Dougsmith wrote:

Sorry, this is one conspiracy theory that is entirely on a par with the faked moon landing nonsense, UFO coverups, or crop circles. Same arguments for all: mainstream media is corrupted, politicians are hoodwinking everyone, etc. It’s Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.

As a response to my points above, all I see here is “guilt-by-association” and “ad-hominem” fallacies.  Like I said, you may be right about its being bunk, but you haven’t refuted even a single insinuation. 

I suppose you also think its “Alice-in-Wonderland stuff” to think that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in order to persuade the public to go along with the invasion of Iraq?  They would never lie or hide things from the public.  Nooo.  Only a real gullible wacko would think so, right?

>So as a welder you’ve personally and repeatedly ignited jet fuel in a large office building by crashing an airliner into it>
I didnt say that. I said talk to a welder. You have a forge? I do. It is the *ONLY* other way that I know of to get that color on steel. Pick one; it is real easy. either the photo has been doctored to show that color. Or- the fuel, in this you suggest Jet fuel, but any of a large number of hydrocarbons would do, was mixed with oxygen under pressure to deliver it fast enough to create that kind of heat.

In a forge, you need a *blower*, and you start with charcoal or coal, which itself is solid so that the various chunks have more surface than a pool of liquid does. Which is what the Jet fuel on the floor of the twin tower would have been. Yes, there was that brief moment when impact sprayed droplets of jet fuel all over that area, but as has been pointed out by others, the available oxygen would have been immediately used up. And now, if you want to get that kind of red heat, you need a blower, and you need to dropletize the fuel so it has enough surface area. It aint like a furnace with a pool of burning liquid. You can, and people have, and I know one mechanic who heats his shop by simply dripping used crankcase oil into a heater, create fire, but note… the whole setup is made of mild steel, not the kind of high strength steel used in the twin towers.

They used the high strength steel to minimize column diameter and maximize rentable floor space. And ya sure, if you heat it up, its weaker. but it dont get that color splashing kerosene on it. Ask a welder, dont take my word for it, After you have talked to a welder and know something other than what you can pull out of your anal orifice, then maybe others would care to read about it.

I dont really claim to know. I dont have a conspiracy theory because I dont claim to know that I have the relevant and accurrate facts to go on. I asked if the photo was doctored. One response, I found useful, was by someone who said he was familiar with what could be done with photoshop. And he dont think it was doctored. But if we could trace the origin of the photo, and maybe talk to the crane operator, we mite have more to go on.

So now, what I am asking for is revelvant data that can be verified, and your response is to question what I know about Jet planes. I dont think anyone really cares. You are trying to defend a point of view. I am not. I am perfectly willing to wait until I have more facts to go on. And yes, to the other point in this thread, when airliners crash, the Jet fuel; often burns, and a lot of the metal melts. The aluminum & magnesium. NOT steel. At best what you can do with jet fuel, lacking blown oxygen, is case harden the steel because of the carbon in the fuel. As a welder.

Of course, you can always delete my comments cause it makes you look bad. I dont mind, I dont mind going where I dont annoy people, but if you do decide to do that, I’d appreciate it if you brought that to my attention. What you all think here is your business. I dont have a problem with it. I can ask about the doctored photography elsewhere.

Daybrown,

My response was intended to point out that you present it as a certainty that, unless the photo is a fake, the color of the steel is proof that the collapse was not caused by the planes flying into the tower. The fact is that is not something you can know, it is, as you so elegantly put it, something you pulled out of your anal orifice. We’re not talking about splashing some kerosene on some steel and lighting it. The sequence of events I listed is unique, so how can you know that it could not have led to a combination of pressure and temperature that would be sufficient to have steel that color? I am certainly interested in facts, and all you present are assertions and suspicions, not facts.

As for the photo, I don’t think with today’s technology anyone can say whether it was doctored or not, though I certainly accept that George would know better than I. But it’s irrelevant because you and the welders you know don’t know any more about what happens when you crash an airliner into a building than any of the rest of us. I’m not defending a point of view, merely asking for actual facts, not just assertions that the simplest explanation is insufficient.

