Reply With Quote
A plane hit WTC7? that news to me...
Your an idiot defending a weak position....I said steel supports....reading is fundamental!
A plane hit WTC7? that news to me...
see above
Why did you confuse the issue with concrete, then?
If you look at at least one of the building fires twoofers bring up frequently, you would actually find a steel structure collapse.
Let's see if you can find it!
Well, here's another one anyway:
I don't believe a plane hit this one either.
Ah, my bad.
Well, it always facinated me how a structure as large as 7 could implode like that......seemingly perfectly. I'd have to see more data on the distribution of the fires within the building. It looked like many of them were near the center.
It's my new policy.
If you want to tell me what you think really happened on 9/11, mouse, I'll read it.
Now that building fell the way you would expect a building that suffered warped,softening steel support beams to fall, I never said it was impossible, just very unlikely that it would completely collapse the way WTC7 collapsed...the video confirms that hypothesis...
How can you compare a building less than 1/3rd the height with WTC 7? Less than 1/3rd the stress on the lower structure.
It is very unlikely you know enough about structural engineering to be able to judge what it should "look like".
So............... you got nothing, huh?It is very unlikely you know enough about structural engineering to be able to judge what it should "look like".
Who needs explosives to completely knock down steel support buildings when fire will do the job every time!
....oh smite us with your engineering prow-ness smite, oh mighty smitter....It is very unlikely you know enough about structural engineering to be able to judge what it should "look like".
As soon as you regail us with tales from your extensive knowledge of physics and cell phone technology.....oh smite us with your engineering prow-ness smite, oh mighty smitter....
prove him wrong.As soon as you regail us with tales from your extensive knowledge of physics and cell phone technology.
If you knew anything about the way buildings are constructed, you'd know you're full of . You're full of ...your post confirms that hypothesis...
...blah, blah, blah, I know enough about buildings to know that the only way to take down a whole building like WTC7 is for the center support beams, in this case, steel beams, to completely collapse evenly on a lower supporting floor and even in those cases,you might take down a big chunk of the building, but not the whole building...without another official investigation all the evidence that was used to justify the NIST findings on WTC7 will never be known, or at least not for another 50 years..
"The only way?"
Dan... Time to put that crack pipe down.
If any if the beams attached to the center buckle, the center beams can also buckle. It only takes one to start the effect, and it can be just about any of the support beams.
Also...
Gravity will make almost any tall structure fall strait into itself. You don't expect it to tip over do you?
WCT7 was a very unusual building, it's also very unusual that Gullyani would house his emergency coordination center in such a ill-equipped building...I don't think that the failure of just one center support beam is going to lead to the collapse of the whole building...I think even the NIST findings are that a whole section of center support beams collapsed leading to the catastrophic collapse...without looking at the technical details though there's no real way to tell if the NIST findings are supported by facts or if NIST just wrapped it's hypothesis around only one possible scenario...
Dan. You better sit down for this.
There is no way to know exactly what happened, beam by beam. It is an educated guess for a plausible explanation.
Wait a minute -- you haven't looked at any of the technical details?
You aren't interested in this at all, are you?
Your an ass-hat you know they're classified...
Meanwhile, I'm going to enjoy watching the 'truths' in 9/11 Commission report completely collapse in the coming years...
Step 1:
LinkIn an interview aired on Aug. 11 on a local PBS affiliate in Colorado, Clarke charges that Tenet and two other senior CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee, deliberately withheld information about two of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 — al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. The two had entered the United States more than a year before the 9/11 attacks.
Clarke adds that the CIA then covered it all up by keeping relevant information away from Congress and the 9/11 Commission.
Lying by senior officials is bad enough, and there is now plenty of evidence that former CIA Director George Tenet and his closest agency associates are serial offenders. Think for a minute about the falsehoods spread regarding Iraq’s non-existent WMD stockpiles.
But withholding intelligence on two of the 9/11 hijackers would have been particularly unconscionable — the epitome of malfeasance, not just misfeasance.
That’s why Richard Clarke’s conclusion that he should have received information from CIA about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, “unless somebody intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution” amounts, in my view, to a criminal charge, given the eventual role of the two in hijacking on 9/11 of AA-77, the plane that struck the Pentagon.
Tenet has denied that the information on the two hijackers was “intentionally withheld” from Clarke, and he has enlisted the other two former CIA operatives, Cofer Black (more recently a senior official of Blackwater) and Richard Blee (an even more shadowy figure), to concur in saying, Not us; we didn’t withhold.
Whom to believe? To me, it’s a no-brainer. One would have to have been born yesterday to regard the “George is right” testimony from Black and Blee as corroborative.
Tenet’s Dubious Credibility
Tenet is the same fellow who provided the “slam dunk” on the existence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, as well as the “artist renderings” of equally non-existent mobile laboratories for developing biological warfare agents, based on unconfirmed information from the impostor code-named (appropriately) “Curveball.”
It was Tenet who, under orders from President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney, ordered up and disseminated a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate on WMD in Iraq, the purpose of which was to deceive our elected representatives out of their cons utional prerogative to authorize war. No small lies.
After a five-year investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Chairman Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence adduced under Tenet to “justify” attacking Iraq as “uncorroborated, contradicted, and non-existent.”
Good enough to win Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom, though. The corruption of intelligence worked just fine for the purposes of Bush and Cheney, thank you very much.
