RSS
Using PayPal
Chris Nelson on Bush, Bunker Mentality and Wolfowitz
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Monday, Apr 30 2007, 6:58PM
Chris Nelson, in his Nelson Report, reveals the flavor of a recent alleged meeting of Bush friends and supporters with the President. It's fascinating to get a sense of where the President is now -- though I have to admit I sometimes feel like I'm in the same place:
The Nelson Report -- 30 April 2007Sometimes insider gossip seems to confirm what all us outsiders think we're seeing, so, for what it's worth. . .we're hearing that some big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House.
The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he's doing things would be OK. . .etc., etc.
This is called a "bunker mentality" and it's not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.
Its relevance to various current issues is all too obvious, including the fate of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. Ask anyone at or close to the Bank, and you know, just as a professional, that Wolfowitz's effectiveness is finished, no matter what. But there are now other issues in play, assuming you think that the US role in selecting the Bank leadership remains important.
Here's a private comment summing up the entire situation, from a Loyal Reader out in the real world of the Rocky Mountains, who happens to be a lifetime Republican, and a business person. We pass it along, as it is representative of comments we get ALL the time from Republican friends. . .a mixture of hyperbole, irony, and angst. . .and is thus a cautionary tale in itself:
"You know, if Bush would stop his self-indulgent stubbornness for half a day, he could see plain as day that he has an opportunity to retain American control of the World Bank by easing Wolfie out. If he tries to keep Wolfie in that spot, American control could end.I really wonder whether his failure to distinguish between necessary toughness and catastrophically shoot-ourselves-(America)-in-our-foot pigheadedness results from biological anomaly. His inability to harvest experience, and so to think and form successful judgments, is just so inexplicable."
Assuming the Europeans want Wolfowitz out badly enough to compromise with the White House on his replacement, ARE there qualified Republican players available, at this point?
One might be tempted to remind Bush that then-Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick wanted the Bank very much, and one might be tempted to add that Zoellick would have been a perfect choice professionally and personally. . .one who would never have embarrassed himself, the President, and his country, as Wolfowitz seems intent on doing.
One would probably be wrong to remind Bush of all this, and in any event, indicators are Zoellick rather enjoys making a zillion dollars as a big time investment banker, and so maybe he's not available.
One might then be tempted to suggest the former Asia Subcommittee chair, Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican whose defeat last Fall came almost entirely due to the war in Iraq, and who would be seen by most of the rest of the world as a superb choice from his days as a Foreign Service officer, and his three decades in the House, during which he served on both Foreign Affairs and, if memory serves, the Banking Committee.
Of course Leach is a "liberal Republican". . .an endangered species, and not one generally found south of the Pecos River. . .and he was a persistent critic of Bush North Korea policy until the White House finally took his advice, and let Asst. Sec. State Chris Hill actually practice diplomacy. Leach is probably still waiting for the thank-you call on that.
But if temperament, talent, and training has anything to do with it, and with Wolfowitz now absolutely untenable, perhaps the White House might want to give Leach a call, over in his Wilson Center office. Just a suggestion.
Great material. Chris Nelson just packs his fax form of a blog with a ton of great insights and important nuance.
I agree with him that Bob Zoellick would be a solid choice.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - What's up with Andrew Young's Groveling for Wolfowitz?» Next Article - Wolfowitz: Stop Betting Against Me!
..."...You know, if Bush would stop his self-indulgent stubbornness for half a day, he could see plain as day that he has an opportunity to retain American control of the World Bank by easing Wolfie out..."... - Chris Nelson
This assumes that Bush has brains. When will the American people wake-up to the fact that Bush is stupid, and I really mean stupid. Bush has absolutely no capacity for deep reflection; self reflection; or any other kind of reflection whatsoever. Even one of his wives Laura has admitted as much... of course, Condi is so blinded by love for Bush that she laughably has told others how inquisitive he is-- although everyone who knows Bush (and even those who like him) knows that Bush is the most un-inquisitive little man, who doesn't have a clue about the world around him, and isn't interested. But then love conquers all (including the capacity to see clearly apparently).
Wolfowitz will never be effective henceforth. Wolfie is damaged goods-- for he is a liar- a war-monger- a war-profiteer- a hypocrite- a reckless & unsound man, unfit to serve in any public capacity whatsoever.
The only real surprise is that the World Bank board doesn't seem to "have the bottle" necessary to oust this crook Wolfie. Wolfie should have been escorted out of the World Bank today and told that his presense is no longer welcome.
Then maybe Bush could appoint Wolfie as his ambassador to Israel ... for Olmert, Bush & Wolfie are all birds-of-a-feather:-- blood-thirsty vultures.
siege mentality
Function: noun
: a defensive or overly fearful attitude
he's got one hell of a lot to be defensive about...
I wonder if John Bolton is available. :-)
Gosh, someone might be realizing that electing a man with a 20 years history of heavy, passing out drinking, in addition to cocaine use and who knows what else, might not be such a smart idea!
I don't blame Bush for being incapable now---he's long past the point where he can make changes in himself. He's been a husk of a human since before he was elected. I do blame the minders who thought it was a bright idea to choose him though---talk about stupidity!
Bottom line, this Wolfowitz/Riza/WB issue is small potatoes, a distraction from the monumental crimes it is distracting us from. Gonzales, and his efforts to stack the justice system with politically agreeable allies is an issue of far greater import. Condileeza Rice's continuing lies about pre-war intelligence, (and make no mistake, they are irrefutable lies, that can be exposed as such with minimal research or effort,) and her intent to ignore a Copngressional Subpoena is a far more pressing issue than this scumball Wolfowitz's abuse of power as an executive of the WB.
Don't get me wrong, of course I see the need to hold Wolfowitz accountable for his actions at the WB. But the fact of the matter is that crimes have been committed by this administration that have cost over 650,000 lives lost, and over a trillion dollars of taxpayer's money has been flushed down the crapper.
The last fifteen topics here have had nothing to do with the current investigations being conducted in Washington. Have had nothing to do with the continued carnage in Iraq. Have had nothing to do with Gonzales pathetic testimony, or our President's continued endorsement of Gonzales despite that pathetic testimony. And has had nothing to do with Rice's apparent intent to say "Fuck you" to a Congressional Subpoena.
People are dying, Steve. In great numbers. The Wolfowitz saga at the WB might be tittilating, as it has all the components of a Hollywood production. But when compared to the absolute horror unfolding in Iraq, and this Administration's criminal intent to conceal the truth about Iraq, (past, present, and future), the Wolfowitz issue becomes pretty damned irrelevent. Its a distraction, and I'm not real sure it isn't designed as a distraction in many respects, particularly in its "airtime" here.
Its ironic that Wolfowitz was involved in lying this nation into a "war" that has cost over 650,000 lives, has cost over a trillion dollars........yet giving a cushy position and salary to Shaha Riza seems to have garnered more attention and disdain than his deadly treason in regards to Iraq has.
The following bears reflection. As pointed out on "WHATREALLYHAPPENED"....if the same money that endorsed Bush is now being shoveled to Hillary and Obama, how much difference can we really expect in policy decisions should either of these candidates be elected??
Clinton and Obama Raiding Donors Who Backed Bush
As senators Clinton and Obama crisscross the country seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and sharply criticizing President Bush, they have been collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors who funded one or both of Mr. Bush's campaigns for the White House.
In the first quarter of this year, more than 150 former Bush donors pitched in for Mrs. Clinton's campaign, while a similar number anted up for Mr. Obama, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data performed for The New York Sun by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.
Ok now I think I "get it".
George Tenet is to the CIA as
Alberto Gonzales is to the Justice Department as
Paul Wolfowitz is to the World Bank as
George Bush is to the World.... *GASP*!
