Three words: "plastic, Rosebud, Lone Gunmen"

[plaguepuppy]

OK, maybe four words...

Not having the heart for another waltz in the ozone with the Bobsy twins (Lar-Lar and Von Oingo_Boingo, seperated at birth?)on the subject of what steel got how hot where and for how long, I will offer without comment and for whatever anyone cares to make of it, the full and unabridged first episode of The Lone Gunmen which is now online as a 250mb avi file (Divx compression):

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm

[preciousdove]

1. Who made them into the Three Stooges?

:mad:

[BeFree]

2. 250mb?

Too big. Got any takes you can share?

Putting aside the Bobsy twins, the images you, pp, showed us of the flying steel - streaming clouds of something - as those pieces flew away from the WTC, has altered my conception of the true meaning of the demolition of those towers.

I've seen fire, and I've seen rain. I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end. But I never thought I'd see steel fry that way again.

Good work.

[plaguepuppy]

3. Several shorter takes

This is a short summary of the whole show, about 3mb:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/lonegunmanpilot.wmv

The web page also has some clips from crucial parts of the show, beginning with Beyers' rediscovery of his presumed-dead father:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/Lone%20Gunmen%2001%20-%20excerpt%201%20-%20scenario_12-d.avi

The top of the LG page is here:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm#lg01x01

[plaguepuppy]

4. Refried steel

Yeah, this kind of stuff creeps me out bigtime:

[LARED]

5. Being creeped out by a picture

of steel falling down is something you should consider having a professional look into.

On the other hand, if you are referring to Cheney you have a point.

[plaguepuppy]

6. None so blind...

And the fact that the "falling steel" marks the grave of almost 3,000 people means nothing to you? I'm afraid the profession doesn't exist that could help you pull your head out of where you've chosen to stick it.

[LARED]

7. Lets see

you said

Refried steel ---

Yeah, this kind of stuff creeps me out bigtime:

The meaning is clear. The so called vaporizing steel is what bothers you.

What a pathic attempt at back pedaling.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

9. Pretty hostile sounding there PP

That can be a normal response when one gets caught in a lie.

Get over it. :)

[DulceDecorum]

11. Lies

are the Territory of persons such as Wolf Blitzer,
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/wolf.htm
whose most famous quote is
"get over it."

It is good to see that some here are no longer shocked and awed.

Correspondent Wolf Blitzer reported that in his 30 years of experience, he had never seen anything on the scale of Friday's attack on the Iraqi capital.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/03/22/iraq.war/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq/bushvac.shtml

It is refreshing to see a sense of humor concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction.

His slide show segued into a somber ending, showing a group of special forces troops in Afghanistan at the site where they buried a piece of the fallen World Trade Center in commemoration of the dead from Sept. 11.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/bush.broadcasters.ap/

That can be a normal response when one gets caught in a lie.
But only if one is
http://www.artofresistance.org/bush_mosaic/

[LARED]

12. DD

What are you blathering on about?

[plaguepuppy]

13. America held hostile - by Deleted

Well, it appears I can't say what I actually think of you in everyday language, so I'll re-state my point more politely. And while we're being so civil, perhaps you could explain what lie you are pretending to have caught me in (mild profanity seems to be forbidden but attacks on character are given free rein).

The gist of my reply was that there is simply no contradiction between feeling empathy for the victims of 9-11 and believing that the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition. The fact that the images of the North Tower core collapsing into dust creeps me out has to do both with the fact that people were incinerated there and that it was done deliberately, and seemingly with some sort of black technology. The fact is that many people were deeply touched by the events of 9-11, and even those who choose to disbelieve in your Teletubby version of 9-11 are just as justified in their feelings as the most ardent Coincidence Theorist. And surprisingly enough, most of them don't give a good hi-ho about your patronizing opinions of people who disagree with your regurgitation of the Official Story, offal that it is.

As for the disintegration of steel, people can make up their own minds based on the visual evidence:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/New_Spire/


http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dust%20trails/

I don't expect everyone to come to the same conclusions, but I will not tolerate your disingenuous pretense that no rational person could be led to believe that they are witnessing some sort of disintegration process. And given the billions that have been poured into secret military high technology weapons research it seems very rational to believe that Rummy's friends have access to a variety of secret gizmos.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Speak for yourself, Dulce.

To claim that everyone here at Democratic Underground believes your litany of Flight 77 denial and other nonsense is quite a mouthful.

The planes which have ALL survived September 11?
The other buildings in the WTC which collapsed for no good reason?
The passenger lists with no Arab names?
The "hijackers" who are still alive?
the Pentagon that had no hole?
The Penta-victims with unburned hair?
The Penta-doctors who swear that DU does not kill?
The pilots without proper credentials?
The passengers who are still not dead?
The passengers who died BEFORE September 11?
The people who are stonewalling the investigation?
The cronies who are running the investigation?
The mercenaries who are making a killing in Iraq?
The mediawhores who lie about the presence of WMD?

As a matter of fact, I'd bet that you couldn't get 50% of DU posters to subscribe to 50% of that list. Why you continue to post here that Democratic Underground believes all of these things is beyond me.

In fact, I propose a wager, if the moderators will allow it to happen.

Start a poll in General Discussion, Dulce. Give that exact list of items, and ask people what percentage of those statements they believe. I'd suggest the percentages of 0%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, and 100%.

Here's the wager: If you can get 10% of DU members to say that they agree to 90% or 100% of those statements, I will leave the Democratic Underground forever.

42017 user registrations since January 2001

Let's round it down to 4000, making it even easier for you. If you can get 4000 DU members to say they agree with 90% or 100% of those statements, I will leave the Democratic Underground forever.

Here's the catch:

If 10% of DU members say that they believe either 0% or 10% of those statements, you leave DU forever.

If you're not willing to take this wager, I would expect you to stop speaking for DU as a whole, since you're not willing to ask DU exactly what they think on the subject.

Agreed?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. An example

The planes which have ALL survived September 11?
The other buildings in the WTC which collapsed for no good reason?
The passenger lists with no Arab names?
The "hijackers" who are still alive?
the Pentagon that had no hole?
The Penta-victims with unburned hair?
The Penta-doctors who swear that DU does not kill?
The pilots without proper credentials?
The passengers who are still not dead?
The passengers who died BEFORE September 11?
The people who are stonewalling the investigation?
The cronies who are running the investigation?
The mercenaries who are making a killing in Iraq?
The mediawhores who lie about the presence of WMD?

Where do I stand on these issues?

The planes which have ALL survived September 11?

Balderdash. Hokum. Dulce, you should open in Vegas with this hat trick.

The other buildings in the WTC which collapsed for no good reason?

Other than being on fire and having two 110 story buildings collapse on top of them? Please.

The passenger lists with no Arab names?

More hokum. You've never seen an official passenger manifest, and neither have I. You're looking at lists of victims from CNN or other news agencies. Evidence has been presented here that Arab names were on the manifests. On this, you are wrong.

The "hijackers" who are still alive?

Identity theft doesn't prove what you think it proves. Some people in the Middle East had their identities stolen and used by the hijackers - it doesn't mean that the hijackers weren't there. This is lame.

the Pentagon that had no hole?