HERE is a respone to the arguments about the temperature necessary to cause the steel in the buildings to collapse. I don’t feel the need to choose sides on the engineering question, but there seem to be plenty of people better informed about building materials and design than you or I who do not find the question as compelling as you do. You can certainly find this sort of information just as easily as I can. If you are really interested in opinions about the steel and materials properties, there are probably better places to look, especially since my opinion (which is that your argument is based on unwarranted assumptions) seems to piss you off so much.

As far as I know, there is no way to know for sure is a photo is a fake, unless it were a bad one. The work done I know on the topic is still in early stages.

I’d say this photo has a bad quality (maybe a cell photo?), so for me it’s impossible to tell if the darks things are metal obscured by heat, stained material or a light effect.

Well, again. Thanx. I keep saying that I do not claim to know what happened on 911.
I have not said why the towers fell, only that the color of the steel in the photo is simply not achievable by burning Jet fuel without augmented oxygen, and even then I dunno, not having worked with the kind of High strength steel the towers were spozed to be made of.

It is really curious why this has not been clarified long ago. If Thermite, thermat, and explosives were used, then tiny droplets of molten steel would have been blown out of the building along with all the other debris, harden in the air, and land like shotgun pellets some distance from the tower. Some of them, if indeed it was controlled demolition would still be hidden in sidewalk cracks, window sills in the neighborhood, or other obscure sheltered places.

All anyone needs to do is to go down there with a magnet, a jeweler’s loup, and an ice pick to pluck out some debris and see what, if anything, sticks to the magent. No steel, no demolition. [that’s a period]

Yet, after all this time, nobody has gone down to look and post a report. Why not?

Pragmatic Naturalist - 24 June 2007 03:12 PM

I suppose you also think its “Alice-in-Wonderland stuff” to think that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in order to persuade the public to go along with the invasion of Iraq?  They would never lie or hide things from the public.  Nooo.  Only a real gullible wacko would think so, right?

Huh? No, there’s plenty of good evidence of that, stated in all its lurid detail in the “mainstream media”. But this is also “guilt by association”, as you would put it, and as such a bad argument.

My other arguments stand as extremely strong prima facie reasons to believe that there was no extensive coverup of the causes of 9/11. Further conspiracy-mongering on this issue requires extraordinary evidence, rather than the sort of piddling stuff that has been provided so far.

perhaps you are willing to read this…

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Sorry, I don’t have time to read through masses of largely irrelevant info. A quick look doesn’t show anything but confusion, empty innuendo and obscurantism.

I wonder if these people think that Snopes (see HERE and HERE), Skeptic Magazine (See HERE), and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (see HERE) are in on the conspiracy?

I like Chomsky’s reply when asked about the 9/11 “conspiracy”. Watch here. His answer sounds about right to me…

George - 26 June 2007 02:53 PM

I like Chomsky’s reply when asked about the 9/11 “conspiracy”. Watch here. His answer sounds about right to me…

On one hand, George Bush and his cronies are often accused of the grossest ineptitude and incompetence, not being able to find their asses with both hands and a flashlight.  But the very same people accuse the Bush administration of one of the grandest and most elaborate conspiracies of all time.  The sad truth is that they couldn’t even avoid leaking the name of a CIA operative, much less keep quiet about such a thing as what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are so convinced they’re guilty of.  I’ll bet they can’t agree on lunch.  Chomsky is absolutely spot on.

I’ve been in the design and construction industry my entire career.  The only credible drawings are those marked “Issued for Construction,” featuring the designer’s and engineer’s professional stamps, plus all the approval signatures of the concerned parties, municipal code officials (where applicable), and safety organizations.  Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see those drawings at the 9/11 “research” web site.

The sad truth is that they couldn’t even avoid leaking the name of a CIA operative

“Avoid leaking”?  As if it was just a dumb accident?  They were hell-bent on war with Iraq and would stop at nothing to protect that goal.  Remember the run-up to the war?  Remember the threats of mushroom clouds? 

They leaked the name on purpose as retribution; because Joe Wilson proved that they knew that the supposed document connecting Iraq to a sale of yellow-cake uranium from Niger was a forgery.  It is all very well documented.  Check out prosecutor Fitzgerald’s website.