Maybe these pieces of shit should consider that most Americans are not paying their God damned inflated salaries so they can spend time on this horseshit while our soldiers are dying in Iraq, the Attorney general is stacking the ranks of the Justice Department, our President is detached from reality, our Secretary of State is ignoring subpeonas, and our credibility with the world community is being sacked. I don't know about you, but I consider this a WASTE of our tax dollars, and a WASTE of the Senate's time. Brownback and Mikulski should shag their asses over to Israel and take up residence, and stop wasting our time and money.
Senate Passes Resolution Celebrating Israel's 59th Anniversary
The Senate on Thursday passed a resolution by unanimous consent that celebrates the 59th anniversary of the State of Israel. The resolution notes that the Jewish state serves as a "shining model of democratic values" thanks to its support for freedom of religion, freedom of the press and representative government. The resolution also reaffirms the strength of the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship and "commends the bipartisan commitment of all Presidents and Congresses of the United States since 1948 that supported Israel and worked for the security and well-being of Israel." The resolution was sponsored by Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).
I really don't think anyone who advocated invading Iraq and signed PNAC letters should be representing this country in foreign policy, and Zoellick did along with Armitage, Bolton, Khalilzad. Rumsfeld, Dobriansky, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Woolsey.
www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
It was a bad idea in 1998 and a worse idea in 2003.
Uh oh. Kerry has allegedly admitted that Building Seven was brought down by a controlled demolition. So, all this time, we have been lied to? Gee, what a suprise. What else, concerning 9/11, have they lied about?
The following bears reflection. As pointed out on "WHATREALLYHAPPENED"....if the same money that endorsed Bush is now being shoveled to Hillary and Obama, how much difference can we really expect in policy decisions should either of these candidates be elected??
Clinton and Obama Raiding Donors Who Backed Bush
The answer is there will not be much of a policy change, POA. The Clintons, in particular, are being demoted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the insiders. Look for Obama to get his Bilderburger invite in the next month or so. By the way, Obama leads Hillary 32-30% in this FIRST lead in a national poll over at Rasmussen. The first of many to come.
Note to Steve Clemons: show us your Washington insider bona fides by telling us when and where this year's Bilderberger meeting is taking place.
... or at least tell us when you find out.
Paul Wolfowitz is waiting for the Golden Handshake Deal to look after himself and his girlfriend.
Then he will move somewhere we he can milk another source.
Why is it always the folks with the lead boots are looking for a golden handshake?
I realize my post about Building Seven will be ignored here, because too many of you are worried about being labeled "conspiracy theorists". But Kerry admitting to believing that the building was purposelly demolished is huge news. Those of you that watched the events unfold live on 9/11 cannot possibly believe that the precision placement of charges required to bring a 47 story building down within its own footprint could have been carried out in the chaos of 9/11. It simply defies common sense. If in fact Building Seven was brought down in a controlled demolition, (in point of fact, there is no other explanation for Building Seven's collapse), the charges would have already needed to have been in place prior to 9/11. This fact is just basic common sense, and not the conclusion of a "conspiracy theorist". Compounding this earthshattering admission by Kerry is the extreme improbability of three huge skyscrapers all accidentally falling within their own footprints. One building alone, performing such a miracle of dynamics, would be cause for extreme wonderment. But THREE??? It defies all sense of logic.
Citizens, stop allowing the mainstream media to label you for the application of your own common sense. THINK.
Pissed Off American is absolutely right about the fact that the heinous War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity committed by the corrupt neo-con Bush/Cheney junta are being "swept-under-the-carpet" by the main-stream media toadies and many bloggers.
* Bush is able to get away with telling the American people: "screw you"-- and this scumbag is responsible for the unnecessary slaughter of over 650,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, as well as nearly 4,000 U.S. Soldiers.
* Cheney is a traitorous war-profiteer-- who smirks whilst telling the American people: "f*ck you"-- as this mafia-crook breaks the law vis-a-vis no-bid, no-audit, no-accountability contracts for Halliburton, Bechtel, et. al. as well as bilking the Iraqi people out of their oil revenues on behalf of Big OIL.
* Rice is Bush's neo-concubine-- who glibly tells the American people to go: "screw yourselves"-- as this lying slut did nothing whilst terrorists were plotting against us leading up to 9/11; aided-and-abetted AIPAC enemies by passing to these traitorous spies Rosen & Weissman, classified national security intelligence given to Israel (who is blackmailing the neo-con Bushies); and, perpetrated heinous lies, deceptions & falsehoods to Congress (and, ergo the American people) regarding non-existent WMDs in Iraq (including her letting Bush vomit lies about the phony Niger Uranium Yellow-cake).
* Rove is a neo-fascist nazi-style pig-- who daily laughs as he vomits "f*ck-you" to the American people. Rove has been involved in illegally transforming the Justice Department into a political arm of the neo-fascists who want to transform the U.S. into a dictatorship. Just study the legislation that is hastily & secretly passed into bills passed by Congress & signed by Bush which lets the Executive behave like a military dictatorship. Moreover, Rove also broke the law requiring that documents related to government business be kept on-file, by using GOP political web-sites & White House web-sites; whereby he deleted e-mails which implicated him in outing a CIA operative; voter fraud; and, other crimes.
* Gonzales is the Bush Crime Family consigliere-- who tells Congress:-- "Go To Hell"-- as he aides & abets his master Bush. Need I say more about Gonzales, a crook?
Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld, et. al.-- all neo-con goons who are laughing & spitting upon the American people as they exploit us.
The news and facts about all of these vile traitors should be shouted from the roof-tops -- if we only had a media who cared about the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights. Of course, they don't-- for they are in the pockets of corporate interests (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex: defense contractors, arms manufacturers, mercenary security forces, etc.) and foreign lobbyists (AIPAC for Israel).
It's nauseating that we are fed "news" which is dumbing-down the American people-- too busy to observe that we are losing our nation to crooks, opportunists, traitors, war-profiteers, and greedy criminals.
As Jacob Matthan rightly observes:-- they will suck the blood from our people and nation, and then move onto their next victims:-- these blood-sucking vultures!
Outrageous!
I seriously disagree that Zoellick would be a "solid choice" for WB President.
A background in US foreign policy and the stock market is NOT what will inspire confidence in the role of the WB. America needs to begin treating the Bank as an instrument for development and growth and stop using it as a way to score foreign policy and economic points.
As long as things are the way they are, then with Wolfowitz or Zoellick or anyone else in that mould, it will be impossible for anyone to respect the Bank as an instrument for development.
For those who have not had a chance to read this report on Bush's long-term binge drinking, you may read the results at: Katherine van Wormer website. Click on "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush.
Please, please don't tell us that Wolfowitz will come out of this with a multi-million dollar buy-out. Don't tell us that the World Bank board allowed such to be written into his contract.
Pissed Off American, I watched the Youtube clip of Kerry responding to that question about Building 7. He didn't "admit" anything. He (and Tereza) both said something noncommittal along these lines: We're open to anything that's "supported by scientific evidence."
Also, it's completely false that Silverstein took the insurance money and ran with it. He rebuilt and lost hundreds of millions of dollars. Wanna know where all that disinformation comes from? A neo-Nazi named Christopher Bollyn pulled it out of his ass. Silverstein is Jewish, get it?
All of you 9-11 Deniers are being conned by a couple neo-Nazis.
The intent of Bushco. is to implode all structual integrity of our government.
9-11 was a symbol of the body politic.
Hijacked and brought down so a new plan, that in reality is not plan so much as a process, to poison all discourse and office with partisan stains. Thus on appointing and insulating any hint of genuine ethics and nonpartisanship within the whole fabric of civil state government, Bush drives forward.
The theft and looting of treasury and trust then can happen unabated. See the forest for the Bush. The big picture.