Even Dick Eastman says the Pentagon had a hole in it after the catastrophic explosion. And Anablep completely destroyed the myth of the small hole.

The Penta-victims with unburned hair?

Ah, no. Lots of victims from the Pentagon who lost their hair.

The Penta-doctors who swear that DU does not kill?

What does depleted uranium have to do with this subject? I've never understood why you bring that up.

My take on DU: Pretty much the standard scientific take. As a bullet covering, it kills only as a projectile. After impact, there's a chance that DU dust could kill, but the chance is low. I bow to any rigorously conducted study that shows otherwise.

The pilots without proper credentials?

Oh, please...Vegas is calling.

The passengers who are still not dead?

What??? No, this isn't true.

The passengers who died BEFORE September 11?

See the answer above.

The people who are stonewalling the investigation?

No question here. I absolutely agree that the Bush Administration is being dragged kicking and screaming into allowing this investigation.

The cronies who are running the investigation?

Again, not a lot of argument. Appointing Henry Kissinger the head of the 9/11 commission was as transparent as they could have been. Kean's not much better, but the commission is being quite a thorn in Bush's side. You have heard of Richard Clarke and how the Bush Administration had to knuckle under concerning Condi's testimony?

The mercenaries who are making a killing in Iraq?

Spot on.

The mediawhores who lie about the presence of WMD?

??? They don't all lie about WMDs in Iraq. The truth is out there, and it's being presented on this issue.

So of fourteen items, I agree with two completely, three in part, and nine not at all. Counting the partials as halves, that gives me 3.5 out of 14 - 25%

So my own positions would be considered a vote for me and you to both stay here at the Democratic Underground. I really don't see why you wouldn't take this friendly wager...

[DulceDecorum]

21. We of the Democratic Underground

have brains in our heads and the wherewithal to use them.
We can distinguish between FACT and the pap of los publicistas mercenarios.
We stand firm, as did Horatius on the Sublican bridge that spanned the River Tiber.
And that is all there is to it.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

30. Speak for your own self BOLOboffin

If you do not like the company of DulceDecorum,
then by all means make use of the snooze icon at the top right of this post and put me on IGNORE.
If however you decide not to do this and STILL do not want to see that DulceDecorum is still posting,
then EXERCISE YOUR FREEDOM TO LEAVE THE DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, because dear old DulceDecorum is NOT about to go anywhere.
And certainly not because YOU wish it.
DulceDecorum is going to post if, and when, and wherever, and as often, as DulceDecorum pleases, and that is NOT open to negociation.

You have absolutely NO right to tell me or anyone else here
whether or not they can post
and you have NO right to try to force ANYONE off the Democratic Underground.

Now, before you go and wear us down with six-million arguments
about me refusing your wager
which is intended to get this entire forum off 9:11 research
and into absolutely USELESS politicking,
why don't we change the rules slightly.

YOU, BOLOboffin,
get one hundred people
who have been registered for over three months
to say that they support your continued presence here in the 9:11 Forum
and then I will get TWO HUNDRED registered members to say that YOU should leave.

Let's see you do some work around here for a change.
YOUR wager requires NOTHING of you and EVERYTHING of me.
MY wager requires that YOU actually DO something
other than stalking me.

Several of us, here at the Democratic Underground,
recognize the acromym that comprises the first part, and know damn well what the second part means.
Furthermore, we are also well versed in the tactics employed by those who would suppress the truth.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

In view of that last entry,
should DulceDecorum suddenly cease posting,
I trust that there will be some inquiry into my whereabouts.

And now,
back to 9:11 matters and the facts that started this latest witchhunt.

Here is the N-number page on
the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DATABASE.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum_inquiry.asp
These are the results obtained by typing in the N-mumbers and Serial numbers
for the four planes of September 11, 2001.

N 334AA Flight 11 Serial 22332 Issued 1/6/2000 Registration: Cancelled 1/14/2002
N 644AA Flight 77 Serial 24602 Issued 5/8/1991 Registration: Cancelled 1/14/2002
N 591UA Flight 93 Serial 28142 Issued 7/1/1996 Registration: Valid
N 612UA Flight 175 Serial 21873 Issued 1/18/1984 Registration: Valid
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked, UNTIL THE DATE UPON WHICH --
(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;
(3) THE AIRCRAFT IS TOTALLY DESTROYED OR SCRAPPED;
(b) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the FAA Aircraft Registry --
(3) Upon the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

On edit:
Make a point to visit
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm

[LARED]

31. Fascinating DD

17. Change the subject.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
23. Create bigger distractions.
24. Silence critics.

Hopefully you are aware that every time one points the bony finger of indignation (even incorrectly) there are three fingers pointing back at you.

[DulceDecorum]

37. Correction:

Those tactics are designed to SUPPRESS the truth.

Lil ole DulceDecorum is struggling to REVEAL it.
All DulceDecorum did was to redirect this thread from the inanity into which it was descending. We are now back on track talking about 9:11 and not the merits and demerits of each other's personalities.

And now,
once again,
the Lone Gunmen.

[LARED]

38. Struggling to reveal it????

The truth????

I'm sure you believe that, and I'm sure you also believe that those suppressing the truth engage in activities that:

17. Change the subject.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
23. Create bigger distractions.
24. Silence critics.

Assuming both are true, why do you always engage in activities that:

17. Change the subject.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
23. Create bigger distractions.
24. Silence critics.

Hummmmmmmmmmm?


As a side note; some of histories most evil, murderous tyrants thought they were:

Revealing the truth.

[DulceDecorum]

40. That is NO WAY to treat

the pResident.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/31/gop.complaint/index.html
Or Colin Powell for that matter.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/guer-f08.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3934388,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3596033.stm

LARED, you ought to be ASHAMED of yourself.

Now, what were we talking about?
Oh yes,
THE LONE GUNMEN.
The Pilot.

[LARED]

41. Sure thing DD

"THE LONE GUNMEN."

What about it?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. According to Sec. 47.41

The CARs are effective until the aircrafts are totally destroyed.

So on September 11, 2001, the four registrations for the 9/11 planes became effective no longer. American Airlines got around to cancelling the paperwork on January 14, 2002; United never has.

This is not evidence for the continued existence of the aircraft. This is only evidence for the continued existence of the paperwork.

Now to your other points:

1. I have never told anyone that they cannot post here. Whenever people stop posting here, I never assume the worst. I actually assume the opposite: that they got a life.

2. The friendly wager was meant to show that you yourself don't seriously entertain the notion that your beliefs concerning the events of 9/11 are shared by the majority of posters here at DU. I believe it demonstrated that quite well. Why would you post here that Democratic Underground does share your beliefs, since you don't believe it yourself?

3. Several of us, here at the Democratic Underground, recognize the acromym (sic) that comprises the first part, and know damn well what the second part means.: What does the acronym mean? I'm assuming that you're talking about my nickname here, because in the title to your post, you capitalize the first part - BOLOboffin. I use the name Bolo Boffin, because a couple of days before I discovered the Smirking Chimp website, I had put my real name into a Hobbit Name Generator. Bolo Boffin is what popped out.

