Questions need to be asked.
Three British soldiers have been killed in an apparent friendly fire incident involving US aircraft in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said Friday.
Two other soldiers were injured in the incident, which occurred Thursday.
The patrol was attacked by Taliban insurgents and air support was summoned in the form of two US F15 aircraft. One bomb was dropped, apparently killing the three soldiers. They were declared dead at the scene.
Earlier this year Mr Browne said 12 British soldiers had died in friendly fire incidents involving US forces since 1990, but that no such incidents had taken place in Afghanistan.
We have been assured for decades that Pentagon magicians are supplying us with armaments that are guaranteed to kill the bad guys, never harm an innocent civilian, and especially – never, never will take out our Willing Allies in our Willing Coalition.
That’s a load of crap.
Why can’t we Get It Right? The generals will blame human error. Then, they bear no responsibility. Perish the thought they admit to reliance on lousy implementation of [maybe] overrated technology?
And, of course, the questions apply more often, much more seriously, to the civilians we kill.
62. mightstar. Read 61 again re why little mention of WTC7 or any of the other non-twin destruction.
“Formerly” because Ryan got his sorry product-testing ass fired for pretending to be UL in his correspondence.
“”UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center,” said Paul M. Baker, the company’s spokesman”
Here’s a sample of how Ryan writes:
“If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind”…
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
Ryan’s missive (dismissive would be more accurate) is nothing but speculative minutae.
C’mon, nightstar, do the Occam’s Razor thing and ask yourself if monster fully-loaded,fully fueled jets could be made to crash into the towers… what in the world would a difficult-to-conceal explosives operation add to the purpose & effect? Like the jets wouldn’t be enough to upset someone. Why would you even need the jets?
You think the 9-11 Commission’s report should have duplicated NIST’s work? Lack of this total duplication (your “light on facts”) indicates a cover-up, right?
Time to give it a rest.
RBG
Occam’s Razor would seem to indicate that when a building falls as though it’s been brought down with demolition charges it probably was.
In order to accept the official conspiracy theory I have to believe a long list of preposterous coincidences allowed 19 Arabs with box cutters to deceive and elude the best organized most high tech military on the planet. I’d have to believe that 3 steel framed concrete buildings collapsed demolition style from oxygen starved jet fuel(kerosene) fires. That would hardly be the most simple explanation.
UL hasn’t disproved Kevin Ryan’s claims. The best they can offer is what Kevin Ryan didn’t do, which is irrelevant to the questions posed. UL fired Kevin and fired off a PR salvo for damage control. The article that you link to says as much(I’m sure the South Bend Tribune is a fine publication).
A text copy of Ryan’s actual E-mail is here: http://tinyurl.com/o8zs8
Read it for your self and see how it checks out with UL’s claims. I have.
”UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center,” said Paul M. Baker, the company’s spokesman”
UL does however certify fire proofing for structural steel which is what Ryan was referring to. Specifically ATSM E-119 UL(google it). Paul M. Baker is a talented bullshitter which is no doubt why he holds the title of spokesman.
I wouldn’t expect the 9-11 commission’s report to duplicate NIST’s “work”. I do however expect NIST to examine all of the evidence instead of trying to prove a hypothesis. I suppose NIST had a mandate to support the official story though, who after all payed them $16 million to do so?
Come on RBG check the facts and think critically. Don’t accept appeals to authority as proof.
64. nightstar. It also looks like the sun revolves around the earth. It “looks like” it fell by demolition. And that’s it, huh? I guess all those other buildings were damaged by demolition too? I guess WTC-3 (the Marriott Hotel) and St. Nick’s Cathedral fell that day by demolition too?
Does Occam’s razor have anything to say about a couple of big jets hitting the building? Again, what in the world do you think happens when two fully-loaded jets hit buildings? C’mon, nightstar, you can do it, say: “big jet hit building…”
Ryan tried to sue UL for the dismissal and a judge recently supported that dismissal. The judge specifically rejected Ryan was any kind of whistleblower. No doubt part of the conspiracy too because the judge ultimately gets paid by the state.
“deceive and elude the best organized most high tech military on the planet.” News flash: Airports are not guarded by the military. News flash: Both the CIA & the FBI have been officially and roundly criticized for their lax inaction.
RBG
Occam’s razor dictates that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity.
“In order to accept the official conspiracy theory I have to believe a long list of preposterous coincidences allowed 19 Arabs with box cutters to deceive and elude the best organized most high tech military on the planet. I’d have to believe that 3 steel framed concrete buildings collapsed demolition style from oxygen starved jet fuel(kerosene) fires. That would hardly be the most simple explanation.”