Follow the Money.
The intent of Bushco. is to implode all structural integrity of our government in its entirety.
9-11 was a symbol of the body politic.
Hijacked and brought down so a new plan, that in reality is not plan so much as a process, to poison all discourse and office with partisan stains. Thus on appointing and insulating any hint of genuine ethics and non-partisanship within the whole fabric of civil state government, Bush drives forward.
The theft and looting of treasury and trust then can happen unabated. See the forest for the Bush. The big picture.
Follow the Money.
My concern is what is Bush going to do in his final death throes? ...cleave even harder to the neos who tell him that history will vindicate him? Will he "show" us all how sure he is of
himself by attacking Iran before he leaves office
and leave the mess for the next one to deal with?
Everyone including congress knows the deal with Bush and the neos and the Iraq war....they plain
out lied to the public knowing people would die in a war for their lies...and everyone knows it.
And yet they investigate everything but that. They investigate only what the repubs did to steal power from the dems, not what has been
done to the country.
Nothing has been done to prevent another cabal from doing the same thing again in the future.
No new laws, no safeguards, no punishment, nothing.
They wouldn't even insert a clause requiring Bush
to come to congress before launching another
war.
I see nothing from congress or any of the leading
candidates to say they have learned anything or
will really reverse the country's course.
Maybe bush can wipe his brow if he finds any of these dc weirdos are not all dc neo-con weirdos?!
from Wayne Madsen today --
May 1, 2007 -- The DC Madam's client list has official Washington on pins and needles. There is much speculation about the identities of the clients of Deborah Palfrey's Pamela Martin & Associates escort service now said to include a White House economist, the head of a neo-con think tank, Pentagon officials, a corporate CEO, and at least one member of the House of Representatives. Reports that some clients enjoyed "spanking" from the house calling masseuses will certainly increase the scandal factor ten-fold.
NOW we're getting to the nitty gritty here. POA, Gadfly, Mr. Murder, Carroll. I, for one, didn't ignore your comments about Building Seven, POA. I'd read that, too: As in:
"WTC Building 7 was a 47-story building in the WTC complex that collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11. The building had been structurally reinforced and was not hit by a plane yet collapsed in a uniform implosion within its own footprint in a matter of seconds after sustaining relatively light debris and fire damage following the collapse of the twin towers.
News networks like BBC and CNN...WERE REPORTING THAT THE BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED BEFORE IT FELL...indicating that the media were being handed a script of events that had yet to even unfold.
Ground zero EMT's, firefighters and police were all told hours in advance to clear a collapse zone for Building 7 as it was going to be "brought down."
"In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an accidental event caused by the fall of the twin towers."
Now then, of course one worries about being tagged a "conspiracy theorist"...and denigrated like Rosie O'Donnell has been since she brought this subject up and raised the questions you have raised.
However, it seems to me that the above FACTS could be checked out. Regardless what John Kerry or his wife may or may not have said.
Also, is it true.....or not true.....Yes or No....that the Neo-cons running this government wrote years BEFORE 9/11 that what was needed was a new Perle....eh....Pearl Harbor??? An event to terrorize people into compliance with their evil agenda to grab POWER and take over the world? All spelled out there in THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (PNAC).....was it not?? It's....uh.....a FACT.
This morning I was re-reading the eloquent "Neo-Conned" -- the speech by Congressman Ron Paul who addressed the U.S. House of Representatives on JULY 10, 2003. I commend it to you.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/july_2003/neo_conned.htm
If and when one reads it....as a reminder of what the Neo-Cons BELIEVE....then it isn't hard to stretch one's imagination to see how they COULD be capable of the evil of pre-emptive war....as doctrine.
Makes you sick to your stomach...realizing .....reading what Ledeen wrote....about how it's OK to lie -- the Neo-Con camp had been anxious to go to war on Iraq FOR A DECADE...BEFORE... it occurred. They welcomed Frances Fukuyama's "end of history" declaration! Other Neo-Con heroes: Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. Ledeen's 1999 book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership (subtitled: Why Machiavelli's iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago). They BELIEVE IN THE PRINCIPLE OF PRE-EMPTIVE WAR.
Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader, 'A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war."
Further, as Ledeen explains, "In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into evil.' This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging...we are rotten," argues Ledeen.
Ledeen argues that "certain tools are permissable to use. For instance: 'lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased."
What about the effects of lying on one's own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it "strategic deception" make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or cancelled."
So, I for one am with you POA. Something is...has been...very rotten here. (Not much of a stretch to building 7)
And it's a whole helluva lot more than Wolfie working the system to get his mistress a big pay increase.
Or, George Tenet lying about all he knew. And when it knew it. Waiting to say anything so he could sell his book and make a big profit.
Or, Colin Powell.
Or.....
I hear it all the time now: You can't make this stuff up.
You don't have to. The truth is more bizarre than many of us could have imagined. (Eh, Condi?)
So often I read things like the quote from “Loyal Reader” above, stating disbelief that Bush could be so ‘self-indulgent’, ‘stubborn’, ‘pig-headed’, and unable to ‘harvest experience…to think and form successful judgments’. Typically these are played off as character flaws or that they point to Bush’s stupidity. I think these actions come from a much different place – a much darker, scarier place – and we are remiss to dismiss them simply as ‘bad judgment’.
In my opinion, most if not all of Bush’s decisions are made based solely on his religious beliefs. He prays, he asks for guidance, then he does what he ‘thinks’ is right – what he ‘thinks’ Jesus would want him to do. Now I am not a religious person, nor am I trying to justify what Bush does, but I think it’s important to keep this in mind. When the Pope in Rome says abstinence is good and condoms are bad, is this because he’s ‘self-indulgent and pig-headed’, or is it because he believes in his heart of hearts that this is what Jesus would want him to do???
In a way, Bush believes that he himself walks on water, can do no wrong because he is doing the Lord’s work. How could he possibly be wrong?!? The surge is a perfect example. He fired any and all the Generals that thought we should leave, found one that will stay the course, and now he’s waiting for that miracle to happen, to solve all the problems that his administration has caused in Iraq…!!! All the more ironic when you consider that government based first on religion and beholden to religious leaders is what we are so scared of in Iran.
"If and when one reads it....as a reminder of what the Neo-Cons BELIEVE....then it isn't hard to stretch one's imagination to see how they COULD be capable of the evil of pre-emptive war....as doctrine."
This is the kind of "thinking" that got us into Iraq and Nam and all the other messes we've found ourselves in.
"Also, is it true.....or not true.....Yes or No....that the Neo-cons running this government wrote years BEFORE 9/11 that what was needed was a new Perle....eh....Pearl Harbor??? An event to terrorize people into compliance with their evil agenda to grab POWER and take over the world? All spelled out there in THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY (PNAC).....was it not?? It's....uh.....a FACT."
And? What does this PROVE?
Posted by BodhiGus at May 1, 2007 03:03 PM
>>>>>>>>>>
I think it is more than religion. Religion was just his second crutch.
Now he is using a history crutch... "History will
vindicate me"
Liquor crutch to God crutch to history crutch.
Bush is a true mental and emotional addict with all the crutches and denial that go along with it.
If only his "next" crutch would be "I was betrayed"....we might be able to prosecute
the rest of the cabal.
MP, doesn't PROVE anything...except maybe intent...motivation. What might SEEM so far-fetched -- the ramblings of conspiracy theorists POA spoke of -- could very well be true given what we know of how those in charge think. What they believe. That's not of interest to you?
It sounds like the Ray McGovern's and others have the "proof" you require. At least I hope so.
Gradually....slowly....it's all coming out.
You don't have to pay a bit of attention to me ...or what I say...or think.
You may well pay attention to those who are trying to speak up...who ARE in a position to know.
