Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FDNY Chaplain Resigns After 9/11 Remarks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
deek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:42 AM
Original message
FDNY Chaplain Resigns After 9/11 Remarks
The fire department's new Muslim chaplain abruptly resigned Friday after saying in a published interview that a broader conspiracy, not 19 al-Qaida hijackers, may have been responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"It became clear to him that he would have difficulty functioning as an FDNY chaplain," Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta told reporters an hour before Imam Intikab Habib was to be officially sworn in. "There has been no prior indication that he held those views."

Habib told Newsday in an interview published Friday that he was skeptical of the official version of the attack on the World Trade Center, which killed 343 firefighters.

"I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone," he told the newspaper.

"It takes two or three weeks to demolish a building like that. But it was pulled down in a couple of hours," he said. "Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?"


more at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_re_us/fdny_mu... ;_ylt=AmvcgC9QI8W.BWw0V9oAXb2WwvIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. That was fast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
67. There were dozens of firemen who said they saw & heard explosions
so why him and where does the pressure come from?
He's a long way from the only one.

Is it because he's a moslem?
His view is likely typical among moslems I would think.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfan454 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. He was probably afraid that they would make him
"commit suicide". (wink wink)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Who believes this? Didnt the Jet fuel simply melt the steel beams
and then the wieght of each floor falling from above simply broke the bottom structure floor by floor.


I want to believe a conspiracy I just don't. Its too incredible. There are way too many factors. To kill one man is hard enough. To destroy our 2 largest buildings which contain our 3000 most highly paid workers? WHY! HOW? WHY? HOW? WHY? HOW?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulGroom Donating Member (331 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Oh boy
Here we go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectroPrincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Yes are you gonna believe your own two eyes and not the media whores? /eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. The physics aren't there. The fire wasn't hot enough. Maybe Marvin
Bush might know how it could be done. He was on the BOD of the security company for WTC up to the day it fell down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
41. actually he wasn't on the board at 9/11
He was on the board through 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. World Trade Center was built with then new fangled.......
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 12:21 PM by Historic NY
construction & engineering techniques to give more open space. Load bearing was transferred to the outer walls vs having lots of internal steel supporting columns. There probably are lots of other explanations of how it was engineered, but hot fire will melt & deform steel. I think they also found that there was inadequate fireproofing of the steel, which could have slowed structural failure.

The building did pancake on itself and that was in the design. I remember being on the 89th floor a few times on very windy days and the building actually moved and doors slammed shut. In the end I personally think it was a compounding of lots of factors, not anticipated or planned for in construction. Who would have thought then terrorists would fly large jet aircraft into the towers on purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. This doesn't expalin 7WTC which was not hit by a plane; no jet fuel;
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 12:31 PM by iconoclastNYC
And a different construction.

Silverstien : "so we decided to pull the building"

Pull means in the controlled demoltion business to set off the explosives....

Of course they've come up with a non-convincing way of explaing this comment away.

But all i'm saying is that we need a real investigation by real investigators. Not by white washers who could no doubt have been CIA assets.

And don't forget the ABLE DANGER cover up. You have to view all the MIHOP/LIHOP evidence together. We don't know the truth. We've been lied to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ivan Sputnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. My wife worked in 7 WTC
That building had many unusual features. It was built over an electrical power substation and diesel fuel was stored in the building. The Mayor's emergency command center (including generators) was on an upper floor. As I understand it, flaming debris from the Twin Towers set 7 WTC on fire and ignited the fuel and substation, which led to the collapse that afternoon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
38. as you understand it
Is not how the FEMA and preliminary NIST reports have it. They claim structural damage from debris, but say that the fuel tanks did not catch fire. The fires that did happen caused one column to fail, according to the official investigations. This magically created the 6.5-second roof-to-ground cascade effect that only coincidentally has all of the features of a perfect controlled demolition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ivan Sputnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Key word there is "preliminary"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. The PM "debunking" is full of bunk
Try this

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

And the govt scientists including those at NIST WTC project have stuck with FEMA's "preliminary" finding that the WTC 7 diesel fuel tanks were not a factor in the collapse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrierist Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
51. 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel were recovered from WTC7
There were two 12,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks, and it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the tanks survived, it is assumed that there was no fire on the ground floor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moochy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
69. I've heard...
A contradictory definition for "pull" to mean thats when the rescue/firefighting effort is cancelled, and all personell are ordered to leave the building.

