Karma and Bush, and also the WTC

Pages

AuthorTopic: Karma and Bush, and also the WTC
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #150
Now, I'm not a chemist, but I would think that if steel can be forged at 2000°F, then it should be significantly weaker at about 1700°C than it is at any normal daytime temperature (which usually isn't over 50°C). You don't have to weaken it to melting; you just have to weaken it enough that it can't handle tons upon tons of weight.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Master
Member # 4614
Profile Homepage #151
Expansion caused by sudden temperature changes could have had a big effect too. Also, because of this expansion, even though the metal may have been far from melted, it was still weakened and seseptible to bending. Not to mention that the impact must have destroyed a few vital supports, even if it wasn't enough to collapse the tower on its own.

Oh, and there's no telling what secret relationship Saddam may have had with Bin Laden. But Marlenny, the main reason we went into Iraq was the threat of WMDs, but I know we didn't find any. Even though we didn't know for sure, you don't just leave alone something like that. And while we were there, we mays well set up a democracy...

--------------------
-ben4808

For those who love to spam:
CSM Forums
RIFQ
Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #152
quote:
Originally written by 4.808 x 10^3:

Oh, and there's no telling what secret relationship Saddam may have had with Bin Laden.
There's no telling what secret relationship Hitler might have had with Chamberlain, either - but Adolf and Neville had about as much political reason to maintain friendly terms, and were on much better personal terms, and yet history says nothing in particular about the two of them being in cahoots to invade Poland.

For the record:
Iraq had no particular immediate capacity to build WMDs, and thus invading it would be as legal and valid as invading Brazil for the same;If Iraq had either WMDs or the capacity to build them, invading Iraq instead of allowing inspections to continue would certainly result in either those weapons or that capacity going to other, less immediately observable organizations;Several documents used by the Bush administration as causi belli turned out to be verifiably false before the war - and as such, 'intelligence failure' cannot credibly be blamed - as the same intelligence provided the eventual justification for war and ought, by rights, have been reassessed;The administration was on record planning an invasion of Iraq as soon as the day after 9/11 - in spite of general suspicion and later proof that al'Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, had committed the attacks;The investment in creating a democracy in Iraq was not only much greater than would otherwise be possible due to local hostility towards the U.S., but also due to the lack of any tradition of open, democratic government - or even local self-government - in Iraq.The case for invading Iraq was flimsy. Ties to terrorism were false and mostly made as a means of scare-mongering. WMD claims were falsified where not ambiguous, and in any event, a WMD-based invasion was at best a tactical error and at worst a bungle of globally damaging proportions.
But the invasion of Iraq was not made in a hurry - it followed a year-and-a-half-long propaganda blitz. The Iraq war was a war of naked aggression. The errors made in justifying it cannot be attributed to a tough decision made in a hurry; all of the 'problems' posed by Iraq could as easily have been solved some time later.
Furthermore, if deproliferation and democratization are U.S. priorities, why not target Iran, which is markedly hostile towards the US, near-nuclear, and a one-party state? It's far closer to achieving WMD-production than Iraq was at the time of invasion, it's far less open to inspectors than Iraq was at the time of the invasion, and it already has a theoretically democratic structure in place.
Or North Korea - which has been spurning inspectors for a decade, has no religious support network at home or abroad, and which is ruled by a tyrannical madman, and which is as of 2005 and was not as of 2003 a nuclear power? It was, by all means, a monumental screwup in diplomatic terms. It could have been avoided by any attempt to invade and disarm North Korea, whose military budget is starving its people.

Iraq was chosen because of the neoconservative obsession with the country, the desire to establish a policing outpost in the Middle East to ensure oil shipping would go through as planned, and just about entirely to prove it could be done. The pretenses were invented after the decisions to invade and the strategic plans to invade had been made.

If you needed to have a war, Iraq wasn't exactly the best choice. Yes, perhaps better in PR terms than just randomly bombing the living hell out of, say, Senegal - but still, not good.