So I'm interested in knowing what the acronym means. I'd just thought that it was a name created for the amusement of J. R. R. Tolkien and his fans - I'd no idea that it meant something beyond that. (But hey! Points for you for saying "Several of us, here at the Democratic Underground." That's progress, and true as well!)

[DulceDecorum]

35. Yes dear,

there IS much more profit in a pound of cure than there is in prevention.

Pity you opted out of the wager, I was rather looking forward to it.
I wonder what you will come up with next.....

[Bolo Boffin]

36. My wager still stands.

Start the poll on your statements of belief. I'm ready for it.

Are you?

[DulceDecorum]

39. Right after I finish

getting the 200 votes from those who ......

Oh my,
I almost forgot.

I only get the 200 Bolo-go votes
AFTER
you get the 100 votes recognizing you as a valued contributor to this forum.
Run along dear.
Start the counters.
Now, what were we talking about....
Oh yes!!

The PILOT EPISODE of the LONE GUNMEN.

And why do we have so very many distractions every time we
GO TUNE IN TO IT?

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Distractions from the teevee show?

If anything, our little discussion about the wager (I proposed mine first, remember?) keeps bumping the topic, bringing it to our attention again and again. That's not distraction from the pilot episode of the Lone Gunman, it's more attention to the pilot.

I'm not sure what you or anyone else considers to be the point of talking about the Lone Gunman pilot. It's a show about a remote-controlled plane filled with bombs being flown into the WTC. It demonstrates a great amount of imagination, and since it aired before the 9/11 attacks, it's more proof that the idea of flying planes into buildings wasn't the unthinkable thing that Condi Rice and others are making it out to be.

Other than that, is there any reason we're looking at this thing?

[DulceDecorum]

54. Instead of

expending all this effort stalking me,
why don't you go make yourself useful to John Kerry or something.
Take your aggressions out on Freepers instead of lil ole DulceDecorum.

Condi is lying, go kick her ass.
Leave DulceDecorum's sweet cheeks in peace.

Remember,
you are supposed to be pissing OUT of the tent, not in it.

[OudeVanDagen]

16. disintegration process

"Spires" are a frequent remnant of collapse. Some may stand for years while others, that are unable to dampen motion, will quickly collapse.

Spires primarily result from the drift which occurs during collapse. Drift, the misalignment and disassociation between columns above and below is much like what you have very loosely described and previously called "tilt." Secondary factors creating "spires" can be collapse speed and uniformity.

The "spire" causing your concern and focus has been very well investigated and explained in numerous WTC collapse reports ... reports with and without government funding and sanction, and in reports filed by private unaffiliated and completely independent investigation teams from across the globe.

I will once again strongly suggest that you read these collapse reports.

FYI: In a related issue; as of 0900 HRS this date Mt. Sinai Medical has tested over 9,000 WTC recovery workers ... 9,229 actually ... for respiratory illnesses and 911 event traumas. Thousands more have yet to be tested but are scheduled. You have maintained that collapse evidence was willfully destroyed. For your theory to be correct these 9,229 recovery workers ... and more to come ... all participated in that destruction ... doing it themselves or looking away while it was done.

[plaguepuppy]

24. LOL

"Spires" are a frequent remnant of collapse"

Oh my dear God, you really did say that! And when asked for an example - let me guess, you'll change the subject and make some snide ad-hominum put down, but just in case you aren't just making this up I eagerly await a reference (something more specific the\an "the published reports").

[OudeVanDagen]

26. Yeah, I said it

and I'm saying it again ... spires are a frequent remnant of collapse.

You can take that fact to the bank.

"Spires" of course is your word choice, not mine, and spire is certainly not the choice of the engineering community. I will also readily admit that there is no universally accepted term for these upright remains of a structure.

It's been both practice and tradition to swipe terminologies from the lexicons of the US Army Corps of Engineers; but when it comes to your "spires" each investigator and each investigation team is always more case specific .... following strict protocol. Each will use the most definitive terms possible to best describe the structural remnant and it's location; an example, would be found in a preliminary report: "Two and one half story, approx 25 feet tall and 20 feet long, brick and mortar wall remnant in SE corner with no window openings and with two joist corbels showing." Follow-up reports would offer more detail, precise measurements, etc, etc.

The structural remnant found will not be called a spire; and I am also certain the reports ... any report ... preliminary, mid-term, final or an amended ... will not use spire, or tilt, or telescoping, or noodles, or mush, or vaporized or any other of your term-du-jours.

Examples of structural remnants ... your spires ... are all over the world and a blight in every major city.

Dresden, London, and Berlin had thousands of "spires" when I visited and worked there after WW2. "Spires" stood tall for decades in A-bombed Japanese cities, and still stand tall today in Italy where wars and earthquakes both ravaged cities. Your generation, plaguepuppy should be able to recall the newspapers and TV showing Jimmy Carter promising to rebuild the burned out South Bronx during his re-election campaign visit to the city. Every picture taken showed him standing in front of one or two of the scores of structural remnants standing in the South Bronx.

Collapse often leaves structural remnants or "spires" and you can easily see them in photos of the recent collapse incidents in Cairo, Morocco and Turkey ... check the AP, Associated Press site.

I said it, and I'll say it again, "You can take it to the bank."

[OudeVanDagen]

28. and by the way

I appreciate your "spire" photos and such. They serve as picture perfect proof for factors of a normal collapse, primarily; drift, speed, and uniformity. The shape, size and longevity of your "spire" present the presence of significant drift, inconsistent collapse speed, and a lack of uniformity. The "spire" also disproves the 'controlled demolition' theory.

Controlled demolition is a term that has changed very little over the years. Man has been doing controlled demolition for centuries ... destroying old structures to make way for new; but the term first appeared and gained acceptance after the Civil War, when the Southern cities needed repair and the government contract bidding process needed a formal name for knocking down bombed and burned buildings. It is a creation of the US Army Corps of Engineers. It resurfaced after WW1, again after WW2; but it's always meant a safe and controlled demolition of structures. Controlled demolition doesn't automatically mean the use of explosives, it can mean the brick by brick, floor by floor, plank by plank demolition of an obsolete structure. The latter is more widely used than the former. The fewest contolled demolitions performed each year are those imitated by explosives.

The "spire" disproves an explosive induced controlled demolition. The "spire" shows significant drift occurred during the collapse sequence, shows that collapse speed was inconsistent, and that the collapse was not uniform ... all factors that ARE present in a controlled demolition.

[BeFree]

29. Speaking of spires

The conventional wisdom is that the floors pancaked. The photos of the spire show a central core standing briefly after the pancaking floors bypassed the spire, leaving the spire as the highest piece still standing.

Then - poof, the spire is gone. It just goes straight down. Not to one side or the other, but straight down. Even though all the floors had conceivably buttressed the core it still goes down. Straight down as if cut off from underneath. Straight down as if it had melted. Straight down as if it disentegrated in place.

As was stated, spires have stood for years and years. Not the WTC's however. It stood for mere seconds. It resisted all the tons and tons of steel and concrete crashing down around it and then it simply disappeared.

Something about that melting core does not compute using normal collapse scenarios.

[LARED]

32. Poof??

Then - poof, the spire is gone.