Courageous souls. I just hope they don't get bumped off first.
Sandy writes: "You may well pay attention to those who are trying to speak up...who ARE in a position to know."
I'm more than happy to pay attention to these people and to what has been shown to be true. I'm not interested in folks who put together arguments that are as weak as the ones used to get us into this war. I don't see any point in substituting one set of badly reasoned arguments with another set of just as badly reasoned arguments. One the Web bad "information" travels fast and gets accepted as "fact" just as easily and uncritically. The point about Bollyn upthread, for example, is exactly right.
Posted by MP at May 1, 2007 03:55 PM
>>>>>>>>>
I would say that PNAC along with "Clean Break"
along with the actions and lies we now know all
the PNAC and Clean Break neo's told about the
reason to invade Iraq adds up to "this is what they wanted to happen"....
Now, were they or their friends "enablers" of this type of event?
For 911 to happen and for ALL US agencies to fail on the same day at the exact same time and fail totally doesn't mean anyone had to DO anything... it could mean some thing WERN"T DONE "on purpose" for some time beforehand.
I would like to see all those "redacted" names of people in all the agencies the 911 commission and other agents themselves said failed in their duties and refused to take action on their "urgent" reports.
Carroll, I know what you (and the others) are saying.
And there is plenty to hang the Neos with--the war, for example--that is, the RESPONSE to 9/11.
But let me point something out. When you say, "...for ALL US agencies to fail on the same day at the exact same time and fail totally doesn't mean anyone had to DO anything..." you are actually saying that a LOT had to happen and in a highly COORDINATED way since it had to be timed. So, if this is true, a LOT of people are running around with this knowledge and keeping it mum.
How likely is THAT to happen--especially with Bush down at 29% and at his very weakest?
But, as Sandy says, if REAL information keeps coming out, then it will become easier and easier for these people to talk.
Anyone remember the Northwood's Plan?
Some crazy General and his fellow thinkers came up with that plot to set the stage for attacking Cuba.
If the General hadn't also been crazy enough to brief Kennedy, who fired him for it, and had just proceeded with it, he could have gotten away with it.
Posted by MP at May 1, 2007 05:15 PM
>>>>>>>>>
I am not saying that they whoever they may be actually planned 911. You are right, a secret like that would be hard to keep within the goverment. But then again it wouldn't take many people to realize when optimun conditions would occur.
I go back to my old bridge description...you want "something" to happen...so you refuse to fix a faulty bridge or you deliberately remove some underpinnings from it...you know sooner or later some traffic will fall thru that weakened bridge...you don't know exactly which car or truck or terrorist plan or when...but you know eventually it will happen.
OK, speaking of nuance: why can't anyone engage the sides of the story that pertain to Wolfowitz's at least partially successful anti-corruption work at the Bank, the sordid, vested interests within the Bank itself or the fact that some of those who want him out actually have questionable motives themselves?
Is it b/c it will undermine the case that this is really about a serious ethical error by Wolfowitz and/or his allegedly bad managerial style and NOT about his past at DoD and in the Administration?
I wish to impugn no one, but do wish that you would read today's op-ed in the NYT by Nuhu Ribadu. Could it be that someone was actually doing something about corruption - even if that person was Wolfowitz?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/01ribadu.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
As for the Bank itself, NPR's Marketplace has an interesting comment about this the other day. Past Presidents have had their own issues and were not always more qualified or better managers than Wolfowitz. he staff there sure seems to be a rather privileged bunch. Riza is/was perhaps one of them, but not all that different than the rest. Their revolt against her reeks of feigned outrage.
Moreover, the ad hoc committee's is staffed with former European and other government officials whose independence and integrity cannot be taken for granted. The leaks are so co-ordinated and timed that you have to wonder...just a little if not a whole lot.
Read more about that in the WSJ:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010008
Can you really dismiss this lightly?
You may not like Wolfowitz, his past or his style. Fine. But that, in and of itself, is not a reason to get rid of him. This campaign to do so is trying to create a situation where he's so damaged that he cannot be effective, i.e. a fait accompli not due to his own behavior at the Bank but due to the campaign. That's called defamation, no?
You can argue (and Steve did) that Bush should have anticipated this before selecting Wolfowitz, that he was damaged goods. You might have been right. But that campaign was waged and lost.
You won the Bolton debate procedurally since he was never confirmed. There were aspects to that campaign that I found unfortunate. But it was fair. This one, however, is less so.
Or am I way off base here?
**Off topic**
Thoughts or suggestions on the following article?
what is the deal with these folks? mass movements of people who are "eager for death?"
Infu&%kingtractable, I tell 'ya.
**Off topic**
Thoughts or suggestions on the following article?
what is the deal with these folks? mass movements of people who are "eager for death?"
Infu&%kingtractable, I tell 'ya.
Bollyn has nothing to do with the Kerry comments, MP. Zip. Nada. You pull this horseshit non-stop, don't you? Tell us, MP, just what the hell brought down Building Seven? Go ahead, man, feed us this shit about coincidences, no evidence, and blah blah blah. The fact of the matter is that the only logical and feasable explanation for the collapse of Seven is a controlled demolition. Period. And as far as "adkay" goes, his citation of Bollyn in refuting my post is the exact kind of straw crap I have come to expect from you. Instead of rebuttal based on fact or logic, he invokes the name of someone that is widely recognized and dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist". He doesn't quote Kerry, but instead seeks to marginalize what was said by presenting Kerry's comments with his own "something along those lines". You know what MP? The only time you join the commentary, for the most part, is to defend Israel, defend AIPAC,(while casting the bullshit that you are actually "against" AIPAC), or to defend the official illogical and improbable "official" explanation for 9/11. It kinda makes a person wonder.
Now this "adkay" character gets on here and turns the Building Seven issue into an issue of anti-semitism. How predictable. And who shows up right on the heels of his post? Heres MP, seeking to reinforce "adkay's" predictably despicable diversion.
FEMA can't provide an explanation for the collapse of a 47 story skyscraper that had a small fire and minor structual damage. Neither can NIST. But by golly, MP and adkay can tell us what DIDN'T bring the building down. They don't know what it was, but they know what it wasn't. And, by God, you better go along with thier non-explanation and lack of logic, because if you don't you're a nasty 'ol anti-semite.
Well, if I was an office worker in a high rise, I would sure as hell feel more comfortable knowing that the Building Seven collapse was honestly investigated. But don't hold your breath. After all, we already know what caused three huge skyscrapers to fall in their own footprints. It was a miracle. Hallelujah.
Here is a "must read" on the fourth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished". Pepe Escobar is in Iraq, in the Red Zone, doing a three part series on what he experiences there. I hope he lives to get to the third part. Or even the second. Bush would probably prefer that Pepe hadn't of lived to write the first part.
Is it any wonder that so many journalists have died in Iraq? Were they fragged?
We have already forgotten about Bush's desire to bomb Al Jazeera, haven't we?
Good luck Pepe. And watch your back, theres a Bush behind it.
The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.--Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret.
This administration and the previously Republican controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America's Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever apparent, only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war - alone, without their President's support.--Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret.
Saif (at May 1, 2007 10:54 AM) is absolutely right. Zoellick is an awful choice. He is yet another of the loyal Bush family servants and his background as USTR is too partisan, from the point of US trade partners on the Bank's Board.
The only solutions are: (i) let PW leave now; (ii) appoint an interim President (there are many good possibilities among the 42 FT signataries) who would act while a new President is chosen; and (iii) have an open international procedure to choose a permanent President, as I have posted about at Brad Delong's blog.
Wow. Thanks for the heads-up on the generals, POA. Good for them. sigh
"The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.--Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret" - Pissed Off American
The main-stream media toadies also fail the American people-- for they are incapable intellectually or morally to tell the truth which is that Bush has denied our U.S. troops the funds they need and Bush has betrayed our U.S. troops and the American people.