I can't verify this with personal experience or relevant demolitions/firefighting knowledge, but I saw several firefighter types on a documentary explaining the alternate definition, that had no demolitions context.

I agree that WTC7 collapse has to be explained by apologists for the official story.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. While that might explain Towers 1 & 2, it doesn't explain
Tower 7, which was built in the standard design. There was no conceivable way that fire alone could bring down #7 -- so it is easy to extrapolate that if #7 was not brought down naturally, so might #1 & #2.

It's also easy to say the beams were not properly fireproofed when they've all been shipped to Japan as scrap, been melted down and returned to us as Toyotas, without having forensic tests made on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. Final reports & forensic analysis of structure....etc........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #31
70. "Highlights" of NIST's "forensic analysis."
The NIST analysis: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined were forensically examined by NIST. Of the 12 examined core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

5) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C. For one of these three, the forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No steel examined by NIST showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.


For a full discussion of this, see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oblivious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
68. Actually the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a large aircraft.
You wrote: "Who would have thought then terrorists would fly large jet aircraft into the towers on purpose."

The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a plane the size of a Boeing 707 (max take-off weight 263,000 lbs) and it was hit by a Boeing 767 (274,000 lbs) - only 4% heavier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I bet you don't think the government would frame left-wing activists
And inflitrate groups and start riots...i mean just think of all the secrecy that would take and coordiation and law breaking. that could never happen right?

Oh wait. It did. COINTELPRO look it up. Also look up project NORTHWOODS unless you want to keep living in a fairytale land where our elite-dominated government is all sweetness and light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
45. Hey, come on! I believe govt frames people and infiltrates...
etc.. etc.


I just CANT BELIEVE the government CAUSED 9/11.. or demolished the WTC.

Its beyond all possibility.... Its fantastic.. Oh yeah and the Pentagon attack was totally faked.. The reason.. FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE WOULD NEED TO BE INVOLVED.


Please allow me my space to the left of Al Franken and to the right of whoever believes that explosive charges planted by the govt brought the WTC down. I am willing and happy to be proven wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pox americana Donating Member (622 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. psst... they did.
Or somebody did. They brought down those towers like they were Vegas motels with worn-out slot machines. The plane crashes were a diversion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I personally have a problem understanding the WTC collapses.
I'm not a CT'er nor am I at all interested in the bullshit that passes for 'discussion' on DU regarding this event. Nonetheless ...

I saw each of two towers get hit by airliners at different angles and different heights (floors). I surmise that they had slightly different amounts of fuel on-board. Both airliners were 767s.

The WTC North Tower was hit (higher) at the 80th floor by AA011 at 8:45am, 46 minutes into its flight, and collapsed at 10:29am, 104 minutes after being hit.

The WTC South Tower was hit (lower) at the 60th floor by UA175 at 9:03am, 49 minutes into its flight, and collapsed at 10:05am, 62 minutes after being hit.

Each tower collapsed into its own footprint.

One of the most frequent comments I've heard has to do with how the collapse of those towers was "unforeseen" and "unforeseeable."

Well, the problem I have with all this is: how could both towers collapse into their own footprints with such imprecise demolition events, 24 minutes and 20 floors from one another, and still be "unforeseeable"???

I can see how one might collapse and folks ("experts") claim it was "unforeseeable" but not both.

I just can't reconcile the apparent reliability of such a collapse with the claims of unpredictability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Excellent point.
Logic suggests the physics of the two collapses would be different, not identical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. ... or that only one would've collapsed, not both.
Remember, such a collapse was so "unforeseen" that FDNY personnel made up a significant percentage of the death toll and orders to evacuate the towers were not forthcoming.