Well not exactly. It wobbles for a few moments and then it starts to drop.

It just goes straight down. Not to one side or the other, but straight down.

Why is this surprising?

Even though all the floors had conceivably buttressed the core it still goes down.

Please explain how this could happen.

Straight down as if cut off from underneath.

Your getting warmer.

Straight down as if it had melted.

Not that warm.

Straight down as if it disentegrated in place.

Ice cold.

[OudeVanDagen]

33. Sorry, but that's wrong

I'm not looking to be combative but "The conventional wisdom is that the floors pancaked." is incorrect. There may indeed have been some pancaking, but what ever amount, it was very minor ... a small percentage in relation to the number of floors. There was some evidence suggesting some possible and limited pancaking found in the debris ... such as a truss or two inbedded angularly in the concrete of what was probably the floor below; but for the most part, the collapse sequences experienced disallowed pancaking. Remember, the floors were thin concrete poured over trusses suspended between an outer wall and interior core ... each (wall and core) of which was under the destructive forces of tension and compression motion, and each of which was in motion ... motion that neither could dampen. As described many times before ... under these forces and motion, the inner core and outer walls acted similar to hands twisting ice cubes from an ice tray; and as such the concrete floors experienced fractured disassociation rather than a pancake or monolithic disassociation.

The "spire" stood for only a few seconds because, as the videos clearly show, it was moving .... had motion ... motion, that because of it's height and narrow width, it could not dampen. Any structure that can not dampen motion will collapse. It however did not fall "straight down" as offered so many times in these threads. Very few man made structures can fall straight down. Steel framed structures never fall straight down ... too many different sizes and shapes to the steel frame elements, too many connections, and collapse speed ... which is inconsistant due to the tension and compression, all factor into the structural elements being thrown away from the center of a structure. The "spire" could not have fallen straight down .... and as seen in videos and as confirmed in the debris field, it did not do so.

The "spire" actually did not briefly stand because it "resisted all the tons and tons of steel and concrete crashing down around it .." The strength and "resistance" of the structural elements did play a role, but it was mainly created because the drift and motion of the collapse moved away from those structural elements that comprised the "spire" and those forces also lacked uniformity and a constant speed. Remember; the building did not collapse floor by floor, one floor at a time ... it was an angular collapse sequence across several floors. Had there been no drift, and had there been a uniform collapse at a constant speed there would have been no "spire."

Melting core? Geez, you got me ... all I saw "melted" were the fenestrations, no core elements.

[BeFree]

42. Twisting motion?

If there was a twist to the collapse, then the motion was away from the spire? If the motion 'twisting' was away from the spire and given the many connections to the spire, why didn't the spire get pulled over along with the rest of the 'twisting' collapse? But you also claim an angular collapse. In an angular collapse the core would have been shoved aside and not been left standing at all.

You say: The melted steel was the fenestrations and not core. That goes against what has been stated: molten steel found below ground level. Got a link?

So, pray tell, what is your theory of how the collapse initiated? Mind you, any theory based on the core melting will lead you back to explaining how molten steel was found in the core several layers below ground. Of course, I half expect you to say the building twisted itself right into the ground.

[OudeVanDagen]

45. No, no twisting

"Like two hands twisting cubes from an ice cube tray" was used by a forum member in a message not long ago to loosely describe what happened to the thin concrete floors ... to describe in layman's terms how they fractured. I borrowed that member's description to show pancaking was incorrect. Twisting is not a cause of the collapse. The motion of the two tubes did fracture the concrete floors that were poured atop the suspended trusses, but it was not a twisting motion. Please don't focus on that "twisting" term or assume it was a collapse factor.

The WTC towers were unique ... for the 60s ... structures in that they were tube within a tube design. The KEY structural element was a roof truss that connected the two tubes. That roof truss system was KEY to allowing WTC towers to dampen motion.

Both towers lost their ability to dampen motion when the roof truss systems were disassociated. Each tube moved ... moved enough, and with enough force to disassociate and fracture the concrete floors between them. That's why the pancake theory being offered by some ... currently a minority ... is unfeasible.

In addition to the loss of the roof truss and unitized dampening, there was tremendous drift caused by the collision and fire ... fires with low heat, but enough heat and a prolonged enough heat to add thermal loads to columns of both tubes. The motion and drift created destructive compression and tension in columns and in collateral framing. All these factors created the collapses of the WTC towers. (The same can be applied to WTC 7 ... minus the roof truss element).

The collapse was indeed angular ... anything but one floor at a time, not a uniform floor by floor by floor by floor. The "leading edge" of collapse can not be seen in videos offered here at DU or anywhere else. The walls mask this collase sequence. It's where the destructive tension and compression forces are disassociating columns from the ones above and below and fracturing floors. The collapse sequence following behind the leading edge is visible. Energy from that tension and compression and motion vents through fenestrations to the outside and has often been called "squibs" by DU forum members. This sequence precedes the falling debris.

The "spire" was created by the drift and collapse speed and lack of uniformity. The direction of the drift was away from this remnant, and the collapse wasn't uniform. No drift = no spire. Uniformity = no spire. Constant speed = no spire.

Investigation ... carefully monitored and recorded investigation by establish protocol .... during the rescue and then recovery efforts and then later aboard trucks, barges; at Fresh Kills, Craven Point and other collection centers, and now at JFK and in approx 60 other private and publicly funded labs have shown ... with some minor objection ... agreement with the above brief summary, and more details are documented in numerous reports ... all available to the public.

In closing I believe that the molten "steel" is and was an honest mistake or misnomer that has been misunderstood and blown out of proportion. The only molten materials I observed were the fenestrations .... which were aluminum. These "pools" did have other non aluminum elements in them but it was just the aluminum that was molten.

I will accept your comment "I half expect you to say the building twisted itself right into the ground" as a humorous aside. I will choose to believe you focused far too much on the word "twist" which I'm sure you now better understand was just used to show how the concrete fractured.

FYI: My intentions here at DU, towards you and others are genuinely noncombative. I am an engineer, in my 80s, and have spent a lifetime ... starting in WW2 investigating collapse all over the world. I was at WTC within minutes on 9/11 and participated in the rescue recovery and subsequent investigations ... and I have spent many hours each and every day since 9/11 on WTC. Should you have any additional questions please post them.

[BeFree]

48. Roof truss?

How in the world did the structure stand before the roof truss was installed? According to your theory of the roof truss being the keystone, the building would have fallen over well before it was finished!! Well, sir, that just about does it for giving you any benefit of doubt.

Oh, btw, fenestrations are openings. How could an opening become molten? Perhaps you mean to say the frame around the fenestrations was melted? And you say the molten aluminum had other non aluminum elements in them. So, you did a chemical analysis of that molten material, eh?

Looks like you are headed for my ignore list, just like the bobsy twins.

[OudeVanDagen]

50. Yes, the roof truss

... and you can take it to the bank .... read ANY report ... Weidlinger for example ... the one linked and heavily discussed here at DU and see for yourself about the roof truss.