Impeach Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Gonzales, et. al.-- traitors all-- just like Wolfowitz, another blood-sucker.
"You know, if Bush would stop his self-indulgent stubbornness for half a day..." We need to stop acting as if Bush is merely childish, churlish or stubborn. It's been pretty apparent for quite a while that Bush is suffering from a pretty significant personality disorder. He won't stop his stubbornness because he can't stop his stubbornness.
There is no point in waiting for Bush to become sensible, because it won't happen. Our system of checks and balances is designed to stop the worst consequences of such a person becoming the chief executive. It would certainly be helpful if members of the legislative and judicial branches (Republicans in particular) would start to look beyond party affiliation and start worrying about the long-term healthy functionning of our government.
POA writes: "Now this "adkay" character gets on here and turns the Building Seven issue into an issue of anti-semitism. How predictable. And who shows up right on the heels of his post? Heres MP, seeking to reinforce "adkay's" predictably despicable diversion."
First, I watched the YouTube clips and my reaction was precisely the same as adkay's. You read into it way more than was there. Second, my understanding about Building 7 was that they did purposely knock it down because they worried that it had been weakened by the blast--that's my recollection, but I won't go to court on it. Third, adkay's point about Bollyn referred to what Silverstein did or didn't do with the insurance. My point about Bollyn had to do with how unreliable a lot of Web information is and how quickly and far bad information is passed. Suddenly, the same information, or confirmation for the same information is "coming" from lots of sources "independently." Bollyn is a good example of that--he is a virulent anti-Semite posing as an independent reporter--and you yourself fell prey to it, as I've pointed out elsewhere. (I'm assuming you don't adhere to his views.) As far as what I comment on...those are my choices. You make yours; I'll make mine.
MP wrote:
"Second, my understanding about Building 7 was that they did purposely knock it down because they worried that it had been weakened by the blast--that's my recollection, but I won't go to court on it."
WTC7 could not have been knocked down by Silverstein's mere ok to the NY Fire Dept on 9/11/01, or whoever he was referring to when he said on tv, "we decided to "pull" building 7. . ."
It takes weeks, really months, to plan a successful demolition where the structure implodes upon itself the way WTC7 fell. This physically could not have been accomplished on the day of 9/11/01.
MP. if you think WTC7 was "purposely" knocked down, then find us the NY crew that did it. Show us the names, any names, articles, videos, that backup this absurd statement.
WTC7 fell with the same free fall as Towers 1 and 2. Forget the fact that WTC7 had all the Enron corruption files stored there, among other important documents.
Isn't it just so amazing that many Americans don't have the answers, don't demand a completely independent 9/11 investigation. and don't care to ask their elected officials to come on out to a town hall meeting and explain their thoughts on how 9/11/01,in reality, went down. Virtually all elected officials, imo, would run out of town as fast as their crooked little legs would take them, instead of actually showing up with some actual evidence as to fully addressing even some of the oddities and unexplained questions about 9/11.
Pauline wrote: "WTC7 could not have been knocked down by Silverstein's mere ok to the NY Fire Dept on 9/11/01, or whoever he was referring to when he said on tv, "we decided to "pull" building 7. . ."
ME: A lot of statements have floated around the blogosphere about the impossibility of such and such happening. Sometimes engineers are quoted; sometimes not. But there are a lot of conflicting claims out there. Small point: Since you admit that you don't know who the "we" is, how do you know the statement is false?
Pauline: It takes weeks, really months, to plan a successful demolition where the structure implodes upon itself the way WTC7 fell. This physically could not have been accomplished on the day of 9/11/01.
ME: I actually don't know that such a demolition "couldn't" be done--is an impossibility--in the case of an extreme emergency. How do YOU know this? Again, many people have stated that the two towers "couldn't" have pancaked. But, an association of Australian civil engineers (in a link posted by gq a while back) claimed that it was possible.
The ASCE studied the collapse. Here's an exerpt from one paper, published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 9/113/01: "This paper3 presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed. The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying assumptions are introduced."
Do I know for a fact that this paper is accurate? No. I am not an engineer and have no way of judging. But the paper was written by trained engineers, and it does suggest that a scenario in which the floors pancaked down was not an impossibility, as is often claimed here.
Pauline: MP. if you think WTC7 was "purposely" knocked down, then find us the NY crew that did it. Show us the names, any names, articles, videos, that backup this absurd statement.
ME: If you think the three buildings were demoed by "commandoes," then you do the same for me. Better yet, find me one person who saw this team place the charges, and skip the links to Richard Rodriguez who says he heard explosions.
Pauline writes: "Isn't it just so amazing that many Americans don't have the answers, don't demand a completely independent 9/11 investigation. and don't care to ask their elected officials to come on out to a town hall meeting and explain their thoughts on how 9/11/01,in reality, went down."
I have no problem with additional investigations. Unfortunately, more investigations rarely quell the questions with these kinds of events. That's because there are always enough ambiguities and unknowns to keep the questions percolating. If 5000 civil engineers said the official version of how the buildings feel WAS possible and even probably--and 10 said it was impossible because of XYZ--the questions would continue. But it would be silly to keep studying the issue.
But I have no problem with calling for an independent study at this point--even though the material has mostly been disposed of, I believe.
MP wrote:
"But the paper was written by trained engineers, and it does suggest that a scenario in which the floors pancaked down was not an impossibility, as is often claimed here."
There were 47 massive steel cores constructed in each of Towers 1 and 2. The pancake theory makes no sense, because, even if the floors "panacked", the 47 massive steel cores in each tower would still be standing, in part if not in whole.
I have talked to a few men who work in the demolition industry and they did all agree on one thing -- three buildings imploding from fire and jet fuel explosions on themselves so perfectly as they did on 9/11 is virtually impossible.
All three towers fell symetrically -- on top of themselves -- not asymetrically -- as one would assume with plane striking from different angles and floor levels. The planes didn't even go into each tower far enough to affect, if any, a few of the 47 massive steel cores in each of Towers 1 and 2.
Oh, I guess you must then believe Silerstein's PBS quote about "pulling the building"? If so, who did it?
There ain't one lick of evidence in any media report that the NY Fire Dept did this --absolutely the big zero evidence.
Hey, maybe Silverstein used "his guys" to "pull it"!
"Second, my understanding about Building 7 was that they did purposely knock it down because they worried that it had been weakened by the blast--that's my recollection, but I won't go to court on it."
ROFLMAO!!!!! Thanks for making my point for me, MP.
So it is your contention that a proffessional demolition company was called in, and they placed precision thermite charges on a 47 story building, and did it so well that the building was taqken down in perfect fashion, falling with in its own footprint. And.....they did this remarkable feat in a matter of hours, amidst the chaos and wreckage that was unfolding around them. REMARKABLE!!!! What a feat, what heroes these unknown demo experts were!!!!
Do you ever THINK before you type, MP, or are you on auto-pilot idiot mode?
(By the way, what "blast"?)
"I actually don't know that such a demolition "couldn't" be done--is an impossibility--in the case of an extreme emergency. How do YOU know this?"
Are you REALLY this ignorant? The building was a forty seven story skyscraper, MP. Try using your friggin' brains for a change.
Why is it so important to you to explain away the impossibilities of the official story behind 9/11 that you are willing to make a fool out of yourself to do it?
"Better yet, find me one person who saw this team place the charges, and skip the links to Richard Rodriguez who says he heard explosions."
Once again, MP argues about something he obviously knows NOTHING about. Rodriquez pulled injured and burnt people out of the North Tower. He wasn't in Building Seven. Why is it so important to you to argue the 9/11 issues when its obvious you don't even know what the hell you are talking about, MP? And the guy's name is WILLIAM Rodriquez, MP.