[ Thursday, June 02, 2005 16:44: Message edited by: Custer XVI ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Master
Member # 4614
Profile Homepage #153
Yeah, that was pretty much just speculation on my part, though there is rumor that the two were somehow related. I don't know.

Example.

[ Thursday, June 02, 2005 16:31: Message edited by: 4.808 x 10^3 ]

--------------------
-ben4808

For those who love to spam:
CSM Forums
RIFQ
Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #154
quote:
Originally written by ef:

Professionals around here have their doubts.

Kerosine fires reach temperatures between 1110 F to 1740 F (950°C).
Steel melts at 2890 F (1588°C).
The usual forging temperature for steel lies between 2000-2550 F (1400°C).

The quantity of gasoline does not heighten a fire's temperature. It burns longer with more gasoline, but not hotter.

Aviation fuel burns hotter than ordinary fuel, though.

Having said that, the Empire State Building has survived a plane crashing into it. So even if there was no conspiracy, someone has a case to answer as to why the WTC collapsed.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #155
quote:
Originally written by 4.808 x 10^3:

Yeah, that was pretty much just speculation on my part, though there is rumor that the two were somehow related. I don't know.

Example.

I'm leery of the source, to be frank - and it does not jibe particularly well with Usama bin Ladin's previous declarations on Saddam Hussein: infidel, unbeliever, communist, traitor, heretic, all sorts of nice things.

That, in addition to general policy by Muslim extremist groups, al'Qaeda in particular - to strongly limit reliance on sources foreign or hostile to their religious beliefs - suggests any link between Mr. Saddam and Mr. bin Ladin would be, at best, relatively tenuous, and marked by enough intermediaries that you could as well call Bill O'Reilly a member of the Chinese Communist Party.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Guardian
Member # 2476
Profile #156
quote:
Aviation fuel burns hotter than ordinary fuel, though.

Having said that, the Empire State Building has survived a plane crashing into it. So even if there was no conspiracy, someone has a case to answer as to why the WTC collapsed.
It would take a very long time before steel trosses reached even the fire's temperature, as researches show. But let's assume it happened. Then all 287 columns would have to have weakened to the point of collapse simultaneously, at the very same moment, to cause such a symmetrical, telescoping fall as seen in the North Tower.

Away from controlled demolition only earthquakes are known to trigger the simultaneous damage needed to cause total collapse.

But let us assume that somehow miraculously all 287 columns melted at the same time, bent, and caused the floors to loosen and fall. How do you explain the immensity of the dust cloud that evaporated immediately within the first seconds of the collapse. Within those first few seconds the speed of the falling floors would never have been sufficient to reduce concrete to powder fine dust forming mushroom clouds.

We may never know the truth. But of one thing I'm sure: what we were told to see is not what happened.

--------------------
Polaris
Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #157
Who was told to see anything? A nation watched it unfold on camera, people watched it happen in Manhattan, and suchlike. I mean, I can name maybe one or two direct and successful conspiracies in living memory which had an audience of more than a million people at any given time; when 9/11 happened, 100 million or more people were watching.

The theory that the planes were not the cause of the WTC collapse is utterly without merit; it would require superhuman feats of engineering and covert operations, technology which simply does not exist outside of the realm of theory, and a string of coincidences and dismissals such as to make an ardent flat-earther dizzy-headed. When I said 'incredible', I mean just that: it is not credible in any way, shape, or form. Even if you dismiss every law of physics dictating that the collapse could be and was caused by a jetliner crash, you would also have to flagrantly ignore every observable fact of covert action, intelligence, and mass psychology.

Speaking as one of SW's leading skeptics, I find the claim that the WTC collapse was not caused by a plane crash is factually bankrupt and theoretically unsound. It also has the fun side-effect of being politically dangerous, often used to further libel Israel in the Arab world and justify violence against it and the United States.

It is a conspiracy theory which has no real merit to back it, and advocating it is essentially irresponsible.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #158
Can I just point out that we don't actually have many previous examples from which to know how a building collapses when hit by an aircraft? Modelling can only tell us so much.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #159
From my previous link:

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination.  Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards.  Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact."

Many of the columns were already taken out. Apparently the rest would've just had to achieve varying degrees of flexibility, and then a whole floor would've collapsed more or less simultaneously, which led to the pancaking effect

To put it another way, it would've been far more suspicious if it hadn't fallen the way that it did. The engineers who build it make sure that if it's going to go down, it doesn't take a city block with it.

And I heard at some point — don't know a source for this — that the two buildings were not reinforced as well as they could have been. A more recent building (or more recently retrofitted or something) would have been able to withstand the fires. That may be why the Empire State didn't go down.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #160
ef, I wasn't here at the time, but I know people who saw the plane fly into the 'gon.

It's not a US pro-Israeli cabal anti-Palestinian plot. It was a plane flying into the side of the Pentagon.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #161
quote:
Originally written by Andrew Miller:

ef, I wasn't here at the time, but I know people who saw the plane fly into the 'gon.

It's not a US pro-Israeli cabal anti-Palestinian plot. It was a plane flying into the side of the Pentagon.

Are you certain? I've never been sure about the Pentagon; compared to the other targets, attacking an unoccupied block of office space in a military structure just seems so... uncharacteristic.

That and all of the dodgy official statistics lead me to really wonder about that one. It's the only one the country didn't get video confirmation of, I know that much.

I'm not saying I blame anyone in particular - just that the official story on the pentagon attack leaves me cold. The WTC attacks make perfect sense to me, since they involve jetliners behaving as jetliners ought to, terrorists behaving as terrorists ought to, and skyscrapers behaving as skyscrapers ought to. The Pentagon had a tremendous jetliner performing like a cruise missile, ill-trained terrorists with no actual flying experience performing like hot-shot fighter pilots, and the Pentagon, to be fair, behaving like one would expect from the Pentagon.

But something about it doesn't seem to add up. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Them (TM) behind it, but I'm far more inclined to believe (esp. in light of current events) that They (TM) have just been covering something up.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #162
You may have just lost your skeptic's license. If AM knows people who saw it, that dramatically complicates any alternate version of events that you might come up with.

It's not that I don't think the government would deceive us if they could. I just don't think they're competent enough to do so.

[ Friday, June 03, 2005 08:56: Message edited by: Thurylandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
Profile Homepage #163
I don't see why to doubt the Pentagon one. I can't see what the shadowy conspiracy would gain by it, since they already have enough real terrorist atrocities for that day. And if a plane crash didn't cause it, there's the matter of the missing plane.

It also seems reasonable that there weren't as many witnesses next to a military headquarters as in the middle of a densely populated city (I imagine that people working at the Pentagon are not allowed to say anything on general secrecy principles)

Oh, and I don't see why hitting the Pentagon takes more skill than hitting the WTC. If they'd aimed higher, they'd have taken out a different part of the building. If they'd aimed lower, they'd have skidded along the ground a bit more before hitting it. Pinpoint precision wasn't necessary.

[ Friday, June 03, 2005 09:09: Message edited by: Khoth ]

--------------------
Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram.

desperance.net - Don't follow this link
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #164
The Pentagon is a pretty large target. Also, at the angle at which it was hit, the plane very well may have been heading into town.

Planes fly in close to the area all the time to land at Reagan National (as an aside, if you're flying into the area, National is the most convenient airport of the three to practically everything in DC), which is pretty much right next door to the Pentagon. That they were caught off guard isn't so surprising.

[ Friday, June 03, 2005 09:52: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
Profile #165
I think we can be reasonably sure a plane did hit. Otherwise I would expect to have heard from the passengers of the plane. If none of them ever reappear, I think we can assume it was genuine.

Besides, I simply do not believe that 'They' would ever plan something on such a scale. It would be so fiendishly complex that hundreds would be involved, so keeping it secret would be almost impossible. I do not believe that they would have had anything to gain. And I do not believe that that is how 'They' behave. Anybody suitably evil or amoral to be considered 'They' can cover up far more just by a few well planned business lunches and kickbacks than by flying any amount of civilian aviation into buildings.

EDIT: Besides, the number of people in the Pentagon and the parts of the building in which they reside is hardly public knowledge. And 9/11 was much more about spreading fear than killing.

[ Friday, June 03, 2005 12:41: Message edited by: Unpleasantness for its Own Sake ]

--------------------
Voice of Reasonable Morality
Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00
Master
Member # 4614
Profile Homepage #166
But you never know when or if another plane will be directed toward important buildings. With terrorists on the loose, anything can happen.

--------------------
-ben4808

For those who love to spam:
CSM Forums
RIFQ
Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #167
Alec: I agree. You've lost your sceptic's license.

Ben: You are stupidly paranoid. Anything can happen anyway. A random driver on the road could decide to veer off the road and onto the sidewalk and ram you. Someone could take a backpack of explosives into a train and self-detonate. If someone wants to do something crazy and destructive, generally speaking there's nothing you or I or anyone can do about it until it's too late. Personally, I'd be amazed if anyone ever tried the plane thing again. September 11 got too much press. They'd be better off doing something no one would expect.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #168
I was picking up Mom at the airport a few weeks ago and really looked at the structure of the building from the pov of an enemy. They are ungainly structures with lots of messy concrete and steel blocking explosion paths. Not a very good target. It would take massive amounts of explosive to do real damage to an airport.

Another place that is 'protected' are sports arenas. I supposed enclosed stadiums would be a valid target as the right explosive power would shock people to death, but it would still require a lot of 'stuff'.

The place I would worry about, after careful reflection on our habits as americans, is the supermarket. Rarely do I see anyone paying attention in those places. It would be easy to walk into walmart in a c-4 bodysuit and to let loose. All of the loose material in a store like this would serve as shrapnel, creating a big mess.

But nevermind, I have an odd brainflow, and I'm sure those folks in DC would have thought of this as being a vulnerability if it in fact was one.

:)
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
Profile #169
I've always said that if Al-Qaeda was really a serious threat with good strategists and a large amount of manpower, they would have bombed some Midwest shopping malls. As it is, people are only likely to have any cause to feel afraid if they're near planes or prestige targets or are extremely credulous (you know where to scroll up to for your example.) Their initial aim of spreading fear worked very well. But since they either don't have the intelligence or resources to do quick seemingly random strikes, they've rather lost the initiative. I don't think it's so much a question of government resources stopping them, because there's a limited amount you can do to stop somebody just walking into a building and exploding.

I suspect it has everything to do with Al-Qaeda's apparent obsession with planes and prestige targets and their lack of experienced operatives.

--------------------
Voice of Reasonable Morality
Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #170
quote:
Originally written by Andrew Miller:

The Pentagon is a pretty large target. Also, at the angle at which it was hit, the plane very well may have been heading into town.

Planes fly in close to the area all the time to land at Reagan National (as an aside, if you're flying into the area, National is the most convenient airport of the three to practically everything in DC), which is pretty much right next door to the Pentagon. That they were caught off guard isn't so surprising.

Was not aware they had a big airport next door. That seems to solve some of the issues with the Pentagon crash feasibly enough.

Mind you, I do not object in principle to conspiracy theories - only so when they have no clear merit. (I defy someone who follows the demolition theory of the WTC to tell me the last time they saw an actual implosive demolition.) There seems to be a consistent core of evidence that just doesn't march right in the Pentagon attacks, but much of the more convincing bits of it involve gov't seizure of surveillance tapes (hey, not like the Bush administration needs to be covering something up to engage in random secrecy), and the logistical problems of flying an airplane as low as that one was (with the airport nearby, not so much).

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
Profile #171
Whether or not someone's just flown a plane into it, the government is still unlikely to want people looking too closely at the Pentagon. Even without the huge paranoia-storm the attacks created. It's possible we're not being told the whole story, but undoubtedly a plane was deliberately crashed and it hit the Pentagon. Any other details are basically window-dressing.

--------------------
Voice of Reasonable Morality
Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00

Pages