Despite your virulent predisposed attitudes and bizzare comments I'll continue with decency and respect and offer explanations. All buildings are prone to collapse during the construction phase and in the case of WTC and numerous other high rise construction projects temporary supports are used. In fact photos of these temporary supports from the construction phase of WTC have been offered ... mistakely offered ... by some uninformed DU forum members as "proof" beams were used for floors instead of truses. It is a common building practice to use temporary supports during construction phases.

Fenestrations is a very general or generic term, and much easier to use than listing all the items that fall into that category; column covers, headers, sills, stools, glazing bead, etc etc. It's easier to use one widely accepted generic term than to list all those items that comprise the fenestrations of a structure one at a time.

"So, you did a chemical analysis of that molten material, eh?" you ask. No, I did not, but it was clear to my eye and to the eyes of the hundreds of other recovery and investigation teams that it was steel office cubicle frames sticking out of and fused with the aluminum. Macroscoping examinations (eye to 10X magnification) and magnetic testing showed small non aluminum objects.

As I stated before, if you have any questions please post them .... if you're simply going to attack me you have to take a number and get on line.

[BeFree]

51. Attack!

So you are saying that the whole structure was held together by the roof truss. Is it truss, or trusses? Is it fenestrations or the framing around the fenestrations? If you are gonna throw terms around might I suggest that you make sure they are as correct as can be?

Now to fenestration frames. How did they melt? The fire was inside and the theory is that the core columns melted. How in the world did the aluminum facings melt and end up in the basement?

Ya see why I am having a hard time with any of the explanations proffered? It just doesn't compute. You may think I am attacking you, but what I am going after is facts, and conjured statements about structures that would fool most people are not facts.

Now, if you are truly interested in factual presentations, might I suggest you also put up some real links? You need to back up your theories with more than typos if you want to convince anyone. Awww, I'm probably wasting my time, eh?

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Real links

http://wtc.nist.gov

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm

Knock yourself out.

[OudeVanDagen]

53. going after facts

You state quote: "The fire was inside and the theory is that the core columns melted." unquote.

Where did ya get those facts? I have 37 WTC collapse reports and over 50 collateral reports on my desk .... NONE say anything about core columns melting .... not a single one.

Thanks for the advice ... I'm happy you came along and opened my eyes ... I'll throw away my degrees, I'll stop using accepted industry terms, and I'll forget all about my 65 years of experience. I was being fair and honest with you and typing these messages with a pencil jammed into one hand. It ain't easy being old.

If you want to ask questions I'll answer ... after all I was there for months on end .... but don't tell me that columns melted while you're also saying you're going after facts ... which is it, you can't have it both ways?

[BeFree]

56. OK. Simple questions:

Where did you find the melted fenestration frames?

Are you saying that the roof trusses failed, and that failure caused the collapse?

Why was there steel/aluminum seen flying away from the building streaming clouds of something?

[OudeVanDagen]

59. Answers

1. Lowest 3 grids contained molten aluminum. Only building elements made of aluminum were the fenestrations.
2a. No. They were unable to perform as designed; due to collision damage & fire, which created drift and motion.
2b. No. Collapse was a result of several factors. In the most general terms a collapse has an extreme event (fire, earthquake etc) which causes collateral actions. I believe I covered it in previous posts.
3. What you saw was one of the typical end sequences to a collapse. The materials have to go somewhere.

[BeFree]

57. Man, you are good...

I almost missed your twisting. But, I caught it. Here goes:

In post #53. going after facts: you wrote:You state quote: "The fire was inside and the theory is that the core columns melted." unquote.

Where did ya get those facts?

You quoted me as stating it was a theory, that is correct, I did write 'theory' then, in the very next sentence, you go on to write Where did ya get those facts?

Question: How did you morph 'theory' into 'fact'?

You expect me to take anything you write as factual when you can't even get your story straight in two concurrent sentences? Unbelievable!

[OudeVanDagen]

58. Good catch

I am unaccustomed to writing anything without a review by my editor ... but you're really making a mountain out of a molehill ... so be it; but remember a theory usually has a base in a fact.

I'll take a mulligan on that one .... so: Where did ya get that theory?

[markses]

94. All dispute aside

You're just about my favorite poster, not just on DU, but on any Internet board ever. Thank you for your participation.

[BeFree]

101. Ain't that something

You think he's the greatest ever and I think he's unbelievable. Hell, I know he is unbelievable, just look at the misinformation he spewed. Gawd, is it any wonder America is so screwed up? Shaking my head in dis-belief........

[LARED]

18. Hummmmmm

The lie. Well lie may be too strong a word -- perhaps equivocation, prevarication, maybe fabrication -- are perhaps more accurate.

You plainly stated that the so called vaporizing steel was what creeps you out. When it was pointed out that anyone that believes the steel was vaporized should consider getting professional help you fabricated the notion that you were creeped out by the murder of three thousand Americans as being the cause for your discomfort.

A notion that you have never in the past ever broached. In fact it was you that stated at one time you would have stopped the recovery operations at the WTC in order to secure the area to do a proper investigation.

The fact is that many people were deeply touched by the events of 9-11, and even those who choose to disbelieve in your Teletubby version of 9-11 are just as justified in their feelings as the most ardent Coincidence Theorist. And surprisingly enough, most of them don't give a good hi-ho about your patronizing opinions of people who disagree with your regurgitation of the Official Story, offal that it is.

There is a vast gulf of credibility between those that question the events of 9/11 and those that think the steel was vaporized. Frankly, the latter get what they deserve.

I don't expect everyone to come to the same conclusions, but I will not tolerate your disingenuous pretense that no rational person could be led to believe that they are witnessing some sort of disintegration process.

There is no disingenuous pretense on my part -- no rational person does believe the steel disintegrated or vaporized.

And given the billions that have been poured into secret military high technology weapons research it seems very rational to believe that Rummy's friends have access to a variety of secret gizmos.

That is a rational belief.

Believing as you do that a weapon exists that can vaporize the steel in a building the magnitude of the WTC without leaving any discernible trace is irrational. Believing that there is a conspiracy that would use such weapons (if they exist) to murder 3000 Americans is irrational.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

20. Hey plaguepuppy

someone out there is playing Kerry's song.
But:

Their flip is a flop
Their flip is a flop
Their flip is a flop
Their flip is a flop
Flip, flop.
Flip, flop.
Flip, flop.
Flip, flop.

At your next Glorious Appearing,
you will accused of selling many copies of a certain book.

[plaguepuppy]

22. Yeah, looks like I'm getting the Kerry/Gore treatment

At least I'm in good company... Is it just me, of do the Bobsies display a fanatical dedication to the VRWPM's (vast right-wing propaganda machine) meme-of-the-moment which is to accuse Democrats of being inconsistent. OK, I admit it, I really wasn't the model for the guy in Love Story - though I did play a small part in a docu-drama about Love Canal.

As to what I'm being accused of flip-flopping about, nobody seems to be able to say in plain English what I am supposed to be flipping cow flops about. I asked politely in post 13, but Lar-Boy suddenly disappeared when I asked - funny, before that he was responding to every post in 5-10 minutes. My best guess is that they missed the implied irony of the quotes around 'falling steel' in post 6, and think that my use of this phrase implies a disavowal of my ideas about the disintegration of steel. That's quite a stretch, but it's the best IO can come up with. It's not much to base the weird little "nyaah nyaah, liar, liar" song and dance the Bobsies and Buffoons performed above on, but obviously these guys are easily amused...