George Bush and his cronies are often accused of the grossest ineptitude and incompetence, not being able to find their asses with both hands and a flashlight

That is true.  But look at what they have been able to accomplish.  They wanted us to be in Iraq indefinitely and it looks like they have found a way to do so.  They wanted to crack down on liberties (which they associate with the word “liberal”) and to ram a conservative agenda down the throat of an unwilling public.  They wanted to detain people without charging them.  They wanted to spy on whoever they wanted to without first having to get a warrant (within 72 hours) or the approval of a judge.  There is now an unprecedented use of tax-dollars to fund religious organizations.  For god’s sake, Cheney’s just claimed that he belongs to a new branch of government!?!?! 

What we consider a “mess” and a “failure”, they consider a smashing success.  (Emphasis on the word “smashing”.)

What made all of these “successes” possible? 

One word: 9/11 (regardless of how you think it came about).

I understand your extreme dislike of the Bush administration. Indeed, I share it. But re. the war in Iraq, they wouldn’t have needed 9/11 to go into Iraq. They would have cooked up a pretense of some sort to do it anyhow, likely the same one they used in fact: that there were weapons of mass destruction there. It would have taken a little longer, but the same outcome would have occurred. Bush and Cheney wanted Iraq under any circumstances.

dougsmith - 27 June 2007 01:20 AM

they wouldn’t have needed 9/11 to go into Iraq. They would have cooked up a pretense of some sort to do it anyhow, likely the same one they used in fact: that there were weapons of mass destruction there. It would have taken a little longer, but the same outcome would have occurred. Bush and Cheney wanted Iraq under any circumstances.

I see your point.

I concede.

But, the WMD thing would not have had the same bite without 9/11.

Pragmatic Naturalist - 26 June 2007 11:50 PM

The sad truth is that they couldn’t even avoid leaking the name of a CIA operative

“Avoid leaking”?  As if it was just a dumb accident?  They were hell-bent on war with Iraq and would stop at nothing to protect that goal.  Remember the run-up to the war?  Remember the threats of mushroom clouds? 

They leaked the name on purpose as retribution; because Joe Wilson proved that they knew that the supposed document connecting Iraq to a sale of yellow-cake uranium from Niger was a forgery.  It is all very well documented.  Check out prosecutor Fitzgerald’s website.

George Bush and his cronies are often accused of the grossest ineptitude and incompetence, not being able to find their asses with both hands and a flashlight

That is true.  But look at what they have been able to accomplish.  They wanted us to be in Iraq indefinitely and it looks like they have found a way to do so.  They wanted to crack down on liberties (which they associate with the word “liberal”) and to ram a conservative agenda down the throat of an unwilling public.  They wanted to detain people without charging them.  They wanted to spy on whoever they wanted to without first having to get a warrant (within 72 hours) or the approval of a judge.  There is now an unprecedented use of tax-dollars to fund religious organizations.  For god’s sake, Cheney’s just claimed that he belongs to a new branch of government!?!?! 

What we consider a “mess” and a “failure”, they consider a smashing success.  (Emphasis on the word “smashing”.)

What made all of these “successes” possible? 

One word: 9/11 (regardless of how you think it came about).

Somehow I thought the gist of this thread was to address the various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.  I made a point that I don’t think the Bush administration had enough competence to keep such a conspiracy between themselves, thereby refuting claims that they were somehow actively involved.  In so doing, I upheld Noam Chomsky’s point of view, that if there had actually been an administration conspiracy, it is very unlikely they would have been able to avoid keeping it quiet.  I also refuted the claim that WTC drawings shown at a conspiracy web site were valid construction drawings.  Anything to say about that?

bododio,

I really don’t care to argue about this much more.  I fear being placed on a CIA watch list—or worse.  If I disappear from these forums, please investigate. 

As it stands, I don’t have much of a strong opinion about the whole conspiracy theory thing.  On the one hand there are a lot of strange coincidences that abound.  On the other hand it seems, like you said, highly unlikely for anyone—especially anyone in the Bush administration—to keep such a massive lid on such a massive conspiracy.  I guess I was just arguing that—because of both of these hands—it makes sense to investigate the details.  Of course it makes sense to investigate for a million other reasons besides.  At any rate, I’ll let some of the other conspiracy theorists carry that torch.  I’ve made my position clear.

PN