Heres the link you asked us not to show you. Perhaps you oughta look at it, so you can spout a bit of knowledge for a change, instead of your usual bullshit.
"But I have no problem with calling for an independent study at this point--even though the material has mostly been disposed of, I believe."
Actually, both FEMA and NIST have been unable to explain Building Seven's collapse. But you would know that if you took the time to inform yourself. The only attempt to explain Seven's collapse was done in the completely bogus Popular Mechanics piece, that was compiled by Chertoff's nephew. And the explanation offered in that piece is a sheer impossibility. Which means maybe you oughta read it. It seems impossibilities and you get along just fine.
MP, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And worse, you are exhibiting a blatant ignorance about a topic that you tenaciously seek to argue about. Thats stupid, MP. It escapes me why someone that displays an obvious ignorance on a topic would seek to grandstand that ignorance through uninformed argument. Unless, of course, there are certain topics that you are tasked to argue against. Kinda like being one of Bush's press secretaries. The poor slobs KNOW its all bullshit, but its their job to attempt to make it credible. My advice to you would be to give it up. You're no better at it than they are.
Alan Greenspan available??
Pauline writes: "There were 47 massive steel cores constructed in each of Towers 1 and 2. The pancake theory makes no sense, because, even if the floors "panacked", the 47 massive steel cores in each tower would still be standing, in part if not in whole."
Pauline, are you a civil engineer? Are you a demolition expert? When you say a theory "makes no sense," are you speaking about what YOU know, or what you've been told?
POA writes: "So it is your contention that a proffessional demolition company was called in, and they placed precision thermite charges on a 47 story building, and did it so well that the building was taqken down in perfect fashion, falling with in its own footprint."
I'm not contending anything. I don't know. It is YOU who appear to know what is and isn't possible. I remain skeptical.
POA writes: "Are you REALLY this ignorant? The building was a forty seven story skyscraper, MP. Try using your friggin' brains for a change."
I'm ignorant of a lot of things. Civil engineering. Demolition. What can and can't be done in an emergency of this kind. You are the one asserting certainty that such and such couldn't have been done. The burden is on you to prove what you're certain of. Or at least give me one credential that makes you a credible authority.
POA writes: "Rodriquez pulled injured and burnt people out of the North Tower. He wasn't in Building Seven. Why is it so important to you to argue the 9/11 issues when its obvious you don't even know what the hell you are talking about, MP? And the guy's name is WILLIAM Rodriquez, MP."
True, but the arguments about the three buildings are essentially the same. The government or the Israelis planned the demolition; planted the charges ahead of time, went dancing afterward etc., in short, that all three builidings when down through controlled demolition having nothing or little to do with the planes that crashed into them. Rodriguez's reports are used to buttress this central thesis.
BTW, it's Rodriguez, Rodriquez. I got that from your link. Next time you feel certain you're certain, trying checking first.
"I'm not contending anything."
Immediately after opining that the building WAS demoed, and advancing the totally asinine premise that such a demo could be successfully undertaken in less than a day, under horrendous conditions, you state that "I'm not contending anything"? Bullshit, MP. You have made a number of contentions on this thread, and most of them are beyond the realm of reality, due to a complete lack of knowledge about what it is you are talking about. You seem to have a habit of doing that. Is it by design, or are you just one of those self-obssessed asses that thinks that just because they disagree with something, or have an agenda to pursue, they can fabricate an opposition out of fiction, ignorance, and tenacious argument. Kinda like what Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Gonzales do, eh?
Physics, common sense, and a lack of scientific evidence explaining Seven's collapse all point to the conclusion that Seven was brought down by a controlled demolition. We KNOW that such a demolition can be successfully accomplished by trained proffessionals. Science and experience tells us that. We KNOW that such a demolition takes far longer than a matter of hours to set up and implement. Science and experience tells us that. We KNOW that such implosions have NEVER been caused by fire or accident. Science and experience tells us that. In short, science and experience have been completely unable to provide us with any other explanation for Seven's collapse, despite the investigations that you dishonestly imply have provided the answers to questions that remain unanswered.
I realize I am supposed to maintain a level of civility here, but it just goes against my grain to ignore comment when someone is so blatantly as full of shit as you can be when you grasp on to topics you know nothing about. Watching you furiously backpeddle, with comments like "I'm not contending anything" just cries out for rebuttal, considering the contentions you have made here, both directly and by implication.
Please don't put me in the position of listing the various "contentions" you have made here on this thread, and on numerous previous threads, that are erroneous, fabricated, un-informed, and outright dishonest. Been there, done that, and it doesn't seem to matter one iota to you when are exposed for arguing with the use of unmitigated garbage. You're the gift that just keeps giving.
"True, but the arguments about the three buildings are essentially the same. The government or the Israelis planned the demolition; planted the charges ahead of time, went dancing afterward etc., in short, that all three builidings when down through controlled demolition having nothing or little to do with the planes that crashed into them. Rodriguez's reports are used to buttress this central thesis."
Really? More straw, MP? Frankly, you are full of shit. It is YOU and adkay that brought the charge of "anti-semitism" here into this topic, and it is you and adkay that have brought the Israeli thing into this discussion here. Care to show me where I mention anything to do with Israel or Israelis in regards to the collapse of Seven? I posted a comment about Kerry's statements, and up popped adkay and you, citing someone irrelevant to my post, Bollyn, in order for you both to justify introducing the time worn argument of "anti-semitism" into your comments.
Your tactics of debate are despicably dishonest and diversionary, MP. And it becomes more blatantly so the more you post. Keep talking.
POA writes: "Really? More straw, MP? Frankly, you are full of shit. It is YOU and adkay that brought the charge of "anti-semitism" here into this topic, and it is you and adkay that have brought the Israeli thing into this discussion here. Care to show me where I mention anything to do with Israel or Israelis in regards to the collapse of Seven? I posted a comment about Kerry's statements, and up popped adkay and you, citing someone irrelevant to my post, Bollyn, in order for you both to justify introducing the time worn argument of "anti-semitism" into your comments."
C'mon, POA. My point here is simply that the theory you are propounding is that all three buildings were brought down the same way--controlled demolition, presumably by the government or some other nefarious "force." You have repeatedly pointed to William Rodriguez's reports as support for this thesis. Other proponents of this theory--here, principally Pauline--have REPEATEDLY pointed to the "dancing Israelis" as likely perpetrators of this crime. I have no idea if the "dancing Israeli" thesis is anti-Semitic or not.
I do know that Bollyn IS anti-Semitic.
I also agree with adkay that you mischaracterized Kerry's comments. Let's put it a softer way--I didn't get the same impression from Kerry's comments that you did.
"Physics, common sense, and a lack of scientific evidence..." have been cited repeatedly on these comments by you and others as proof that the pancake theory is an impossibility. There appear to be a lot of civil engineers out there in the US and outside the country who disagree with you on this point. That's MY point.
You quote a private Republican comment about the President from The Nelson Report
"...His inability to harvest experience, and so to think and form successful judgments, is just so inexplicable."
I suggest part of the problem is that he has so little experience to draw from.
MP wrote:
"Pauline, are you a civil engineer? Are you a demolition expert? When you say a theory "makes no sense," are you speaking about what YOU know, or what you've been told?"
My live changed on and after 9/11, because a very close friend went to volunteer his help at ground zero and has battled a host of serious health issues ever since. Much thanks to Rudy's and bush's EPA announcements of known false safety statements on Manhattan air quality.
I am related to one successful engineering contractor who specializes in bridge building around our nation. He's been in virtually every state over his now long career. But, I know, my uncle's professional opinions that I asked him for 5-6 years ago don't count, because you found some Aussie engineers whose report helped you doubt all that nasty criticism of the official 9/11 report, right?