[plaguepuppy]

23. Strong words from a stranger to the truth

So this "lie" I am accused of is daring to suggest that it is both creepy that certain Americans saw fit to slaughter thousands to achieve their goals, and that black technology could have been used to accomplish this. As I said in post 13 above: "The gist of my reply was that there is simply no contradiction between feeling empathy for the victims of 9-11 and believing that the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition. The fact that the images of the North Tower core collapsing into dust creeps me out has to do both with the fact that people were incinerated there and that it was done deliberately, and seemingly with some sort of black technology. The fact is that many people were deeply touched by the events of 9-11, and even those who choose to disbelieve in your Teletubby version of 9-11 are just as justified in their feelings as the most ardent Coincidence Theorist. And surprisingly enough, most of them don't give a good hi-ho about your patronizing opinions of people who disagree with your regurgitation of the Official Story, offal that it is."


I suppose you are free to use 'lie' to mean whatever you want it to: in this case anything you happen to disagree with.

Frankly, the latter get what they deserve.

Beware the wrath of the self-appointed gatekeeper of the boundaries of acceptable discussion!

no rational person...

Well you should know, you're certainly no rational person!

[LARED]

27. Gate keeper of the dissonance?

Beware the wrath of the self-appointed gatekeeper of the boundaries of acceptable discussion!

I'm no gatekeeper. Pointing out that folks that believe such things as vaporizing steel or that there is some causality between 9/11 and a TV show may not be engaging in rational discourse is not preventing anyone from posting these ideas; no matter how outlandish.

Well you should know, you're certainly no rational person!

Perhaps you have a point. It is somewhat irrational to engage the willfully ignorant for as long as I have.

[DulceDecorum]

10. Two wars and thousands dead

and all because of steel falling down.
I was creeped out by the bombs that had names inscribed upon them. these bombs were dropped upon the heads of hapless people in Afghanistan and Iraq BECAUSE the WTC in New York was leveled.
It is refreshing to see that some of us have "gotten over it" to the point that we can say things such as

"Being creeped out by a picture"
of steel falling down is something you should consider having a professional look into.

Now, what are we going to do about the dying and the dead?
Which professional is going to go look into that?

[plaguepuppy]

43. The secret of misdirection...

The key to most magic tricks is misdirection - you don't need to actually hide the crucial move if you create a strategic distraction. This can be a bright silk scarf, a wiggle of the beautiful assistant, or, if the trick is to make the topic of a thread disappear, a fusillade of insults. The People of the Lie have perfected the arts of invective and defamation of character and (usually) know just where to stop to keep their posts from being deleted.

This thread is a classic example of how one can be hijacked by a group assault. It's very much like the Bush method: come out with claws flailing in an attack on the character of the bearer of bad news, try to bait them into saying something intemperate to make them look bad, and then insist that the real issue is their faulty character. As bogus and far-fetched as the accusation of a lie was, it allowed LAREd and his gang-mates (or is that posse-mates, eh OVD?) to totally derail the thread.

There is a sort of double standard that allows this kind of baiting and thread hijacking to go on, while pulling posts for infractions as minor as using the "H" word. Granted it may be hard to make a clear judgment as to thread hijacking, while identifying "swear words" is easy. But in this case the hijacking was deliberate and clearcut, with long defamatory tirades from LAREd going unchallenged. But there is a larger principle at issue here.

From the message board rules: "Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other members of this discussion board.

If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, "your facts are wrong," but it is not appropriate to say "you are a liar.""

[DulceDecorum]

44. Cuidad

Observe this post:

As a matter of fact, I'd bet that you couldn't get 50% of DU posters to subscribe to 50% of that list. Why you continue to post here that Democratic Underground believes all of these things is beyond me.
In fact, I propose a wager, if the moderators will allow it to happen.
Start a poll in General Discussion, Dulce.
(IE LEAVE 9:11 AT ONCE)
Give that exact list of items, and ask people what percentage of those statements they believe. I'd suggest the percentages of 0%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, and 100%.
Here's the wager: If you can get 10% of DU members to say that they agree to 90% or 100% of those statements, I will leave the Democratic Underground forever.
(THE HOOK)
42017 user registrations since January 2001
Let's round it down to 4000, making it even easier for you. If you can get 4000 DU members to say they agree with 90% or 100% of those statements, I will leave the Democratic Underground forever.
(THE BAIT)
Here's the catch:
If 10% of DU members say that they believe either 0% or 10% of those statements, you leave DU forever.
(THE GOAL)
If you're not willing to take this wager, I would expect you to stop speaking for DU as a whole, since you're not willing to ask DU exactly what they think on the subject.
Agreed?
(THE RATIONALE)

Let us now refer to our list on Truth Suppression Tactics.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

Be careful.
Every single post you make
has an alert button which can be pushed SEVERAL times a day.
Print out that list of tactics
and make a point of looking through this handy guide
until you come across this paragraph.

If you can see the number of posts the instigator has, like you can on Democratic Underground, it is almost always very low. The DU moderators are very aggressive policing their boards, thank God.
http://www.unknownnews.net/cs020602.html

And now, let us return to
THE LONE GUNMEN.

FOX TV show depicts a U.S. government plot to crash a hijacked Boeing into the WTC six months before 9/11!
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/lonegunmen.html

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Negocio

FOX TV show depicts a U.S. government plot to crash a hijacked Boeing into the WTC six months before 9/11!
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/lonegunmen.html

Is this being offered as proof that the US Government did so on 9/11?

[plaguepuppy]

61. Rise and shine sleepyhead! (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

62. So I'm trying to understand why...

...a TV show is proof that the US government flew planes into the WTC.

[plaguepuppy]

63. ...a TV show is proof

Nobody has made the claim that the show is "proof" of anything. All I ask is that prior to expressing an opinion one actually watch the show so that there is some valid basis for discussion. Maybe once you do that I would be interested in your thoughts about what it might or might not indicate, but until then nobody is interested in your opinion about something you haven't bothered to watch.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. I realize that no one has made a claim that the show proves anything.

That's why I'm asking - what does it prove? Why bring it up?

What facts does this fictional television program bring to a discussion of the events of 9/11?

I've seen X Files before, including several episodes in which the Lone Gunmen were featured. I even saw the movie. I read a detailed synopsis of the Lone Gunmen pilot on the Internet, complete with screen shots.

Here's a link to the freaking transcript, already:

http://www.insidethex.co.uk/transcrp/tlg179.htm

What purpose in investigating the true events of 9/11 is served by starting with a fictional program? Some valid basis of discussion: what in the world are you talking about? What possible factual discussion could result from starting with this TV show?

Maybe Eugene Tooms is the suspect for planting all the demolition charges in the WTC?

Let's get real.

[plaguepuppy]

69. Why bring it up?

Isn't it the least bit interesting, in light of the repeated claims that the idea of flying planes into buildings was unimaginable, that a program aired in March and again in July of 2001 described exactly that scenario?

BTW, have you actually watched the show?

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Oh, brother.

No, I haven't seen that program. I read the transcript: does that count?