The official explanation defies the maxim you bid me use. I suggest you familiarize yourself with terms before using them.
I havent made any claims regarding WTC-3 or St. Nick’s, nor did I ever question that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were struck by jets. Your disingenuous attempt to attribute these sentiments to me is a pathetic attempt at obfuscation.
“Ryan tried to sue UL for the dismissal and a judge recently supported that dismissal. The judge specifically rejected Ryan was any kind of whistleblower. No doubt part of the conspiracy too because the judge ultimately gets paid by the state.”
Ad hominem attack on my expert. You dismiss Ryan’s claims and expertise based on him being fired and a court not finding in his favor. Classic Ad hominem.
Why don’t you refute my evidence instead of attacking the sources?
Is it because you can’t?
Ya , I think that’s it, prove me wrong if you dare.
“Airports are not guarded by the military. News flash: Both the CIA & the FBI have been officially and roundly criticized for their lax inaction.”
The Pentagon is protected by the military. The CIA and FBI were scolded for being remiss huh? Big deal, that doesn’t change the circumstances of the days events.
The fact of the matter is that there is no viable explanation provided in the official conspiracy theory for the events that occurred on 9/11/01.
Regarding the judge dismissing the Whistleblower claim:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=13354
From this very forum!
Do your research.
67. Yes, that DU item did have the word “whistleblower” in it, didn’t it? In this case the judge ruled Ryan had nothing to do with whistleblowing.
66. Occam’s Razor: “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one,” or alternately, “the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.”
1. We see big jet fly into building and explode. Building falls down.
2. We see big jet fly into building and explode. Also, explosives are placed surreptitiously all over a number of buildings and made to go off precisely at the right moment in case the jets aren’t enough to bring the buildings down but also done in such a way as to perfectly hide all this activity for reasons no one knows why for sure. Building falls down.
Choose the simplest explanation.
So why on earth can you not answer the question “what do you think happens when a fully-loaded, fully-fueled huge jet flies full speed and explodes into a building held up by metal?” You’re doing a very good job of ignoring this. You’re permitted to say you have absolutely no idea even if most of the rest of the world can see the answer.
I’m asking if all the damaged buildings including the ones that collapsed completely were also part of your demolition conspiracy. Or do you think the collapsing WTC 1 & 2 could actually cause collateral destruction itself?
If anything I’ve said about Ryan has not been found a fact in law, let me know. If anything I have said about Ryan is not relevent, let me know. He used his position at UL to try to give his arguments the credibility he could not attain otherwise. He got justifiably fired for this.
“Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.”
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
You’re right. I can’t refute your evidence. You’ve shown none other than to say what you’d like to have happened.
“The fact of the matter is that there is no viable explanation provided in the official conspiracy theory for the events that occurred on 9/11/01.”
Oops. Don’t be say’n that or you’ll make things too easy for me. Sounds like you’ve made your mind up without reading anything except what you want to hear. I seriously doubt you’ve done even that. “No viable explanation.” You know as well as I do that the accepted explanation is plenty viable – whether you think it is the right explanation or not. Go check out a poll if you think otherwise.
If you are truly interested in any of this – and you are not, but I’ll go through the obligatory motions anyway – Google any one of dozens of the 9-11 debunking sites that will answer every one of your questions. I gave you one such link above. And if that is not enough, go to James Randi’s JREF Forum
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64
where plenty of folks will gladly provide you with the actual evidence that will make all your concerns and questions disappear.
Glad to have helped out. See you on the “There Was No Moon Landing” thread.
RBG
Whoops. Meant only to bold just the first ‘every one.” And now to boldly go.
“what do you think happens when a fully-loaded, fully-fueled huge jet flies full speed and explodes into a building held up by metal?”
Exactly what happened. A big fireball outside the building accompanied by minor structural damage from the impact of the ALUMINUM airframe, followed by fires from the jet fuel (kerosene). I don’t expect a demoliton style building collapse, why do you?
“Occam’s Razor: “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one,” or alternately, “the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.””
Doesn’t mean the one that you find to be the most simple to grasp.
Your lack of understanding of physics coupled with too many Hollywood explosions allow you do believe a building collapses in freefall from an airplane impact despite the building being designed and built to survive greater impacts from more massive aircraft.