Please find me some pictures, videos, some news accounts, some source, heck -- any published source, that can show steel buildings completely imploding on themselves due to jet fuel fires. Then, show me the same freefall implosions in a steel building that wasn't even struck by a plane and had only reports of "small fires".
Does your skeptical mind skip over the WTC7 demise? It looked like an old ballpark or Las Vegas casino demolition to me. Ah, but, yes, those small fires in WTC7, that was it, right??
I have looked at the structural design of the WTC towers. Have you? The cement floors were poured in sections on each floor and the pancake theory might apply if the cores were "cut" from the bottom. (uh,oh, those William Rodriquez deep loud noises from the WTC basement areas are creeping back in!) Otherwise, the professional opinions I've been left with are that much of the core structure, even with some twisted and shriveled structure would be left intact. Each floor was not poured as one connected cement piece. The 47 cores were there for structural strength and integrity. To contend that the pancake theory applies to the North and South towers in the manner they fell, and then use that same non-sense theory to WTC7, imo, defies both common sense and engineering sense.
Who do you ask for your information?
Maybe you'd better ask those Aussies for more info.
Pauline writes: "Please find me some pictures, videos, some news accounts, some source, heck -- any published source, that can show steel buildings completely imploding on themselves due to jet fuel fires. Then, show me the same freefall implosions in a steel building that wasn't even struck by a plane and had only reports of "small fires"."
Pauline, I quoted the executive summary of a report written by civil engineers that appeared in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Here it is again: "This paper3 presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed. The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying assumptions are introduced."
I have NOT argued that Building 7 collapsed for the same reasons as the two Towers. You have. I actually don't have a lot of certainty about how these buildings collapsed. I'm presenting the views of these engineers to show that some KNOWLEDGEABLE ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS hold the view that what you and POA consider impossible is, in fact, possible from a physical engineering perspective. It is possible, I suppose, that these engineers are wrong or have miscalculated in some way. I doubt they were bought off by the government or the Israelis, but who knows. And I do give their views a wee bit more weight than yours and POA's.
MP used:
"The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed."
Gee, you must be correct! Forget that steel can withstand temperatures jet fuel burns at by several hundred degrees. These Aussie's must be geniuses, especially with their professional use of the word "if" in the above quote. Apparently the bushies couldn't find an American engineering firm (Halliburton et al don't count) to report the same?? Just don't ask physics professor, Dr Steve Jones from BYU. He's only. . .making stuff up. . .right?
Watch the old CNN, ABC, PBS videos -- all three towers fell at freefall speed. Just a day or so after 9/11, WTC7 imploding video replays virtually disappeared from msm.
And one day after this national tragedy, we find both super neo-con wolfie and rummysfeld were dying to go to war with Iraq. It's funny how a "New Pearl Harbor" gets some people frothing at the mouth!
Come on, MP, with your serious doubting-Thomas condition, get a second doctor's opinion!
Pauline writes: "These Aussie's must be geniuses, especially with their professional use of the word "if" in the above quote. Apparently the bushies couldn't find an American engineering firm (Halliburton et al don't count) to report the same?? "
I believe it's an American journal. ASCE is the American Society of Civil Engineers. As to second opinions, I'm suggesting you get one, or at least stay open to contradicting opinions.
MP wrote words ago:
"I'm ignorant of a lot of things. Civil engineering. Demolition. What can and can't be done in an emergency of this kind."
Finally an answer we can agree on!
WTC Collapse Inquiries
According to the official account of the attack as told by media and government, the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed totally because of structural failures. Since no steel-framed building, bridge, or other large structure has ever totally collapsed with fires as the primary cause either before or after 9/11/01, these events would be the largest and most mysterious failures of engineered steel structures in the history of the world. Shouldn't they have prompted an investigation of commensurate scope and resources?
The ASCE/FEMA Investigation
Incredibly, no investigation was funded as the site was cleaned up. A group of volunteers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), many of whom had also participated in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, started an investigation with limited resources. FEMA eventually took over the ASCE's investigation, and named it the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). Months after the attack, frustrations with failures of the investigation were expressed in a congressional hearing.
e x c e r p t
title:
HEARING CHARTER: Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
authors:
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Concerns Related to the Engineering Investigation
Though many of the individuals who have participated in the WTC building performance investigation are architects and engineers with experience investigating other structural collapses - including those resulting from natural causes as well as terrorist attacks - nothing had prepared these investigators for a disaster of this magnitude and complexity. Unlike the destruction caused by an earthquake, which may affect several buildings across an expansive area, this disaster involved many buildings and a massive debris pile in a small, confined area. Also unlike most earthquakes, the WTC disaster caused significant casualties and prompted a prolonged search and rescue effort. In addition, the concurrent criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a separate investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board further frustrated the building performance investigators.
page:
www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/charter.htm
The hearing transcript goes on to list four reasons for the failure of the investigation, excerpted here.
NIST's Investigation
It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began:
NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million. If the problems with FEMA's investigation ennumerated in the Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center, earn it the description of a farce, then the conduct of NIST's investigation earn it the description of a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:
NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question its investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomylous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study 1 This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".
Kevin Ryan
Underwriters Laboratories executive-turned-whistleblower Kevin Ryan ennumerates the official "investigations" completed by mid-2006 in his presentation "A New Standard For Deception" .
continues at...
Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
continues at....
Before an investigation was launched, the clean-up was allowed to proceed, and the metal columns were removed, and shipped overseas as scrap.
Three skyscrapers collapse within their own footprint, killing over three thousand people, and there are no engineering investigations launched before critical forensic evidence is removed. If in fact these collapses were caused by the heat of fire, wouldn't a thorough investigation be warranted to gauge what changes should be made to existing building codes, what metals could best withstand such an event, and what structural precautions should be implemented in the construction of future skyscapers? Wouldn't a thorough investigation require full and immediate access to ALL the forensic evidence?
Not in MP's world. And not in Bushworld. When one digs beyond the surface, one finds that there is really NO explanation for the manner of these building's collapses, (particularly building Seven's). There is simply conjecture, based on investigations that were launched late, and with inadequate funding, after critical forensic evidence was removed from the site.
Does a person have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to expect a timely and thorough investigation (that has access to all the forensic evidence, and adequate funding), when three huge buildings collapse?
Does one have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to question why evidence was allowed to be shipped overseas before such an investigation was launched?
Is this a nation of idiots? Do we just blindly accept the explanations, excuses, and reasoning of an administration that has demonstrated irrefutably that they are criminals, liars, perjurers, and people of no moral standards?
Do we cast logic and common sense to the wind because the apparent truth is too horrendous to imagine?
"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth…. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it — now."
Patrick Henry, 1775.
War and the Police State: Complicity of the American People
by Donna J. Thorne
Global Research, April 21, 2007
In this era of perpetual warfare, escalating domestic tyranny, government-sanctioned torture, and a Nazi-like pursuit of Middle-East domination, one would expect, at the very least, an audible outcry from the People who proclaim resolute devotion to the ideals of liberty and justice for all. Yet for the most part, Mainstream America continues to assume a posture of apathy, bitterness, or eery silence.
When confronted with hard facts and scientific evidence linking key government officials to the attacks of 9/11, ostensibly intelligent, levelheaded people angrily and defiantly reject said information without a moment's deliberation. Sincerely compassionate and peace-loving individuals support the criminal invasion of Iraq and close their eyes to the U.S. slaughter of 600,000 Iraqi civilians, choosing instead to believe in the myth of American supremacy, at the heart of which lies the notion that foreigners alone are capable of such atrocities.
And now, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent establishment of Homeland Security, previously rigid supporters of civil rights quietly tolerate the piecemeal deconstruction of the U.S. Constitution under the pretext of protection, and to their own peril, disregard increasingly strident warnings and signs of a growing and imminent police state. Clearly, Mainstream America has surrendered to the subjugation of a power-crazed, despotic administration whose control continues to expand exponentially with each passing rumor of imminent peril .
Why,when confronted with a black-and-white record of autocratic offenses, are so many sensible Americans ignoring and even endorsing the current administration as it openly paves a tyrannical road to hell? Are we so deluded by rhetoric and weapons-grade propaganda, that we are no longer able to distinguish truth from fiction, thereby allowing, if not abetting our own enslavement ?
Inarguably, a collective set of circumstances exist to explain the acquiescence of the American People. What follows is the first in a series of explorations by which this writer will attempt to identify possible core factors contributing to the scourge of apathy in American society today.
continues at......
Many potential Padilla jurors unsure of 9/11 attacks blame
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 3, 2007
MIAMI: A significant number of potential jurors in the terrorism case against alleged al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla say they are not sure who is responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, many because they do not trust the news media or U.S. government pronouncements.
"There are too many ifs, too many things going on," one male juror said. "I don't know the whole story."
more at --
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/03/news/SOU-Padilla-Terror-Charges.php
POA writes: "Three skyscrapers collapse within their own footprint, killing over three thousand people, and there are no engineering investigations launched before critical forensic evidence is removed. If in fact these collapses were caused by the heat of fire, wouldn't a thorough investigation be warranted to gauge what changes should be made to existing building codes, what metals could best withstand such an event, and what structural precautions should be implemented in the construction of future skyscapers? Wouldn't a thorough investigation require full and immediate access to ALL the forensic evidence?"
You're right...an investigation should have been done.
The material you've posted here is important, but it doesn't prove much of what you and others have asserted to be the case: That the two towers were demoed.
In fact, your questions about the demoing of Building 7 can easily be applied to the two Towers. If, in fact, it takes months and a large demo team to plant the charges needed to bring down a 40-story building...then it should take close to three to six times the manpower and resources to bring down two 110-story buildings.
And yet, no one saw a thing? No one noticed suspicious behavior on this kind of grand scale? None of the thousands of ordinary people and maintenance people who worked there saw anyone or anything? The entire plot, which required huge numbers of people to pull off--and required huge coordination, especially with the planes required for the diversion--has been kept mum, despite the fact that this "team" killed thousands of people, traumatized the country, and provoked two wars?
Impossible to pull off this kind feat? No. But highly unlikely.
If, in fact, you'd been arguing for an investigation, I'd have no objection. Personally, I don't think it's going to settle many of these questions. But that ISN'T what you've been arguing for. You've been arguing for the CERTAINTY of your position and the IMPOSSIBILITY of other possibilities, even though they haven't been SHOWN to be impossible. Thrown in for good measure, of course, you have been arguing for Israeli involvement--the ever handy boogey man--because, hey, it just feels better, I guess, if you can blame it on them. Never mind the fact that radical Islamic grops have, IN FACT, blown up US ships, US embassies and, once before, tried to blow up the WTC.
Pauline wrote: ""I'm ignorant of a lot of things. Civil engineering. Demolition. What can and can't be done in an emergency of this kind."
Finally an answer we can agree on!"
And there you have the difference between you and me. I'm more than willing to admit that I'm not an expert in these matters. You want to pass yourself off as one. I lack certainty. You are full of it.
Apparently MP doesn't know what false flags are, where a country's secret intelligence plannings and actions make a certain regional or world event appear to be done by someone else.
I have called for an independent, multi-national 9/11 investigation for several years. I've written, e-mailed and talked to my congressional offices on several occasions. There's way too many basic answers still unanswered and surprisingly, most of the staff responses I got agreed with me!
MP, the three towers all fell at free fall speed.
Do you dispute that, YES or NO?
If YES, where is your loud call for an independent 9/11 investigation?
If NO, is your tv/pc screen too dirty to see them all free fall in less than 20 seconds?
MP, let's rely on your common sense here, how can a 47 story steel building free fall with nothing but minor fires being reported on one floor?
If you don't know, who have you asked, since you're always nitpicking for your total assurance? If you know, please show the blog world here that engineering group, that one source in this universe that can provide us the answer.
MP, with the official 9/11 report saying basically, "we don't know what happened to WTC7", yet the feds did zippo on any further investigation. Just how thorough do you think that is? Let's suppose your family member or friend were left inside WTC7, would you be satisfied with the fed's efforts?
MP, I know of people who hauled away debris from Ground Zero. Do you? I also know those haulers were gps tracked to a location where the steel was loaded onto ships and then sent away to China and elsewhere. Isn't that illegal to destroy evidence? Where else in any fed criminal scene has the evidence been allowed or ordered to be so "carefully" disposed of with no fed objection?
MP, how meaningful is the closure for the families of 9/11 victims for the feds to force the NY Fire Dept and NY parametics into complete silence by threatening action against anyone who speaks out -- even on what they saw, observed or did on 9/11?
MP, I'll ask it again, what happened to WTC7?
imo, that answer can only come from an independent 9/11 investigation. If that answer is found, we just may get closer to who really masterminded 9/11. With Osama bin Laden's name not on the FBI's "most wanted" list for any 9/11 related crime, who then masterminded it, 19 Arabs with pocket knives and boxcutters?
Pauline writes: "I have called for an independent, multi-national 9/11 investigation for several years."
I have no problems with your proposal.
As I say, I doubt it will satisfy the questions, just because these sorts of controversies never seem to get solved.
If, in fact, all the evidence has been disposed of, it will be hard to use that. Perhaps the event can be simulated in the lab. I find it hard to believe that every scrap of metal in those buildings was hauled away and nothing remains, but maybe so.
If in fact there are lots of NYPDers and NYFDers who saw a lot they haven't divulged and their reports correspond, that would be important evidence. They should be allowed to speak.
As far as OBL not being on the most wanted list, I don't know what the significance of that is. If, in fact, the government is trying to cover up its misdeed (your theory), they would put OBL on the list presumably to give themselves extra "cover." So this point, assuming it's true, would seem to work against your theory, or else the government is just being sloppy.
I agree--the Feds appear not to have done a thorough job of investigating, based on what I'm reading. It is very unfortunate and does a grave disservice to the country and especially those lost, but I'm not sure you can draw necessary conclusions from it, for lots of reasons.
Your reference to false flag operations (I do know what they are) isn't convincing to me. It still doesn't answer how such a massive operation could have been accomplished in buildings where thousands of people work, many of them into the wee hours and not infrequently around the clock (financial sector and maintenance staff) and on WEs. Of course, it's not impossible, but very unlikely I would say.
As far as "free falling" goes, my common sense isn't important. This is a technical question. I'm not competent to answer it. I don't believe you and POA are either. All I know is what I read. Any number of reports from technical people suggest that the pancake theory is possible. Some obviously don't agree. Others, based on what POA posted, seem to think the event falls outside everyone's expertise simply because it had never occurred before. But I'm sure ways could be found to essay the question and come up with reasonable answers.
So...I agree...let's investigate. Who do you think is impartial enough to ensure that their iinvestigation can be trusted?
"And yet, no one saw a thing? No one noticed suspicious behavior on this kind of grand scale? None of the thousands of ordinary people and maintenance people who worked there saw anyone or anything?"
Stop talking about something you know nothing about, MP. The "suspicious activity" you describe did occur, and has been reported by many WTC office workers and occupants. Do your research, THEN shoot your mouth off.
Your arguments are uninformed and ignorant. It is your contention that covert trained intelligence operatives could not have pulled off 9/11, yet a bunch of whoring radicals with razor knives could.
Wise up. Inform yourself.
"Never mind the fact that radical Islamic grops have, IN FAC
Reader Comments (116) - post a comment