Isn't it the least bit interesting, in light of the repeated claims that the idea of flying planes into buildings was unimaginable, that a program aired in March and again in July of 2001 described exactly that scenario?

If you'll look at my messages on this, I mentioned this sole connection with the events of 9/11 at least twice. Unless you have a videotape of Condi Rice watching this program in March or June 2001, then it really doesn't have any relevance to anything, does it? More telling information along this line includes the Aug. 6 PDB, the constant warnings of an al-Qaeda attack involving airplanes, the lack of daily meetings that might have brought the Phoenix memo and other information into the right hands.

The 9/11 attack was "unimaginable" for the Bush Administration because their imaginations were possessed solely with finding some excuse to invade Iraq. They considered al-Qaeda as unworthy of their attention. Condi was about to say as much that very day, when her national security speech would have plugged a missile defense system and chided the Clinton Administration for its attention to global terrorism.

BTW - This kind of odd coincidence has happened before:

http://www.starway.org/Titanic/Titan.html

But that's all that this is: a coincidence.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

98. Bolo: How do you know THAT?

Have you been channeling Linda Blair?

"The 9/11 attack was "unimaginable" for the Bush Administration because their imaginations were possessed solely with finding some excuse to invade Iraq."

Right. And, it's just an odd coincidence that some people don't support the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory. Sure, bolo.

[LARED]

47. hijacking was deliberate and clearcut

Really? I find that interesting as you were the one of the ones that changed the subject from the TV show to the so called vaporizing steel. Why would you hijack your own thread and then blame someone else?

So what about the TV show?

[DulceDecorum]

55. and occured in post #5.

LARED,
it is technically impossible for someone to hijack their own thread.

It also appears that this thread has been so disrupted as to be dead.
No meanful discussion can occur here.
Look at the other previous posts to see for yourself.

[plaguepuppy]

60. Bad dead lead head Lared and his hundred and one evasions

Oh yeah, the tv show, what about it again?

The guy has the chutzpa to continue to claim that he didn't do it as he continues to extrude hundreds of column inches of drivel having nothing to do with the LG, and always tooting on his one-note disinformational horn about how anyone who could entertain the idea of a controlled demolition (much less the idea that all those pictures that look like disintegrating metal might actually be disintegrating metal) is obviously a raving maniac, and is further disallowed from having any genuine feelings about the attacks.

He sounds a lot like that O'Reiley A-hoe when he tore into the guy who lost his father on 9-11 for daring to question the official story, to even barely hint that the Bushistas had done anything less than the exact right thing at every moment or bore any blame for the attacks happening on their watch.

As long as lared is demanding truth in advertising (to say nothing of his demented bet/threat/popularity contest idea) it might be helpful to know what he and his chronic cronies consider a plausible narrative of the events leading up to 9-11. Prior knowledge? Anything? You guys owe it to us to come clean...

[LARED]

64. How disappointing

Still backpedaling.

The guy has the chutzpa to continue to claim that he didn't do it as he continues to extrude hundreds of column inches of drivel having nothing to do with the LG,

As it's plain to see I was not the one that brought up the vaporizing steel. So why bother trying pin that on me?

and always tooting on his one-note disinformational horn about how anyone who could entertain the idea of a controlled demolition (much less the idea that all those pictures that look like disintegrating metal might actually be disintegrating metal) is obviously a raving maniac,

As I pointed out already there is a vast gulf between those that promote a controlled demo theory and those that promote vaporizing steel (ie alien ray gun) theories. And I never implied the later are raving maniacs, only they should consider getting professional help. Sound advice in my opinion. It is quite a common problem for people to have a difficult time maintaining a clear distinction between fantasy and reality. Really, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

and is further disallowed from having any genuine feelings about the attacks.

I never said your feeling were not valid. I said you were using that story as a cover to hide your back pedaling.

Have a nice day. :)

[plaguepuppy]

68. a vast gulf between ...

Speaking of back-pedaling, you now seem to be saying that controlled demolition in un-controversial, but "the idea that all those pictures that look like disintegrating metal might actually be disintegrating metal" is still tinfoil material. Way to go lar_lar!

[Bolo Boffin]

71. No...

The idea of a controlled demolition is understandable when you look at a very narrow range of evidence, but on considering the fuller range of evidence out there, it becomes untenable.

Whereas the idea of disintergrating steel is prima facie wacko.

That's probably all that LARED means, plaguepuppy.

PS: Why do people on the other side of this issue always resort to cute little degradations of our DU names? Things like "lar_lar" and "bolobluffin" can be viewed as insulting, you know.

[LARED]

75. Thanks

As usual you said better than I could

[LARED]

74. No back pedaling here

Why did I say or imply the controlled demolition theory was uncontroversial.

Let me answer that for you. I didn't.

Someone asking if the WTC's collapse could have been the result of a controlled demolition is not a question out of fantasy land. Given the images we all saw, it was a legitimate question. A question that has been answered with a "not possible" ad nauseam.

On the other hand positing that the steel in the WTC was vaporized or disintegrated is straight out of fairy land or possibly the result of plain old ignorance. Seeing as you are an MIT grad, my guess is you have the metal capacity to figure that there exist no physical evidence that indicates steel was vaporized as you have stated. There plainly is no images or normative thought processes that brings one to the conclusion we saw steel vaporizing.

[Abe Linkman]

65. If you're talking about what a disinfo agent might say...

I wouldn't expect a disinfo agent to give a narrative. I don't know who or what "lared" et al. are ... but I'd think about all a real disinfo agent would do is try to distract, disrupt, undermine, etc. If pressed, I'd think they'd just do like the 9-11 Commission, and try to focus on how it might be prevented in the future, or maybe find some new scapegoats & suggest that maybe they could have been more competent, etc.

I'm sure that there aren't any disinfo agents here at DU. What purpose would they have being here?

[plaguepuppy]

67. distract, disrupt, undermine...

Gee, I can't think of anyone around here who does stuff like that.

So how soon should I expect this narrative version of events reported back from lareD et al? You aren't suggesting that this kind of might have a kind of anti-narrative, are you? You know, not a narrative of what they assert to be the real events, but a specific forbidden narrative that they carry around which they attempt to enforce as an "unthinkable zone?" That forbidden narrative seems to include almost anything implying any guilt or culpability by the Bush people, a pretty broad definition of their intended epithet, "paranoid nutcase."

By that definition I would estimate that the opinions of 80-90% of DUers fall somewhere in the forbidden zone.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Looking around for my copy of the "forbidden narrative"

LARED, could you fax me a copy of the "forbidden narrative"? I must have missed the meeting where that was handed out...

That forbidden narrative seems to include almost anything implying any guilt or culpability by the Bush people,

I believe that the negligence displayed by the Bush Adminstration is criminal and quite damning in terms of guilt and culpability. That means that I fall into the 80-90% of DUers that believe the Bushistas have some guilt and culpability in the events of 9/11. Imagine that.

It's weird to watch you ascribe motives and definitions to us, plaguepuppy. Do we intend an epithet? Anyone that disputes you on this issue is intending to call you an "paranoid nutcase"? Where did you get that from?