“I’m asking if all the damaged buildings including the ones that collapsed completely were also part of your demolition conspiracy. Or do you think the collapsing WTC 1 & 2 could actually cause collateral destruction itself?”
No the collapse of WTC 1 &2 could not have caused the subsequent collapse of WTC 7. Absolutely definitely not. WTC 7 Collapsed into its own footprint from minor damage on one corner. If this minor structural damage led to collapse it wouldn’t have the same failure mode. I couldnt tell you about WTC 3 or St. Nick’s.
on to Ad hominems
“Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.”
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html”
True, but not applicable in this instance.
RBG you continue to attack the validity of my sources rather than addressing the claims made. This is a classic Ad Hominem attack format.
To translate from Latin in case I seem pedantic it means at the man. What this means is you seek to disprove a theory by discrediting a source rather than the validity of the claim.
You have yet to refute any of my claims. You offer rhetoric in place of proof. You have dogmatic belief in what you are told by mass media and you parrot it back
I’ve been to your “debunking” sites and remain unconvinced. They fail to address any of the problems with the official conspiracy theory. Nor do they disprove any of the evidence of the demolition theory.
There’s no way I can take the time to go through the entire 9-11 scenario point by point. I offered you sites with photos and eye-witnesses and loads of physical evidence and physics itself that contradict everything you claim (which is mostly nothing in particular).
I specifically pointed you to a site that did exactly that in relation to WTC7 in the rare moments when you were concrete. Photos that shows twin tower debris hitting WTC 7; Firemen who witnessed WTC7 split wide open on one side. Fire supervisors who measured the distortions of the building out of true indicating the building was ready to fall; and the call to evacuate the building as a result.
And this is how you respond:
“You have yet to refute any of my claims”
Help me out here, what do you call people like yourself?
RBG
Show me where that building was designed to withstand a 767 weighing 280,000 lbs loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel flying into it at 500 miles per hour, please. Or was it your feeling that it should?
Jet fuel fires burn at 1,100c; when steel gets to 1,000c it softens (not melting) and its strength is reduced by 90%. Try to guess what happens next.
You’ve seen the photo of WTC twin debris hitting WTC7.
Photos and video showing the massive extent of the damage to
WTC 7 South side:
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Firefighter & eyewitness accounts & info re building 7 on this page: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
“So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.”
Hayden: “By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.”
Sorry… remind me what you had now? Something to do with your feelings about the situation?
Go do your own homework for your other questions.
It would have been oh-so-easy to fake WMDs to justify everything the US has done in Iraq. It didn’t. But they’re gonna take on your complex 9-11conspiracy with a thousand variables to screw up on them but do it perfectly. Wow, who would have thought the US government was operationally so brilliant.
Now go play with the JFK, moon landing and flying saucer conspirators.
RBG
Oh one thing I forgot RBG. You are a conspiracy theorist. You believe that 19 Arabs hijacked two jets and crashed them into the WTC towers!
That by definition is a conspiracy theory.
What have you to say about JFK, moon landing and flying saucers? I shudder to think.
Nice try.
If you want to impress anybody show something a little more substantial other than the possibility of some now “missing” calculations that can’t be analyzed. If you have these for all to see, let me know.
“It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.”
The difference in kinetic energy between these two scenarios hardly even makes the 707 visible on the same scale.
Now I want you to think: why would any jet need to fly at 500 – 600 miles an hour at a few thousand feet near an airport? Why would any engineer need to calculate for such an occasion?
I’ll say again:
Show me where that building was designed to withstand a 767 weighing 280,000 lbs loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel flying into it at 500 miles per hour, please. Or was it your feeling that it should?
So tell me: when this 280,000 pounds came roaring in at 500 – 600 miles per hour, was the fireproofing taped onto the steel or did they use Elmer’s glue? Because I don’t think it much matters. So much for comparisons to a static office fire.
If you could actually see the steel girders not subject to continuous fire, then 1. you know that cool air needs to be roaring past it to oxygenate the deeper fires. 2. clearly these particular girders were not being subject to the hot fuel fires 3. This says nothing of other more critical girders internally involved in a fire maelstrom. 4. No one is saying every girder in the building was subjected to the fuel fires. 5. Any photographic evidence you have of these non-glowing girders would have to be taken with a grain of salt given that the camera exposures would be set for daylight brightnesses.
I get my jet fuel burning temps from NIST and all their engineers. No one seems to be challenging them. You can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts. The tower fires were not jet fuel only, and in the “open air” as per your testing. Even if I used your maximum 980c temp, I wonder how much difference it would have made from the 90% weakening of NISTs 1000c?