Again, I find it impossible to reconcile such perfect, orderly collapses of both towers, with such imprecise demolitions (not carefully placed and ignited charges), with the overwhelming majority of 'experts' who claim lack of predictability. It just doesn't compute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. I agree, that is weird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Don't forget,
building seven collapsed just as neatly, and the official inquiry concluded that only one side of it had been on fire, and fire-proof doors had protected the other half.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

And of course you know who looked after the cover-up? FEMA

And, the contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene --to cart away the rubble that remains-- is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building, Controlled Demolition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
56. I DO believe in conspiracy. Especially where Bush and Cheney are involved.


Of course we are not told the truth, either by the administration or the media. There was a documentary I saw some time ago that showed live reports of the immediate post bombing time at Oklahoma City. These were local reporters at the scene of the Murrah building interviewing FBI and police and reporting on the interviews.

At least three of these reporters said that they had been told by FBI agents that they had found THREE unexploded bombs in the parts of the building that remained standing. Three other bombs require a conspiracy, and I know of no other organization with the access, personnel, and ability to set four bombs.

Don't believe in conspiracies? Then explain Watergate. Explain October Surprise, where over a hundred american hostages where delayed in captivity just so that a republican could win and election. The republican party has been a criminal conspiracy for decades. If they could do these things, what would keep them from killing thousands? Remember G. Gordon Liddy? He said he would kill for his president. How many more fanatics are employed by the republicans and how many have they killed one at a time, not even counting the three thousand?

I'm open for answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
60. So you doubt the official story
That's were CT starts. Unless of course you think it is all down to government stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-05 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
73. That is how I feel about it too.
Some of the theories are over the top but the official version makes little more sense than some of the more outrageous stuff here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. You WANT to believe the conspiracy?! I sure as hell don't...
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 01:09 PM by jsamuel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. I don't want to believe a lot of things ...
but I still can't convince myself the dunny out the back smells of roses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrierist Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
52. Sounds like you can't handle the truth
That's OK - I've got good friends who admit that they don't want to know either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. conspiracy theories
I'm not a structural engineer, but a friend of mine is and sent me a three page explanation proving that what happening to the Towers was totally impossible to accomplish with jet fuel.


lark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. could you post a link to it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
46. I would love to see that..
seriously, I am honestly interested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrierist Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. 9-11 needs more investigation
Here's a link to an article in Fire Engineering magazine that raises serious questions about the WTC collapse and concludes that the ignition of the jet fuel AND the structural damage caused by the airplane were not sufficient to cause the towers to fall.

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Sect...

The article calls for an investigation into the collapse and demanded, at the time that it was written, a halt to cutting up and shipping out for sale the building's structural steel before it could be analyzed.

For a much more comprehensive summary of other 9-11 questions not addressed by the media, I recommend David Ray Griffin's book "The 9-11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions." Howard Zinn called it the most persuasive argument that he has seen for further investigation of that historic and troubling event.

As Michael Moore says, "Personally, I'm not into conspiracy theories, except for those that are true."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. Why do you WANT to beleive a conspiracy?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Because it gets tiresome washing
all that sand out of our headfeathers? :hide:

Darn, no ostrich smileys ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
36. Fuel flame isn't hot enough to melt steel.
Not to mention there wasnt enough jet fuel to begin to threaten those buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Actualy
despite the reletively fast burnoff of jet fuel there are very good reasons for the colapse. Serious academic structural failure anaylisis had confirmed quite well that the ariplane impacts were enough to bring the towers down.

A large part of it was the impact force damaging the normal fireproofing material combined with the damage done to the unique structure of that building by the actual plane tareing apart a large chunk of the building.

One excelent coverage of some of the investigation into the failures was done by NOVA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
40. Please have your facts straight.
NO ONE, I mean no one including the official investigators, claims that jet fuel melted the fire.

Steel does not melt in a normal fire. It loses strength under heat, about half of capacity at around 550C.

Here is the official narrative in a nutshell:

Impact stripped support columns of fireproofing, exposing steel to direct heat. (Assumption and central hypothesis is based on computer model, as NIST had almost no actual columns available for forensic investigation.)