It is a actually a matter of record that Tenet lies a lot — on occasion, demonstrating what I would call chutzpah on steroids. Recall, for example, Tenet in April 2007 snarling at Scott Pelley on “60 Minutes” — five times, in five consecutive sentences — “We do not torture people.”
Under Oath
Tenet has lied about 9/11, too. The joint statement from Tenet, Black and Blee – orchestrated by former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow – concludes: “We testified under oath about what we did, what we knew and what we didn’t know. We stand by that testimony.”
Almost made me laugh … almost.
In his sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004, Tenet said he had not spoken to Bush — even on the telephone — during the entire month of August 2001.
But Tenet did fly down to see the President in Crawford — not once, but twice during August 2001, and briefed Bush again in Washington on the 31st.
After the TV cameras at the 9/11 Commission hearing were shut off, Bill Harlow phoned the commission staff to say, Oops, sorry, Tenet misspoke. Even then, Harlow admitted only to Tenet’s Aug. 17 visit to Crawford (and to the briefing on the 31st).
How do we know Tenet was again in Crawford, on Aug. 24? From a White House press release quoting President Bush to that effect — information somehow completely missed by our vigilant Fawning Corporate Media.
Funny, too, how Tenet could have forgotten his first visit to Crawford on Aug. 17. In his memoir, At the Center of the Storm, Tenet waxes eloquent about the “president graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and me trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna.” But the visit was not limited to small talk.
In his book Tenet writes: “A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the president stayed current on events.” The Aug. 6, 2001, President’s Daily Brief contained the article “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US.”
According to Ron Suskind’s The One-Percent Doctrine, the president reacted by telling the CIA briefer, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.”
If, as Tenet says in his memoir, it was the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB that prompted his visit on Aug. 17, what might have brought him back on Aug. 24? I believe the answer can be found in court do ents released at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the fledgling pilot in Minnesota interested in learning to steer a plane but indifferent as to how to land it.
Those do ents show that on Aug. 23, 2001, Tenet was given an alarming briefing focusing on Moussaoui, led “Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly.” Tenet was told that Moussaoui was training to fly a 747 and, among other su ion-arousing data, had paid for the training in cash.
It is an open question — if a key one — whether Tenet told Bush about the two hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, while keeping that key information from the person who most needed it — White House counter-terrorist czar Richard Clarke. Clarke finds the only plausible explanation in his surmise that Tenet was personally responsible.
Clarke says: “For me to this day, it is inexplicable, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me, that the other 48 people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my staff in a period of over 12 months.”
Enter Harlow
But Tenet’s aide-de-camp Bill Harlow has branded Clarke’s statements “absurd and patently false.” The statement Harlow shepherded for Tenet, Black and Blee adds “reckless and profoundly wrong … baseless … belied by the record … unworthy of serious consideration.”
And Harlow never lies? Right.
I’m reminded of Harlow’s reaction to Newsweek’s publication on Feb. 24, 2003, of the intelligence information provided by Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel when he defected to Jordan in 1995. Kamel brought with him a treasure trove of do ents and unique knowledge of Iraq’s putative “weapons of mass destruction.”
Most significantly, he told his U.S. debriefers there were no WMD in Iraq. He knew, since he was in charge of the chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs for almost a decade, and he ordered what weapons existed destroyed before the U.N. inspectors could discover them after the war in 1991.
In his words: “I ordered the destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons — biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.”
He told the U.S. much more, and the information that could be checked out was confirmed. But Kamel’s information didn’t fit with the Bush administration’s propaganda regarding its certainty that Iraq did have WMD stockpiles and was defying United Nations demands that the WMD be destroyed.
Those pushing the Iraq War juggernaut in early 2003 almost had a conniption when Newsweek acquired a transcript of Kamel’s debriefing and published this potentially explosive story barely three weeks before the invasion.
Newsweek noted gingerly that this information “raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist.” It was the kind of impeccably sourced do entary evidence after which intelligence analysts and lawyers lust.
But this was not at all what Bush, Cheney, and — by sycophantic extension — Tenet wanted Newsweek readers, or the rest of us, to learn less than a month before the U.S./U.K. attack on Iraq ostensibly to find and destroy those non-existent weapons.
Bill Harlow to the rescue: he told the FCM in no uncertain terms that the Newsweek story was, “incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue.” And the media cheerleaders for war breathed a sigh of relief, saying, Gosh, thanks for telling us, and then dropped the story like a hot potato.
By all indications, Harlow is still able to work his fraudulent magic on the FCM, which has virtually ignored this major Clarke v. Tenet story since it broke several days ago.
If Harlow says it’s not true … and hurls still more pejorative adjectives in a crude attempt to discredit the very serious charge Clarke has made … well, I guess we’ll have to leave it there, as the FCM is so fond of saying.
No matter Clarke’s well-deserved reputation for honesty and professionalism — and Tenet’s for the opposite. And so it goes.
The credibility of the whole 911 commission report is based on a habitual liar
Told ya so...
So... the entirety of the 9-11 commission report's credibility is based on Tenet's testimony?Your an ass-hat you know they're classified...
Meanwhile, I'm going to enjoy watching the 'truths' in 9/11 Commission report completely collapse in the coming years...
Step 1:
Link
The credibility of the whole 911 commission report is based on a habitual liar
Told ya so...
uh-hun. You get that strawman. He won't mind.
I see cosmored is up for another round of his own insanity.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