You bring desperation.
RBG
I have given you evidence of the design parameters of the twin towers. They obviously weren’t designed to withstand the impacts of airplanes that didn’t exist at the time(767). They were however designed to withstand the impact of airplanes of very similar weight and with higher cruising speeds. The higher cruising speed of the 707 would yield more kinetic energy and hence more damage.
Stop requesting anachronisms as it should be self evident that such are impossible.
In your dismissal of the lack of visible radiance of steel components you show your ignorance of physics once again. Black body radiation is visible in daylight on my 7 year old digital camera. It is visible to the human eye in daylight. A good friend of mine happens to be a blacksmith(yes a blacksmith). When he heats steel to far less than 1000 °C (his natural gas fired forge with forced air induction isn’t capable of such high temperatures) It glows brilliantly in the daylight.
Don’t take my word for it. Buy a cheap propane torch and heat up a piece of scrap steel to test the theory. Do it at high noon in the desert, you will see the radiance.
Both you and NIST have been remiss in explaining how all the fireproofing became dislodged. It is not my burden to prove but yours if you contend the argument. Such is the nature of argument and conjecture. You propose a hypothesis and then support it with proof. You offer no proof only rhetoric.
You ignore the FACT that there wasn’t enough potential energy in 10000 gallons of Jet fuel to heat the steel above 260°C even under optimal conditions. As you ignore all the facts I direct your attention to.
I have no burden of proof and yet I prove again and again the impossibility of the official conspiracy theory. You cling to your dogmatic belief in an accredited authority despite the fact that the physical evidence contradicts their hypothesis.
You are like a religious zealot in your beliefs. They are fully unfounded in demonstrable reality.
Set aside your ego for a moment and consider that you may in fact be mistaken. Check the physics and mathematics. If you don’t understand it then sit down boy.
78 nightstar. You simply made up the fact that the building could withstand a loaded 707 at full speed. You made up that any 707 impact study took into consideration fuel and office fire. That’s what I’m driving at. You have something to show otherwise? Give or stand down so others won’t be influenced by your stories.
I didn’t say you can’t detect black body radiation, only that it isn’t always the case if the sun intensity overwhelms the black body source, in the same way stars are impossible to see during the daytime. Besides, the argument has already been made irrelevant: steel doesn’t need to radiate anything to be compromised. It would fail before ever reaching a glowing state.
From your 73.
“Also you may be familiar with the phenomenon of black body radiation. If you’ve ever cooked on an electric element you would see it glow orange when it heats up. One can calculate the temperature of a mass of steel by the color it radiates.”
So maybe you just meant to add more irrelevant info then since you now agree: “I never made such a claim” with respect to steel needing to glow to be weakened sufficiently.
These are pictures of the South Tower. Everyone was free to photograph them. So they magically progressively weakened? And this continuous “weakening” couldn’t bring down a building because…
I am saying it is both – combined with the initial jet impact destruction. But I’m not about to quote the entire NIST report or supply all fire research here. I can only refute one made-up fact at a time. You are well aware this is the official and accepted cause of the collapse. These are the physical facts which you are slyly trying to pretend don’t exist. But now that you have “just” discovered that there were office burnables in those buildings, we can put the fire issue to rest.
I linked you to a rigorously scientific office fire study by the British Steel’s Swinden Technology Centre, co-sponsored by the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) with TNO (The Netherlands) and CTICM (France) as partners, carried out a fire research programme on a modern multi-storey composite steel framed structure. They give temperatures in the steel components of office fires -and without the added incentive of 10,000 gallons of burning jet fuel.
http://tinyurl.com/2ul27g
You linked me to what?
Now go over to your local fire station and ask them what temperature office fires get to. I’m not going to do all your research.
Yes the fire-proofing REALLY was sprayed on, as the photo I linked you to also shows. And if Bin Laden himself developed this fire-proofing, that wouldn’t change.
Always glad to put you on the straight and narrow with regard to the facts.
Except it’s clear from your demonstrably frivolous and blind “opposition” that this is all merely a political-conspiracy fun game for you. Likewise you trivialize and dishonor those who lost their lives on and after 9-11.
RBG
80. And… what did you learn in that analysis? That the building can survive a hit from an empty slow jet? Or not even that? We saw the building can survive an initial hit from even a full jet. What did you learn? Do tell us. Does it tell of fuel and fire? Or was that, in fact, it? It was “analyzed.” My grandmother can “analyze.” Again, if you have something, we’d all love to see it. But please tell me this vacuum is not what you base your beliefs upon.