Jet fuel burned up entirely within minutes.

Fires fed by other materials spread across impact floors, raising steel temperatures as high as 400C. (According to computer model; no existing tested piece of rubble shows any heat above 250C!)

Core failed within impact zone.

"And then gravity did its thing," to quote the lead NIST investigator. The falling top part of buildings grinded much of the lower mass into dust; while also causing complete failure at almost the acceleration of gravity.

Seven hours later, WTC 7 did its fall by sympathy. Official investigators tend not to want to talk about this at all.

And then FEMA, New York City, and Controlled Demolition and other contractors did their thing: They closed off the site, arrested anyone who tried to take pictures, scrapped the metal as quickly as possible, shipping it to Asia, and ignored all objections by firefighters.

The FEMA investigators (BPAT) were hired on a part-time basis and sometimes allowed to visit Ground Zero under strict escort. They came up with a wishy-washy report.

Two years later, the NIST investigation began. Only ONE piece of the core from the WTC 1 impact zone was left for the NIST investigation; and ZERO pieces of any kind from WTC 7.

Know the above at least, before you start acting as though you know anything.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. self -deleted
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 06:59 PM by shance
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. I'm just not as smart as you.
Or at least not as verbose.

So the jet fuel CAUSED A FIRE that melted the steel. That's what i meant. Thanks for being so smart and sharing your vast knowledge. Is it true smart people have larger hat sizes? Mine is really big like XXXL.

So what precisely does the smart person believe? Don't be coy.


Who did it? Why ? How?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. sorry
One more time: NO ONE among the official scientists says steel melted during the pre-collapse fires on 9/11/2001.

It's not just that the jet fuel did not melt steel. The fires started by the jet fuel also did not melt steel.

The NIST computer model did not come up with any temperatures during the fire greater than 400-450C.

None of the (few) pieces of physical metal left over from the fire zone analyzed forensically by NIST shows evidence of fires greater than 250C!

After the collapse, molten metal did accumulate in the Ground Zero. This came about due to an underground cauldron effect. But no steel melted before the collapses.

You, however, are still talking about steel melting. So either I'm incapable of clear communication, or you aren't reading very carefully.

Thus this discussion is now done.

When I explain something precisely and exhaustively, this is an occasion to complain I'm verbose, arrogant, whatever.

Then you demand some simple answer about "who did it and why."

If I give that question a proper answer, you'll again have occasion to complain about my length.

If I give a simple, quick answer, you'll be able to mock its simplicity.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #47
61. got nothing to do with smart
it's a matter of informing yourself.

Btw the point about the fire is that it did NOT melt the steel. Weakened it yes, but it is unlikely that caused such a neat collapse - two times. Make that three times - in one day (WTC7 also collapsed like a house of cards into its own footprint, supposedly due to a few fires). There's video footage of it all over the web.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
57. Ever hear of vector analysis?


I saw the films and at least one of the aircraft hit the tower off center, IOW on the corner. In that case, the removal of skeletal elements at those points would impart a vertical rotational moment to the parts of the building above the strike point. This leads to several conclusions.

First, since the building would have been unbalanced at that point, it could not have 'pancaked" or come straight down. Debris would have been distributed in large pieces for many blocks from the tower on that side.

Second, in order for the tower to 'pancake'the central core would have needed to have been weakened to the point of failure.

Since it is not possible for jet fuel (kerosene) to burn hot enough to weaken the temper of steel, the fire could not have caused the core damage. Therefore since the fire could not have done it, and the building DID pancake, something else must have weakened the core enough for it to cause the destruction that we saw. That something must have been artificial, since we have seen that it could not have been the aircraft that caused it.

The only thing I am aware of that could cause the massive damage to the core is explosives. Particularly shaped charges just like those that must have been used to bring down building seven. Remember that the towers were closed for 'maintenance' the weekend before the attacks?