Don Quixote was quite sane in all other areas of his life, but the idea of a romantic chivalry had seized his imagination and made him attack windmills as if they were marauding giants. I'm sure the same thing applies to you, plaguepuppy. We see such a small part of each other on these boards, and I've no doubt that you're quite sensible in the rest of your life. Don't think ill of us because we'd like to see you devote your energies to actually attacking Bush.

[Abe Linkman]

73. What does this have to do with 9-11? Be specific. Thanks.

"I believe that the negligence displayed by the Bush Adminstration is criminal and quite damning in terms of guilt and culpability."

Put me in the category of DUers who believe there are definitely false "doubters" here. Whether or not they are paid disinfo agents, I don't know. But, it's sure curious that YOU are one of those who seems to ONLY be here for the purpose of undermining DUers who don't accept the
"Wacky Caveman & Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

Wait, maybe I should have said it this way: you appear to support the
"Wacky Cavepeople Did It AND The Bushistas Were Negligent Somehow Or Other, But We Still Support The Official Version Story".

[Bolo Boffin]

77. What does what have to do with 9-11?

This statement of mine?

"I believe that the negligence displayed by the Bush Adminstration is criminal and quite damning in terms of guilt and culpability."

If so, then it's the negligence of the BA in preventing the attacks on 9/11 that I'm talking about. That has everything to do with 9/11.

Or do you mean the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen? We've already established that it's an interesting sidebar to 9/11, an example of how imaginable the actual attacks were, but that's it.

Or do you mean something else? Be specific. Thanks.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. What?

If THAT'S all you're concerned about with regard to 9-11, then why in the world would you spend so many hours a week here apparently for no other reason than to distract, undermine, and otherwise deflect attention away from evidence that the "Wacky Cavepeople Did It" Theory?

Why would I deflect attention away from evidence that al-Qaeda attacked America on 9/11? That's what happened!

Perhaps you should try again to explain what you mean.

PS: What business is it of yours how much time I spend here?

PPS: When are you going to start discussing the Lone Gunmen story? I've been corrected on that here and tried to get back to the discussion. Why are you now trying to get me involved in talking about why I'm here? Can we stick to the subject?

[Abe Linkman]

81. Hard questions cause some people to hit the "alert" button

why?

[Bolo Boffin]

82. I didn't hit the alert button.

You'll have to ask whoever did why.

Meanwhile, questions of mine that you didn't answer:

Abe: If THAT'S all you're concerned about with regard to 9-11, then why in the world would you spend so many hours a week here apparently for no other reason than to distract, undermine, and otherwise deflect attention away from evidence that the "Wacky Cavepeople Did It" Theory?

Why would I deflect attention away from evidence that al-Qaeda attacked America on 9/11? That's what happened!

Perhaps you should try again to explain what you mean.

PS: What business is it of yours how much time I spend here?

PPS: When are you going to start discussing the Lone Gunmen story? I've been corrected on that here and tried to get back to the discussion. Why are you now trying to get me involved in talking about why I'm here? Can we stick to the subject?

And now you're talking about the alert button, and not the Lone Gunmen. Would you answer the questions and get back to the subject, Abe?

[Abe Linkman]

83. Answer your own question ("why you would deflect attention")

"It's the cover-up that alleges government incompetence and intelligence failure; the critics allege government complicity and guilt." FTW

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Thanks for playing. n/t

[Abe Linkman]

85. What's the name of your game? You didn't say. You just thanked me.

"It's the cover-up that alleges government incompetence and intelligence failure; the critics allege government complicity and guilt." FTW

[demodewd]

86. astounding..

You have an astounding naivete concerning false flag operations and black ops,Bolo.Terrorist networks are infiltrated by Western intelligence.Profoundly. There are secret banking networks and illegal means via drug trade to finance these covert operations.(You do know this?) Al Qaeda and its operatives are known and controlled by elite inner circles and many terrorist incidents are falsely ascribed to their network. Atta and friends were wired a long time ago by German,American, and Israeli intelligence. These guys DID NOT operate in a vacuum.

[plaguepuppy]

90. Not astounding, just feigned

You credit him with actually believing the stuff he puts out. If you stop assuming that the "naivete" becomes much more understandable.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

89. "Can we stick to the subject?" Yes, bolo --- I wish you would.

But, every time you say there's tons of evidence to back your claims that the cave people are responsible for 9-11 --- you fail to provide any proof at all. Example: the alleged cell phone calls made from FL 77. When asked to prove it, all you've done (when you didn't try to change the subject) is make the assertion that they happened.

Whenever evidence was offered that Osama was visited in the hospital by the local CIA Chief, your only response was typical Bush-like: shoot and smear the messenger. Whenever evidence was offered that Osama was in a military hospital in Pakistan on September 10, 2001 --- you did the same thing.

Is there some particular reason why you continue to support the unsupportable, bogus Official Story? You don't have to, do you?

[demodewd]

93. Hey Abe...

Do you listen to these folks? http://www.wbaifree.org/takingaim/shows/audio.html

[Abe Linkman]

95. Thanks.

I know who WBAI is, and I used to listen to Amy Goodman nearly every day.

I'll be sure and listen to some of the programs listed.

Thanks for bring these to my attention.

Do they now do a lot of censoring on "Democracy Now", too? It's a little jolting and disengenuous that so many "progressive" outlets engage in censoring.

[demodewd]

100. Ralph and Mya

I'm making reference to the show Taking Aim narrated by Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. Have you heard them?

[LARED]

76. Sorry I can't

My handlers forbid me from faxing the "forbidden narrative." I suggest you contact "you know who" to get a copy.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[plaguepuppy]

91. Anyone that disputes you

It's weird to watch you ascribe motives and definitions to us, plaguepuppy. Do we intend an epithet? Anyone that disputes you on this issue is intending to call you an "paranoid nutcase"? Where did you get that from?


Not, not anyone, just those who engage in insults, implied insults (e.g. "no rational person thinks...") snide humor, off-topic banter with fellow disruptors, etc. I'm sure that doesn't fit anyone you would know now, does it?

[plaguepuppy]

97. The amazing disappearing thread

So does anybody out there actually have anything to say about the Lone Gunmen? Bolo was kind enough to share his astute analysis in post #70 above, which I believe can be fairly paraphrased as follows: it's all a big coincidence.

Even if the detailed correspondence to the actual attacks of 9-11 can be written off as such, there is still the problem of the dog that didn't bark in the night: given that this show was the first episode of the one and only spin-off from the very popular X-Files, seen by a greast many people, and was shown in March and again in July of 2001, isn't it the least bit odd that nobody in the mass media has seen fit to comment on the "odd resemblance" between the show and subsequent events? Was there a collective decision made by the media to spare our tender sensibilities by avoiding mention of the episode (the same media that showed us the WTC jumpers, and the inside of Saddam's mouth)?

[impe]

99. More Oddities

In addition to that particular episode, in the October 2001 issue of WIRED, was an album cover COUP depicting the twin towers burning in the background. At that time, the CD wasn't even on sale.

Also at the time of the 9/11 attacks, the marine corps urban warfighting logo showed a green dragon rising out of the sea and devouring the twin towers. Immediately after the attack the USMC pulled the logo and substituted it with a new one.