No one cares about your black body radiation. Once more, it’s irrelevant.
So tell me, what part of a 767 weighing 280,000 lbs loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel flying into a building over 500 miles per hour do you consider part of the “type of fire you’d expect in an office building”? We’ve already determined the steel beams were covered in fire retardant fluff you can wipe away with your hand, let alone a crashing jet which wiped away structure. So yet another irrelevant statement from you.
You’re a funny guy, nightstar. Gee, all those lofty and respected studies still needed to determine the cause of the collapse for which there yet appears to be no definitive answer. You should read your own sources, you know. Especially the headline. As in: “ONE MONTH after the attack on the World Trade Center, M.I.T. structural engineers offer their take on how and why the towers came down.” Do you think maybe that has just a little bearing on the question of everyone’s “definitive” answer not quite being available? (In fact, that report was published Oct 9th – not even allowing 1 month of anyone’s analysis.)
Years later, let’s check into how some of those studies turned out:
“ASCE/FEMA WTC Team Presents Findings to Congress:
Towers Weakened By Planes; Brought Down By Fire”
http://www.asce.org/responds/ whoops.
“The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O’Mara in Maryland.
It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, “were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.””
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0912-20.htm
Other studies were concerned with the emotional stress produced and the toxicity of the site, etc.
But all part of the conspiracy, of course… of course.
Do you have anything else? Or was that it?
You’re right about one thing as it turns out. I cleave to facts, impeccable engineering credentials, professional consensus and science – my story -all of which I find to be most comforting in my blind ignorance. Which is a damn-sight better than believing wishful fairy tales.
But, as I say, none of this has anything to do with you looking for the truth.
RBG
Clearly you are being contrary for the weird pleasure you get out of being merely argumentative. Given the gravity of the events, that’s pretty sad and sick. My goal is to make sure you, and those like you with vapor-ware arguments, have zero influence over others.
RBG
Once again you shy away from the burden of proof imposed by your claims.
I refute your assertions in order with science and you respond with rhetoric. You tell me about theories and which “expert” proposed them.
“But all part of the conspiracy, of course… of course.”
Conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.
Which conspiracy are you referring to? I ask questions and you propose conspiracies. Are you referring to the conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs hijacking airplanes?
>>”You’re right about one thing as it turns out. I cleave to facts,”
Now I must question your reading comprehension.
I said:
“You in your blind ignorance cleave to the story you find to be most comforting regardless of it’s improbability!”
You have settled on the explanation provided without investigating the evidence at all. Furthermore you ignore and distort the facts in an attempt to impose your perverted world-view as reality.
I assure you I take no pleasure from this debate. Your misinformation is a blight on history and a reflection of your ignorance. In the pursuit of the truth I ask questions, but you offer no answers only excuses.
You say it was “analyzed” That’s the extent of your proof.
I send you to a link with exhaustive experimentation and results of office fires.
There in a nutshell is the difference between the quality of your proof and mine.
You’re a spent force.
RBG
#84
I have offered expert opinion to refute each of your “experts” opinions. The fact of the matter is theres an “expert” to disagree with any other on just about any matter.
You take the words of these authority figures for gospel where as I require demonstrable reproducible EVIDENCE.
If you want to champion a theory, you are free to do so. Just don’t expect others to accept your THEORY as fact if you cannot prove it as fact.
This obvious difference between our positions is one you choose to ignore. The whole exchange is me asking questions you can’t answer. Instead you respond with appeals to authority.
You don’t have a clue what you’re yammering on about.
“I require demonstrable reproducible EVIDENCE.”
I had no idea your standards were so rigorous. Okay. Let’s start with the 707. I’m waiting.
RBG
You are the one profering a theory and thus you bear the burden of proof.
I offered no theory, only questions. I cite expert opinion only to refute your own.
I won’t rise to the bait of your red herring.
As I thought. You have nothing. Just say so next time. Start with “I have no idea what brought down those towers.”
RBG
>>“I have no idea what brought down those towers.”
That’s your line RBG.
My question is what is it you are saying brought down those towers. Then when you substitute rhetoric for evidence I call BS.
I was going through an article focusses on Office Chairs. Leather office chairs smell of success. Leather office chairs, sleek in their design, make any room seem more polished. A Leather office chair is an investment, and tells anyone in the room you are investing with the expectation of rich reward.