Of course I'm open to other explanations, but please don't try to convince me with any arguments from the administration. I no longer believe ANYTHING those liars have to say. Remember what Ted Olsen said? That there were times the government would lie to us? Well, I for one believe him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
58. Please explain how kerosene (jet fuel) dould melt steel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
59. did the steel melt? not even according to the official story
you've got some fact checking to do.
You can start with this forum and the
"Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You want incredible? What's incredible is that both Repubs and Dems on the official 9-11 commission have ties with oil/construction companies doing business in the Caspian sea area (were like 60% of the world's oil reserves are). US corporations in hostile areas of the world can use some military support, so these people were partial to a plausible reason to go to war there.

see Karl Schwartz footage at https://secure.reopen911.org/freedvd.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
65. tell me what plane hit building 7 and made it implode??
airplane fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steal!!

from a flight attendant ..ny based,.retired
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
71. NOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. MIHOP
Analyze the official story and see if it makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TOOLZ Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. So sad, he was getting promoted today
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 01:15 PM by TOOLZ
And we should be able to dispute these reasonable issues, not banish people that raise the question.

I don't want it to be true, either. So let's dissect and dispue these claims rather than make them taboo.

But swift censorship only fuels speculations...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MurrayDelph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
23. Now, say for the moment, the WTC was rigged for demolition
then what did they need the planes for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. To give the reason for everything that has happened since...
...if the WTC just sort of blew-up by itself it might be perceived as being a little odd.

Have them collapse into their own footprint after being hit by what we were told were airline jets, and you have a plausible reason for them to have collapsed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. PNAC calls specifically for a new "perl harbor" type event
I vote MIHOP and vote to convict this entire administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #23
62. Without the planes there would be no (acceptable) plausible cause
for the collapses, other then deliberate action by the government.

Perhaps the govt would claim it was the terrorists who rigged the buildings with explosives, but then if terrorists could do that, then so could anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #23
63. Whistleblower Indira Singh re WTC 7 collapse
KPFA "Guns and Butter"
Interviews with Indira Singh
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N
"Ground Zero 911, Blueprint For Terror, Part One" April 27th 2005
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=209.... (mp3)

(ca 11 minutes into the interview)

"...the triage site i was setting up was to the east of building 7, where building 7 came down ... what happened with that particular triage site is that after mid-day we had to evacuate because they told us building 7 was coming down ... i do believe that they brought building 7 down because i heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage ... i cannot attest to the validity of that, all i attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site ... because building 7 was coming down or being brought down ... the fire department, and they did use the words "we're going to have to bring it down"...

see Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
24. FEMA arrived in NY City on September 10th, according to then FEMA head
in an interview on 9/11. ONLY ONCE did this interview play on tv, and I SAW IT!! There were transcripts of the interview posted on DU later, that jived exactly with what I heard on tv on 9/11...but it only played that ONE time.

FEMA said they were "ready for it", and had gotten to town the day before.

Also....in the September 23rd, 2001 (print) edition of Newsweek, in one of the articles, military brass from the pentagon had stated that they had been told to CHANGE THEIR AIRLINE RESERVATIONS, because they were scheduled to fly on the 11th. They are quoted in the article. (You can go to the library and look it up.)

The reason word has gotten out and caused "conspiracy theories", is because SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE TALKED, which makes it more of a Theory (capital "T"), than a theory!! Many of them spoke without understanding the repercussions for what they were saying at the time.

:kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blakeley Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
30. How many DUers have read the book,
"The New Pearl Harbor", by David Ray Griffin? It lays out many unanswered questions relative to the 9/11 attacks, chief among them being the collapsing of the two towers. In and through his exhaustive investigation, apparently one of Chimpwad's brothers, either Neil or Marvin (can't remember which one)was employed in a high -level position with a "security company", A few weeks prior to 9/11, the Trade Center was completely closed for an extensive security "upgrade",performed by "brother's" company. There were witnesses that declared they suspected and witnessed strange goings-on, such as suspected implosive devices and the like. Surely, we must all agree that the collapses DID, indeed, look like a planned, controlled demolition. I was NOT in any way a believer in the conspiracy theory, but the book has made me really open my mind a great bit further. Also, there have been documented witnesses that have seen Mohamed Atta alive, as well as others of the 19 hijackers. Regardless of opinions of the conspiracy theory, I feel all DUers, hell, all Americans for that matter, need to read the book- a real chilling and startling read.

