asked "What does the so-called 'Al-queda' have to do with Iran?"
The connection you have re-iterated is so tenuous it is laughable.
This might not matter so much if it was not part of the case being made by war monguers in Washington and Tel Aviv for launching an unprovoked nuclear attack on a nation of some 70 million people.
No laughing matter, really.
As with your typical flair for circular logic, I think you've wrapped yourself around the axle again
Sid, if you knew as much as you pretend you'd be rich.
I have read some of your pre-edu-forum posts (like Indy-media, mydiary, etc), so I have some reservation about your talents in this topic. So I'll just call it a day as to this and the 9/11 threads before I start to lose my sense of humor.
-
But not for a moment do I believe the government assasinated 3000+ people on 9/11.
Peter
Have you read earlier material posted about 9/11 to this forum?
I ask, because you seem to re-introduce the same red herrings, despite their being previously answered.
No one that I know in their right minds thinks "the government" (which Government?") orchestrated 9/11.
The government ain't that smart... and its processes are largely open and very leaky.
Elements within government at various levels, on the other hand, must have been involved if, as I and millions of others believe, the 9/11 attacks were Zionist false flag operations.
You and millions of others think it was a Zionist false flag operation?
Please show me a reference to that piece of information. I have read maybe a couple of two x two off articles mentioning somehting like that...
So you are seriously conteneding the Israelis or their US Zionist handlers orchestrated 9/11...
Like I said ... The moon will be blood red this saturday ... The apocalypse is nigh..
-
Sid,
I don't know anything about this attack on the USS Liberty but Israel has been either our ally or neutral since they were a nation.
If we gave funding to Al-queda wouldn't you consider that giving aid to our (mutual) enemy?
Don't know anything about the USS Liberty?
Then I suggest you do some reading.
You could do worse than start HERE
There also a reasonable summary HERE
Regarding 'Al-queda', where to start?
I think I'll simply ask a question.
Whether or not one believes this alleged organisation actually exists, and whether or not one accepts that some folk now identified as 'Al-queda' worked closely with western intelligence agencies before the latter unilaterally changed a shadowy ally into an archetypal arch-enemy... please answer me this.
What does the so-called 'Al-queda' have to do with Iran?
As Bin Laden had specifically taken credit for the 9/11 attacks on Al Jazeera and alot of positive press has been alloted the hijackers from al Queda, if, as has been suggested, we would actually support them, then that should be brought to the US court system. You would agree with that?Please give a reference to your claim that Bin Laden took credit for the 9/11 attacks.
HERE is an interview where he explicitly denies involvement:
I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.In answer to your question "what does this have to do with Iran",
The original post I made was in response to alleged funding of Sunni insurgents in Iran by the US,
and it has been alleged some of the insurgents have ties to Al Queda...
Note: Only an allegation, ......
Also read Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article.
You might read the actual post I originally responded to....
-
Well Sid,
First of all your discussing Bldg. 7 and the ridiculous time stamp - reporting of the bldg. collapse as though this is indicative of a high level conspiracy by the US Governemnt to assasinate thousands of Americans.
I don't buy it!
Please re-read George Monbiot's post, that will pretty well sum up the way I feel about the so called "Truthers" screaming conspriacy over 9/11.
Also you need to lighten up a little, if you can't take a little harmless tongue in cheek criticism, becauase that is what it was.
There are conditions afoot which do merit quite a bit of concern for me though, but trying to bolster the 9/11 "Loose Change" theories and the conspiracy angle isn't one of them, that's just my opinion.
Thanks, Peter.
If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it.
I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view!
I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke.
Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing.
Apparently,
Maybe my sense of humor is a little warped. I'll go along with that.
Anyway, I believe that the BBC's jouornalistic integrity was exposed to be weak when they were caught taping a newsclip of the WTC 7 collapse before the fact. I don't believe the collapse was in doubt at that point but the typical reporter's gambit is to "scoop" his rivals and any tactic short of actually producing the event is used.
I think they knew #7 was going to be "Pulled" and scooped everybody as is their wont.
So what?
If someone knew the building was going to be "helped" to collapse to ensure the safety of surroundng bldgs. etc. what does that signify?
A tempest in a teapot.
So Peter
In your latest theory, you accept that WTC-7 was 'pulled' (demolished deliberately).
But you don't think that's a big deal.
No matter that two ifficial inquiries have overlooked the topic.
"So what?" is your latest tack.
May I ask, Peter, how long you think it takes to rig a 47-storey building for demolition so it collapses as perfectly as
?Do you think the explosives were set on the afternoon of 9/11? (I suggest a moment's reflection would tell you that's impossible)
Or do you think the building was pre-rigged with explosives?
If so, when and on whose authority?
Do you now claim it's normal for large tower blocks in NYC to be pre-rigged with explosives?
I didn't say it was rigged with exposives.
There may be many ways to "help" a building to collapse such that it is far safer than an uncontrolled collapse.
Likely the legal quagmire would make it impossible to perfrom this type of tactic openly, but thats just a guess on my part.
Look, in all seriousness - I was born in NYC.
My brother was four blocks away when the first plane hit, he saw much of the remaining events.
My sister in law knew people killed on 9/11.
I take it very seriously. I do not take much of the "truther" movement seriously. In fact I find the attempt by the producers of loose change to capitalize on 9/11 to be heinous. So I'd rather tread on that issue lightly, because it would be rather easy to become enraged by some of that.
Trying to rewind events from the collapse of WTC 7 to prove that a major conspiracy exists is exactly like trying to push a rope up a cat's ass.
I don't think it was a government conspiracy, although there may have been some aspects which have been covered up, probably to prevent embarrassment or preclude some kind of legal entanglements.
But not for a moment do I believe the government assasinated 3000+ people on 9/11.
-
Sid,
I don't know anything about this attack on the USS Liberty but Israel has been either our ally or neutral since they were a nation.
If we gave funding to Al-queda wouldn't you consider that giving aid to our (mutual) enemy?
Don't know anything about the USS Liberty?
Then I suggest you do some reading.
You could do worse than start HERE
There also a reasonable summary HERE
Regarding 'Al-queda', where to start?
I think I'll simply ask a question.
Whether or not one believes this alleged organisation actually exists, and whether or not one accepts that some folk now identified as 'Al-queda' worked closely with western intelligence agencies before the latter unilaterally changed a shadowy ally into an archetypal arch-enemy... please answer me this.
What does the so-called 'Al-queda' have to do with Iran?
As Bin Laden had specifically taken credit for the 9/11 attacks on Al Jazeera and alot of positive press has been alloted the hijackers from al Queda, if, as has been suggested, we would actually support them, then that should be brought to the US court system. You would agree with that?Please give a reference to your claim that Bin Laden took credit for the 9/11 attacks.
HERE is an interview where he explicitly denies involvement:
I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.Is this good enough or is this also part of the conspiracy Sid?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/b...sage041029.html
-
Well Sid,
First of all your discussing Bldg. 7 and the ridiculous time stamp - reporting of the bldg. collapse as though this is indicative of a high level conspiracy by the US Governemnt to assasinate thousands of Americans.
I don't buy it!
Please re-read George Monbiot's post, that will pretty well sum up the way I feel about the so called "Truthers" screaming conspriacy over 9/11.
Also you need to lighten up a little, if you can't take a little harmless tongue in cheek criticism, becauase that is what it was.
There are conditions afoot which do merit quite a bit of concern for me though, but trying to bolster the 9/11 "Loose Change" theories and the conspiracy angle isn't one of them, that's just my opinion.
Thanks, Peter.
If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it.
I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view!
I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke.
Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing.
Apparently,
Maybe my sense of humor is a little warped. I'll go along with that.
Anyway, I believe that the BBC's jouornalistic integrity was exposed to be weak when they were caught taping a newsclip of the WTC 7 collapse before the fact. I don't believe the collapse was in doubt at that point but the typical reporter's gambit is to "scoop" his rivals and any tactic short of actually producing the event is used.
I think they knew #7 was going to be "Pulled" and scooped everybody as is their wont.
So what?
If someone knew the building was going to be "helped" to collapse to ensure the safety of surroundng bldgs. etc. what does that signify?
A tempest in a teapot.
Anyway, Sid,
My writing style is kind of how I talk.
As if we were having a beer in a pub so to speak.
I tend to joke around now and then.
Sorry if that offends you.
Alexander Litvinenko
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
In the April 6, 2007 edition of The New Republic, an article entitled “Rabble Rousers”, about Russian Oligarchs living in London, Boris Berezovsky is interviewed.
Berezovsky is convinced that the Kremlin is behind the poisoning deaths of the Russian expatriates.
The article goes on to say that “Berezovsky isn’t the only one who subscribes to that theory;”
“Putin has created a state so intolerant of opposition that it is possible to imagine that a dissident was murdered by his government in the heart of London with a radioactive isotope. He has presided over the greatest rollback of human rights since the communist era. His government has sanctioned the arrest, torture, and murder of countless Chechens, while leveling their Capitol virtually to the ground; it has rolled over the press and failed to convict anyone of the murder of at least 13 journalists since Putin came to power in 2000. He has installed KGB veterans at nearly every significant level of government and allowed the security service to become a massive corporate empire.”