By the way, this is my first post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kostya Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Blakely, Welcome to DU
Gee, I love a good conspiracy as much as the next person, but I'd like to see some substantial evidence either way. What are David Ray Griffin's credentials, btw? - K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #32
64. he has none
he's just a wack job religion professor who preaches to other wack jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. haven't read the book -- have questions
First, I can't find a single statement by anyone who worked in the WTC confirming the claim that the building was "completely closed" a few weeks before 9/11. Those buildings held tens of thousands of workers and only a few thousand died. And I kinda doubt everyone else is part of some conspiracy, so color me skeptical on that claim.

Second, until 2000 Marvin Bush was a director of a security company with a contract with the WTC. He owned less than 2 percent of the company. Since I doubt that he and the other owners actually personally installed explosives in both towers, and since it presumably would be quite a job to place sufficient explosives in place, but not have made any changes to the building that any employees have ever commented on to my knowledge, I guess we're supposed to believe that an entire cadre of skilled demolition experts pulled this off and not a soul has said a thing in 4 years.
Color me even more skeptical.

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrierist Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #30
54. I read it and it's sequel
Chimpwad's brother Marvin AND his cousin Wirt Walker III were principals in the company that was in charge of security for the WTC. Walker was CEO from 1999 to January 2002. Marvin Bush also owned stock in and served as director of a company called Stratesec that handled security for United Airlines and Dulles Airport, from which American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked. Neither Marvin Bush nor Wirt Walker III are mentioned in the official 9/11 Commission Report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
66. marvin...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pox americana Donating Member (622 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
33. How dare he notice that the emperor has no clothes?
Such impudence. Now watch this swing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
34. the point being......
the chaplin was forced to resign because "he was skeptical of the official version".

America at its best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chemical Bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
35. Did the chaplin care how the buildings actually fell?
It sounds like he was only saying there had to be more involved in the US end of things. Half of New York believes in LIHOP at least. Why can't a FDNY chaplin agree with half of New York?

Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
37. I still don't believe Iraq was invaded.
The conspiracy of lies necessary to pull that one off beggars belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
55. Sad to hear this
Can't ANYONE get away with telling the TRUTH about the WTC demolition???

NYC citizens were never this biased against the truth in the past--what's going on?

But it isn't average experienced NYC citizens who are deciding this...it's just the corporate media with their own interests and agenda. "Freedom of the press only applies to those who own a press".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
72. Here's another version from NY Newsday
http://www.nynewsday.com/nyc-imam0930,0,6540537,print.s...

NY Newsday: Incoming FDNY chaplain questions 9/11
story

Incoming FDNY chaplain questions 9/11 story

BY CAROL EISENBERG
STAFF WRITER

September 30, 2005

An imam slated to be sworn in Friday as the second
Muslim chaplain in Fire Department history said he
questioned whether 19 hijackers were responsible for
the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and suggested a broader
conspiracy may have brought down the Twin Towers and
killed more than 2,700 people.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Imam Intikab Habib,
30, a native of Guyana who studied Islam in Saudi
Arabia, said he doubted the United States government's
official story blaming 19 hijackers associated with
al-Quaida and Osama bin Laden.

"I as an individual don't know who did the attacks,"
said Habib, 30, a soft-spoken man who immigrated to
New York in July 2000 after spending six years in
Saudi Arabia getting a degree in Islamic theology and
law. "There are so many conflicting reports about it.
I don't believe it was 19 ... hijackers who did those
attacks."

more.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RayUbinger Donating Member (280 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
74. Maybe he got nervous about what they did to the last chaplain
NYC "firemen" weild unidentified implements and make lurching motions near where they are about to "find" Mychal Judge, FDNY Chaplain, dead inside the WTC-1 Lobby after the WTC-2 demolition:

http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm

Note the two different shots of Mr. Backofhead's right-arm thrust. We are told there was only ONE camera there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC