WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition

On Oct 31, 6:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
> WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
> By Herman Schoenfeld


Sure. By the way, did you know the Zapruder film shows that JFK shot
himself? And the TV tape showed that was really Oswald shooting Ruby,
not the other way around?

We should fly an empty, remote control Boeing 747 into Schoenfeld's
house to see how many unexplained explosions appear in the tape that
may lead us to the conclusion that demolition experts might have snuck
into his house to strategically place explosives thereby proving that
the plane was just a distraction.


I cut and pasted the following formula to prove that it will be a
controlled demolition that destroyed his home and not the boeing 747.
I used just one of the formulas 'cause his house is smaller than a
skyscraper...I just needed the one formula...


[1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
Where
u_k=(32+k)/(33+k)
SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0

On Oct 31, 4:52 pm, "Robert Weldon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>, they are smoke, debris, etc., getting blown out windows
> as the buildings collapsed, forcing the air out of any orifice available.

Kinda like Shoenfeld's mouth?

Does ANYBODY really think the current administration would be capable
of organizing such a complex event?
Without leaks?

Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and
its demise.

r

On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D <[email protected]> wrote:
> Freedom of speech is kewl...
>
Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone.

On Nov 1, 9:33 am, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and
> > its demise.
>
> That you would bring it up on rec.woodworking is somewhat disturbing. If
> you find yourself thinking a lot about throughout the day, or have other
> similar delusions, you should get professional help; otherwise it is
> probably harmless.

I'm sorry, was I participating in a thread 'outside' the permitted
zone?

Doubts are very common emotions when either the facts don't add up, or
are missing.
If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are
very easily led.
You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished.

Those of us who ask questions, learn.
Incidentally, you have removed any doubt I had about you. <G>

r

On Nov 1, 2:06 pm, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> That says a whole lot more about you than about me.

It sure does, doesn't it?

On Nov 2, 5:16 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are
> > very easily led.
> > You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished.
> . <G>
> > r
>
> You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still
> controlling Iraq? And all along I thought that Government had been
> overthrown, removed and disposed of. I guess you indeed can't believe
> everything you read.... and some people probably shouldn't believe
> everything they think<G>.....Rod

My bad... and here *I* thought Bush went after Iraq to get the
terrorists who did 911
and get them there nukular bombs....
But all is well now, eh Rod?

Besides, at the time Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" he didn't
HAVE Hussein and his boys yet.
Rod, I had expected a better response from you, but you still believe
every lying gurgle of venom that spews out Bush's murderous butcher's
mouth.

He went to Iraq to set up a military base to cover Israel's backdoor
so they can throw their weight around the region... like they do in
the White House. Now they want Iran as well. American soldiers dying
to further the Zionist agenda. Mission Accomplished, indeed.

On Nov 2, 9:38 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:16 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are
> > > very easily led.
> > > You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished.
> > . <G>
> > > r
>
> > You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still
> > controlling Iraq? And all along I thought that Government had been
> > overthrown, removed and disposed of. I guess you indeed can't believe
> > everything you read.... and some people probably shouldn't believe
> > everything they think<G>.....Rod
>


PS, nice job on destroying the economy as well... It'll cost you $
1.10 next week to buy a Can$.

On Nov 2, 3:15 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> It is curious that other than on our forces in Iraq, worldwide we have had
> no other U.S. or U.S. interest attack. Where-as pre 9/11 we had a string of
> ever escalating attacks. One might surmise that without a open base in
> Afghanistan that long range involved plots are more difficult.

Next thing I know, you'll want Bush to be nominated for a Nobel peace
prize?
>
> Incidentally State sponsored terrorism is of serious concern or of potential
> great harm.... Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel have dropped
> considerably since Saddam no longer pays a reward (to the bomber's family)
> for each one.

Funny...because Israel claims that their decision to build The Wall
was the reason for the drop in suicide bombings.

Rod, ol' chap, I take pride in reading a VERY wide, diverse collection
of news sources.
I find it hard to believe that there are still people out there who
toe the 'Official White House' party line.
Hard to believe.
After all those obvious lies.

There are hundreds of recorded contradictions between what Cheney (et
al) said one day and the next.

So what is next? Only ONE person offers a glimmer of hope. Ron Paul.
(I guess it is time to bring out the SwiftBoat crew, eh?)

On Nov 2, 2:29 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > PS, nice job on >>>>>>>destroying<<<<<<<< the economy as well... It'll cost you $
> > 1.10 next week to buy a Can$.
>
> This has to be about the best ">>>>>>>destroyed<<<<<<<< economy" on record with low
> unemployment, record home ownership, robust tax receipts etc..... however I
> indeed still suffer at the gas pump, my van has a 33gal tank.... ouch!!!
> Nonetheless my Canadian Brother-in-law (Calgary) is doing very well as
> Alberta sells us massive quantities of oil and natural gas.....just
> apparently not enough since the prices are still going up. Rod

Shall we try to re-read what I wrote? 'Destroying' is an ongoing
process.
YOUR 'destroyed' is a fait accompli.
Give it time and you'll be correct.

On Oct 31, 6:56 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 6:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
> > By Herman Schoenfeld
>
> Sure. By the way, did you know the Zapruder film shows that JFK shot
> himself? And the TV tape showed that was really Oswald shooting Ruby,
> not the other way around?

Again I must toot my own horn here! I posted 3 years before the laser
view became public knowledge! That I had a copy of Heraldo Reveria's
Zagruder film documentary and with my 420 toshiba vcr I could pause
frame and see the vapor trail leading from the Book depository
building window.

He acted alone but I think he was blackmailed into it by the vice
that soo boldly filled his shoes!!! You know the one Haliburtons
owner;)

On Oct 31, 6:56 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 6:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
> > By Herman Schoenfeld
>
> Sure. By the way, did you know the Zapruder film shows that JFK shot
> himself? And the TV tape showed that was really Oswald shooting Ruby,
> not the other way around?

Again I must toot my own horn here! I posted 3 years before the laser
view became public knowledge! That I had a copy of Heraldo Reveria's
Zagruder film documentary and with my 420 toshiba vcr I could pause
frame and see the vapor trail leading from the Book depository
building window.

He acted alone but I think he was blackmailed into it by the Vice
that took the Giant Leap for Mankind and soo boldly filled his
shoes!!! You know the one Haliburtons
owner, the winner of the space race guy;)

Now heres an Islamic replacement for our loss! Wonder who owns them??

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-2766760-petronas_twin_towers_kuala_lumpur-i?action=describe

If I was News Corp. I would move here to avoid paying taxes$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
click on the slide show for a breathe taking adventure,Thought I was
on top of the Port Authority Building for a moment or two??

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylc=X3oDMTExYzlmZ2tyBF9TAzI3MTk0ODEEbG5rA3dzcmNoBHRpZANUcnZsU21wbA--?p=kuala+lumpur&yhdr_submit_button=Web+Search&fr=ush1-travel

On Oct 31, 4:41 pm, "S.S.I.N." <[email protected]> wrote:
> it's not bullshit.
> theres alot of fucked shit with the way it happened.
> Do your own research on what happened and you'll see it too.
>
> one of the things that gets me is 9 of the terrorist on the planes have been
> found alive and well and have been on tv. but the us government still says
> they did it.
>

I worked at the same facility as Robert Hansen from 1979 through
1985.
Yet according to the government he was arrested on October 27, 1983,
and is still in prison today.

Gee, do you think maybe it is possible for two different people to
have
the same name? Of course not if they're Arabs, right?

--

FF

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are
> very easily led.
> You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished.
. <G>
> r

You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still
controlling Iraq? And all along I thought that Government had been
overthrown, removed and disposed of. I guess you indeed can't believe
everything you read.... and some people probably shouldn't believe
everything they think<G>.....Rod

Robatoy wrote:
>
> PS, nice job on destroying the economy as well... It'll cost you $
> 1.10 next week to buy a Can$.

This has to be about the best "destroyed economy" on record with low
unemployment, record home ownership, robust tax receipts etc..... however I
indeed still suffer at the gas pump, my van has a 33gal tank.... ouch!!!
Nonetheless my Canadian Brother-in-law (Calgary) is doing very well as
Alberta sells us massive quantities of oil and natural gas.....just
apparently not enough since the prices are still going up. Rod

Maxwell Lol wrote:
> And how did eliminating Saddam reduce the risk from future 911-style
> attacks?

Since that was neither the specific intent nor direct intended goal I
wouldn't understand the expectation......

I suppose since we had 50,000 troops containing Saddam, enforcing
international embargoes and Iraq no fly zones and we did foil his Kuwait
invasion.....That maybe at some time or place he might be motivated to seek
revenge other than his attempt on Bush SR's life in 1993

It is curious that other than on our forces in Iraq, worldwide we have had
no other U.S. or U.S. interest attack. Where-as pre 9/11 we had a string of
ever escalating attacks. One might surmise that without a open base in
Afghanistan that long range involved plots are more difficult.

Incidentally State sponsored terrorism is of serious concern or of potential
great harm.... Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel have dropped
considerably since Saddam no longer pays a reward (to the bomber's family)
for each one. Rod

Robatoy wrote:
> My bad... and here *I* thought Bush went after Iraq to get the
> terrorists who did 911
> and get them there nukular bombs....
> But all is well now, eh Rod?

I guess you will think what you want but the administration did not ever
directly link the two.......I think they did mention the 19 or so UN
resolutions that he had violated....but expecting the International body to
have any credibility while awash in the Iraq/UN oil scandal might be
expecting a bit much

> Besides, at the time Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" he didn't
> HAVE Hussein and his boys yet.
> Rod, I had expected a better response from you, but you still believe
> every lying gurgle of venom that spews out Bush's murderous butcher's
> mouth.

Maybe not but they were no longer effective Iraq leaders whilst hiding in
root cellars......They had no power or influence at that time...and in due
time they were easily found and dispatched with.

It doesn't take much historical awareness to realize the current Iraq
violence with the givens is more the historical norm than the exception
(Lebanon).......many groups grabbing for power and influence outside of the
ballot box (because they know they will never get it by a popular vote).
While our loss in blood and treasury is tragic we lose more lives monthly to
traffic deaths than the entire peace keeping effort.

> He went to Iraq to set up a military base to cover Israel's backdoor
> so they can throw their weight around the region...

The bases we already had in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia weren't enough?

like they do in
> the White House. Now they want Iran as well. American soldiers dying
> to further the Zionist agenda. Mission Accomplished, indeed.

I can understand a lot of differing ideas but the anti Zionist rants and
grand conspiracies just don't make much sense......However Israel does have
enemies with many desiring the destruction and extermination of the
people.... interesting those countries with such desires have no semblance
of democracy where-as 1,000,000 Arabs in Israel proper do have the right and
privilege to vote. Rod

Maxwell Lol wrote:

> "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Robatoy wrote:
>> > My bad... and here *I* thought Bush went after Iraq to get the
>> > terrorists who did 911
>> > and get them there nukular bombs....
>> > But all is well now, eh Rod?
>>
>> I guess you will think what you want but the administration did not ever
>> directly link the two.......
>
> But they really really really tried, including lying to Colin Powell,
> who went on TV to defend the reasons to war. But what they did to
> Plame was even worse.
>
> One of the most valuable assets in military intelligence is a senior
> covert operator who has 20 years of connections, who can recruit
> agents, etc, and who can find out the real facts concerning WMD. These
> sort of assets can help accurately determine if war is the RIGHT
> DECISION. And one of the biggest problems with the war is the lack of
> real HUMINT (human intelligence). But apparently real intelligence
> wasn't used in deciding if the Iraq war was necessary.
>
> And in this case, the agent's (Valerie Plame) husband Wilson flatly
> stated that some of the "facts" Bush used to go to war (materials to
> construct nuclear weapons) were wrong wrong wrong.
>
> And the Bush Administration's response to this criticism was to
> purposely violate classified information. To quote Larry Johnson, this
> act was "TREASONOUS AND COWARDLY."(1) And what punishment did Bush do
> to the person responsible? Nothing (but probably thanked them for
> taking the blame, and rewarded them under the table).
>


Nice rant, all false (except for the fact that Wilson published his rants
against the Bush administration following the little jaunt he took to Niger
after his wife recommended him for the assignment). The person who
actually mentioned her name to Novak was Richard Armitage, who was not a
fan ofthe Bush administration. She was not a covert agent; Victoria
Toensing, the person who wrote the covert agent statute testified before
the senate that Plame was not a covert agent covered under the act.
Wilson himself lied about his trip to Niger and claimed to have been sent
by Cheney.


From:
Headline: Patrick Fitzgerald Ignored Witnesses Who Contradicted Wilson
Date: Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2005
Source: NewsMax

There are other sources as well. Your one source was someone with an
apparent axe to grind.:

Her employment by the CIA was not a secret, for example, one
witness, "Wayne Simmons, a 27-year veteran at the CIA, told Fox News
Radio: "As most people now know, [Plame] was traipsed all over Washington
many years ago by Joe Wilson and introduced at embassies and other parties
as 'my CIA wife.'" "

"Last week, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WABC Radio's John Batchelor that
during a 2002 conversation with Wilson while the two waited to appear on a
TV show, Wilson casually mentioned that his wife worked at "the Agency."
In Oct. 2003, NBC's diplomatic correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, told CNBC
that Plame's occupation "was widely known among those of us who cover the
intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track
down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger."
"
"And in Sept. 2003, NationalReviewOnline's Cliff May wrote that when Plame's
CIA connection was mentioned in Novak's column - "That wasn't news to me."

"I had been told that [Plame was CIA] - but not by anyone working in the
White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the
government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it
was something that insiders were well aware of." "

:


> People were so upset over the whiff of Clinton's affair.
> Why are these people ignore treason?

That's a good question, why isn't Sandy Berger in jail for stealing (and
destroying) classified documents from the National Archives?

Why haven't various members of congress and other citizens been charged
with giving aid and comfort to our enemies by traveling to foreign
countries, appearing with terrorist leaders, and criticizing US policy on
foreign soil with those terrorist leaders?




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

God, give it a break dude. If there were even a shred of evidence of this
kind of thing, every major country in the world, every news organization,
every university engineering department, etc. would be stepping up to the
plate to denounce the whole thing. They aren't because it's totally
fucking wacky.

I know you've got yourself convinced that the whole rest of the world is
"in on it" but answer this question. If elements of the U.S. government
really had the power to pull something like this off, and more imporantely
keep it a secret, and therefore had anything real to hide, why haven't they
had you carted you off to the booby hatch long ago?

(You gotta know no one would complain.)

Even Bill Mahr and Bill Clinton (hardly supporters of the administration,
either one) both strongly and publicly pointed out you guys in the "truth"
movement are retards.

I know there isn't a law against being an asshat, but don't you conspiracy
have your own newsgroups already? Do you really need to be fucking up
ours?

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

And it's not kewl to make fun of the mentally disabled you ass.

Don wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Freedom of speech is kewl...
>>>
>>
>> Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone.
>
> And "kewl" is only cool if you are below the age
> of 14 and at least slightly retarded.

Freedom of speech is kewl...

[email protected] wrote:
> God, give it a break dude. If there were even a shred of evidence of this
> kind of thing, every major country in the world, every news organization,
> every university engineering department, etc. would be stepping up to the
> plate to denounce the whole thing. They aren't because it's totally
> fucking wacky.
>
> I know you've got yourself convinced that the whole rest of the world is
> "in on it" but answer this question. If elements of the U.S. government
> really had the power to pull something like this off, and more imporantely
> keep it a secret, and therefore had anything real to hide, why haven't they
> had you carted you off to the booby hatch long ago?
>
> (You gotta know no one would complain.)
>
> Even Bill Mahr and Bill Clinton (hardly supporters of the administration,
> either one) both strongly and publicly pointed out you guys in the "truth"
> movement are retards.
>
> I know there isn't a law against being an asshat, but don't you conspiracy
> have your own newsgroups already? Do you really need to be fucking up
> ours?
>

Maxwell Lol wrote:
> "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Maxwell Lol wrote:
>>>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are
>>>>> very easily led.
>>>>> You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished.
>>>> "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still
>>>> controlling Iraq?
>
> I said
>> And how did eliminating Saddam reduce the risk from future 911-style attacks?
>
>> Since that was neither the specific intent nor direct intended goal I
>> wouldn't understand the expectation......
>
>
> Looking at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679
> This lists 21 reasons for the war.
>
> Here are some of the goals that were NOT accomplished - as I see it
>
> Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - Nope.

So WMDs are now proliferating more greatly than before the war. News to me.

> To further the war on terror - Nope. Didn't do much for that.

So the ongoing blood/treasure expended by the West has had zero
impact on interdicting in terror activities. Interesting.

> To transform the region - not in a good way. Now Iran is a problem.

Because before, of course, Iran was a paragon if civility having
never funded known terror organizations and/or other states
unfriendly to Western interesting.

> Because of Iraq's links to al Qaeda - No evidence of this

The absence of evidence is not meaningful. Only the presence
of evidence is. There is no evidence, for example, that my
cat can do calculus, but that doesn't mean he can't. I just don't
know. Similarly - based on this post - there is no evidence you
are familiar with the rules of logic, but that doesn't mean
you aren't. There simply is no evidence to that effect here.


> Because Iraq was an imminent threat - again - no evidence

"Threat" to whom? 90+ US Senators, the US Administration,
the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, and a number of nations I can
no longer recall thought there was some threat *at the time*.
The fact that they were/might have been wrong does not,
prima facia, demonstrate they were dishonest (which is the
implication of your point).

> To disarm Iraq - we really botched this. We are giving them arms.

One hopes you can read more than just the words and see the intent.
I think everyone - on all sides of this issue - understands that
the intent (however well/poorly justified) was to disarm *Sadaam's*
Iraq. Clearly an independent sovereign Iraq will need arms to maintain
civil order and their borders.

> As a warning to other terrorists nations - I think we made it worse

You're welcome to your opinion. DAGS the conversation between
Berluscone and Gaddafi after the latter witnessed the US war machine
in action. One such link:

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2004/02/10/story133588.asp

Think that would have happened otherwise?

> Because Hussein was a threat to the region - Not really.

Yeah, he started a war wherein 1 million + died, invaded a neighbor
(and the West had to kick him out), murdered 10s of thousands of
his own people, and committed genocide upon the Kurds. Only in
the Jimmy Carter songbook is this "not a threat".

> Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it. -
> That was also wrong. There were no WDM.

As it turned out. But the evidence at the time - vetted by multiple
governments and intelligence agencies *around the world* pointed
to there being some. No suppose we took your line of reasoning back,
say 7 years and there WERE such weapons. 'Think SH might have wanted
to play with his Evil Toys? I do. It's better to go in and find out
we're wrong about their existence, than not go in and discover we're
wrong about them not existing.


> For the safety of the world - nope.

In what way is the world today not safer because of the decapitation
of Sadaam's regime? I suppose the murderous swine that commit
suicide bombings in the Middle East are less well off, but that's
all that leap to mind.

> To preserve peace around the world - nope.

Ditto.

> Because the United States could (easy victory) - nope

Oh, the U.S. did have an easy victory. However, the U.S.
also fell prey to the collectivist do-gooders (on both
sides of the political divide) that wanted to "improve"
the country after SH was gone. The mess that is the
Kurd-Shia-Sunni debate is not of Western making. Let the
principals in that debate take each other out as needed.
The West should have secured the borders to contain the
spread, and sold tickets to the show. MTV could have
made a Reality TV show out of it...


>
> It's hard for me to thing "mission accomplished" when many of the
> reasons were either wrong (and the money and lives were wasted) , or
> we didn't accomplish what was desired.

The proper "mission" was accomplished. It was the Saving The World
mission that was not. I would suggest that leaving Iraq in ruins
would have been a powerful message to the rest of the world
as to what happens when you support terror in any form.

>
> We did "change the regime" - but it's not a democracy, and it
> certainly isn't stable.

Who cares? Democracy has to be earned by those who wish it.
It cannot be bestowed by fiat. Moreover, the region has never been
stable, and likely never will be. Again, no one's problem but the
locals.

>
> Looking at the 21 reasons for war as listed above - it's not clear to
> me we did anything positive - except to get rid of Hussein.
> That's hardly "mission accomplished"

What we did was: a) Act with good intention to make things "better".
b) Allowed the political debate at home, an overweening Congress,
an apocalyptic White House, and a drooling idiot Left keep us
in-theater far longer than needed.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> writes:

> Robatoy wrote:
> > My bad... and here *I* thought Bush went after Iraq to get the
> > terrorists who did 911
> > and get them there nukular bombs....
> > But all is well now, eh Rod?
>
> I guess you will think what you want but the administration did not ever
> directly link the two.......

But they really really really tried, including lying to Colin Powell,
who went on TV to defend the reasons to war. But what they did to
Plame was even worse.

One of the most valuable assets in military intelligence is a senior
covert operator who has 20 years of connections, who can recruit
agents, etc, and who can find out the real facts concerning WMD. These
sort of assets can help accurately determine if war is the RIGHT
DECISION. And one of the biggest problems with the war is the lack of
real HUMINT (human intelligence). But apparently real intelligence
wasn't used in deciding if the Iraq war was necessary.

And in this case, the agent's (Valerie Plame) husband Wilson flatly
stated that some of the "facts" Bush used to go to war (materials to
construct nuclear weapons) were wrong wrong wrong.

And the Bush Administration's response to this criticism was to
purposely violate classified information. To quote Larry Johnson, this
act was "TREASONOUS AND COWARDLY."(1) And what punishment did Bush do
to the person responsible? Nothing (but probably thanked them for
taking the blame, and rewarded them under the table).

(1) http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/oct/20/valerie_plame_wilson_speaks_muzzled

People were so upset over the whiff of Clinton's affair.
Why are these people ignore treason?

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> writes:

> Maxwell Lol wrote:
>>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are
>>>> very easily led.
>>>> You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished.
>>> "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still
>>> controlling Iraq?

I said
>And how did eliminating Saddam reduce the risk from future 911-style attacks?

> Since that was neither the specific intent nor direct intended goal I
> wouldn't understand the expectation......


Looking at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679
This lists 21 reasons for the war.

Here are some of the goals that were NOT accomplished - as I see it

Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - Nope.
To further the war on terror - Nope. Didn't do much for that.
To transform the region - not in a good way. Now Iran is a problem.
Because of Iraq's links to al Qaeda - No evidence of this
Because Iraq was an imminent threat - again - no evidence
To disarm Iraq - we really botched this. We are giving them arms.
As a warning to other terrorists nations - I think we made it worse
Because Hussein was a threat to the region - Not really.
Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it. -
That was also wrong. There were no WDM.
For the safety of the world - nope.
To preserve peace around the world - nope.
Because the United States could (easy victory) - nope

It's hard for me to thing "mission accomplished" when many of the
reasons were either wrong (and the money and lives were wasted) , or
we didn't accomplish what was desired.

We did "change the regime" - but it's not a democracy, and it
certainly isn't stable.

Looking at the 21 reasons for war as listed above - it's not clear to
me we did anything positive - except to get rid of Hussein.
That's hardly "mission accomplished"

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:

> > Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - Nope.
>
> So WMDs are now proliferating more greatly than before the war. News to me.

Well then, explain to me how we have prevented WMD from proliferating.

>
> > To further the war on terror - Nope. Didn't do much for that.
>
> So the ongoing blood/treasure expended by the West has had zero
> impact on interdicting in terror activities. Interesting.

Global terror attacks tripled in 2004
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html

Terrorist attacks worldwide increased 25 percent in 2006.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/


> > To transform the region - not in a good way. Now Iran is a problem.
>
> Because before, of course, Iran was a paragon if civility having
> never funded known terror organizations and/or other states
> unfriendly to Western interesting.


It's worse now than before. That's the point.

>
> > Because of Iraq's links to al Qaeda - No evidence of this
>
> The absence of evidence is not meaningful. Only the presence
> of evidence is.


Exactly. We went to war with no evidence of al Qaeda links.
In other words, Bush lied.


> There is no evidence, for example, that my
> cat can do calculus, but that doesn't mean he can't. I just don't
> know. Similarly - based on this post - there is no evidence you
> are familiar with the rules of logic, but that doesn't mean
> you aren't. There simply is no evidence to that effect here.

Attack the messenger, not the facts, eh?

>
>
> > Because Iraq was an imminent threat - again - no evidence
>
> "Threat" to whom? 90+ US Senators, the US Administration,
> the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, and a number of nations I can
> no longer recall thought there was some threat *at the time*.
> The fact that they were/might have been wrong does not,
> prima facia, demonstrate they were dishonest (which is the
> implication of your point).

Exactly - another reason for the war that was WRONG.


>
> > To disarm Iraq - we really botched this. We are giving them arms.
>
> One hopes you can read more than just the words and see the intent.
> I think everyone - on all sides of this issue - understands that
> the intent (however well/poorly justified) was to disarm *Sadaam's*
> Iraq. Clearly an independent sovereign Iraq will need arms to maintain
> civil order and their borders.

I bet you still think democracy will flourish there as well.


> > Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it. -
> > That was also wrong. There were no WDM.
>

> As it turned out. But the evidence at the time - vetted by multiple
> governments and intelligence agencies *around the world* pointed
> to there being some.


And where are these "facts" now?

Why is it that all of the "facts" have evaporated? Bush refused to
listen to his experts and twisted the truth to fabricate evidence
(such as Iraq's attempt yo purchase uranium from a African
nation). Joseph C. Wilson point out the lie, and they outed his wife.

This is clear and hard evidence that the Bush administration FAKED evidence,
and did so purposely.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are
> > very easily led.
> > You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished.
> . <G>
> > r
>
> You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still
> controlling Iraq? And all along I thought that Government had been
> overthrown, removed and disposed of. I guess you indeed can't believe
> everything you read.... and some people probably shouldn't believe
> everything they think<G>.....Rod

And how did eliminating Saddam reduce the risk from future 911-style attacks?

Hey Don you missed the point and I'll explain for you. I'm sorry you are
upset about your "total" mentally challenged condition. Don't be jealous
of us who are only "slightly" challenged.;)

Here it is; It is because of "Freedom Of Speech" that I am allowed to
spell cool like this; "kewl". So when I say "Freedom of speech is kewl"
I am not only demonstrating my rights but describing them too. For us
mentally challenged it is an exercise in attempting to stretch thought
capacity and understand "Wit". Get it now? Try it some day it's
enlightening to see the forest beyond the trees and or stop and smell
the roses you dead beat.

Cheers,
D

Don wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Freedom of speech is kewl...
>>>
>>
>> Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone.
>
> And "kewl" is only cool if you are below the age
> of 14 and at least slightly retarded.

it's not bullshit.
theres alot of fucked shit with the way it happened.
Do your own research on what happened and you'll see it too.

one of the things that gets me is 9 of the terrorist on the planes have been
found alive and well and have been on tv. but the us government still says
they did it.

or the colapse of the 3rd building......if that one wasn't controled demo. i
don't know what is.

cameras on the ground clearly capture many explosions for all 3 buildings

You're KEWLER than me then cuz I is older than 14 looser. Who made you
the grammar police? Get my point?

Don wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Freedom of speech is kewl...
>>>
>>
>> Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone.
>
> And "kewl" is only cool if you are below the age
> of 14 and at least slightly retarded.

so what are you trying to sell, besides another conspiracy theory
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
> By Herman Schoenfeld
>
> In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
> accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
> towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
> as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
> This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
> floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
> upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
> near free fall speed.
>
> This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
> 2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
> seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and
> (1.10) for details.
>
> It should be noted that this model differs massively from the "natural
> pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
> is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake
> collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
> the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".
>
> DEMOLITION MODEL
>
> A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
> follows
>
> 1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.
>
> 2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
> disabled just prior the collision with the block.
>
> 3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
> increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
> continues to free fall.
>
> 4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.
>
>
> Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
> Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
> Let h be the average floor height.
> Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
> Let T be the total collapse time.
>
> Using the elementary motion equation
>
> distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2
>
> We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
> of one floor
>
> [1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g
>
> where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.
>
> The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times
>
> [1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g
>
> Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
> itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
> plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.
>
> [1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m
>
> If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
> floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
> with its below floor is
>
> [1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)
>
>
> which follows from the elementary equation of motion
>
> (final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
> (distance)
>
> Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
> floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.
>
> [1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1)
>
>
> Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
> [1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)
>
>
> Solving for the initial velocity u_k
>
> [1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)
>
>
> Which is a recurrence equation with base value
>
> [1.8] u_0=0
>
>
>
> The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
> collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
> into (1.2) and (1.7) gives
>
>
> [1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
> 11.38 sec
> where
> u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0
>
>
>
> Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
> j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives
>
>
> [1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
> 9.48 sec
> Where
> u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0
>
>
> REFERENCES
>
> "Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
> World Trade Center ",
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
>
> APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM
>
> This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.
>
>> g :: Double
>> g = 9.8
>
> This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
> Parameters:
> _H - the total height of building
> _N - the number of floors in building
> _J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
> floor being the ground floor)
>
>
>> cascadeTime :: Double -> Double -> Double -> Double
>> cascadeTime _H _N _J = sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g |
>> k<-[0..n]]
>> where
>> j = _N - _J
>> n = _N - j
>> h = _H/_N
>> u 0 = 0
>> u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 +
>> 2*g*h )
>
>
> Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.
>
>> wtc1 :: Double
>> wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93
>
> Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.
>
>> wtc2 :: Double
>> wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77
>

"S.S.I.N." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Je2Wi.163441$Da.147624@pd7urf1no...
> it's not bullshit.
> theres alot of fucked shit with the way it happened.
> Do your own research on what happened and you'll see it too.
>
> one of the things that gets me is 9 of the terrorist on the planes have
> been found alive and well and have been on tv. but the us government still
> says they did it.
>
> or the colapse of the 3rd building......if that one wasn't controled demo.
> i don't know what is.
>
> cameras on the ground clearly capture many explosions for all 3 buildings

I did my own research and guess what, it is all bullshit. The towers fell
because planes flew into them, then they caught fire. The third fell
because a whole bunch of debris fell on it, then it caught fire. Those
aren't explosions, they are smoke, debris, etc., getting blown out windows
as the buildings collapsed, forcing the air out of any orifice available.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a conspiracy loon or a moron.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 31, 4:52 pm, "Robert Weldon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> , they are smoke, debris, etc., getting blown out windows
>> as the buildings collapsed, forcing the air out of any orifice
>> available.
>
> Kinda like Shoenfeld's mouth?
>
> Does ANYBODY really think the current administration would be
> capable
> of organizing such a complex event?
> Without leaks?
>
> Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and
> its demise.

Are you saying that the Air Force lied about failing to carry out the
shoot down order?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

>
> Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and
> its demise.
>
That you would bring it up on rec.woodworking is somewhat disturbing. If
you find yourself thinking a lot about throughout the day, or have other
similar delusions, you should get professional help; otherwise it is
probably harmless.

Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - Nope.
>> So WMDs are now proliferating more greatly than before the war. News to me.
>
> Well then, explain to me how we have prevented WMD from proliferating.

I didn't say we did. I said that to "prevent proliferation" was
successful. There has not -as best I know - been a proliferation
of WMDs since the Iraqi war. Let me help me with YOUR argument.
You could (and should have) make the argument that going to
war had *no effect* on WMD proliferation. But you tried to argue
that it did not prevent it - which is, as I said, observably wrong.

>
>>> To further the war on terror - Nope. Didn't do much for that.
>> So the ongoing blood/treasure expended by the West has had zero
>> impact on interdicting in terror activities. Interesting.
>
> Global terror attacks tripled in 2004
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html
>
> Terrorist attacks worldwide increased 25 percent in 2006.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/

Now take the "terrorist" attacks out of the war zone and see
what happens to the numbers.


>
>
>>> To transform the region - not in a good way. Now Iran is a problem.
>> Because before, of course, Iran was a paragon if civility having
>> never funded known terror organizations and/or other states
>> unfriendly to Western interesting.
>
>
> It's worse now than before. That's the point.

You obviously have not been paying attention very long.
Iran was and is, a pestiferous dangerous to sane people
everywhere. It has been so since the Ayatollahs took
over. It has been a state sponsor of all manner of terrorist
mischief for literally decades. Now ... go read a book
and discover just how wrong you are about this.

>
>>> Because of Iraq's links to al Qaeda - No evidence of this
>> The absence of evidence is not meaningful. Only the presence
>> of evidence is.
>
>
> Exactly. We went to war with no evidence of al Qaeda links.
> In other words, Bush lied.

You continue to twist language in unusual and entertaining
ways. There was an *apparent presence* of evidence as regards
to WMDs in Iraq at the time the war was initiated. While Bush
may have well been wrong, it does not appear that he lied.


>
>
>> There is no evidence, for example, that my
>> cat can do calculus, but that doesn't mean he can't. I just don't
>> know. Similarly - based on this post - there is no evidence you
>> are familiar with the rules of logic, but that doesn't mean
>> you aren't. There simply is no evidence to that effect here.
>
> Attack the messenger, not the facts, eh?

You posses few facts, and I was not attacking you personally.
I was attacking your method of reasoning, which appears to
be first driven by agenda and only secondarily by reason.
You are in good company with the likes of Hannity and Coulter.

>
>>
>>> Because Iraq was an imminent threat - again - no evidence
>> "Threat" to whom? 90+ US Senators, the US Administration,
>> the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, and a number of nations I can
>> no longer recall thought there was some threat *at the time*.
>> The fact that they were/might have been wrong does not,
>> prima facia, demonstrate they were dishonest (which is the
>> implication of your point).
>
> Exactly - another reason for the war that was WRONG.

I do not grasp your logic here at all. i.e., I don't know
how you derive your statement from my previous statement.
I guess the agenda got in front of the grammar in this case.

>
>
>>> To disarm Iraq - we really botched this. We are giving them arms.
>> One hopes you can read more than just the words and see the intent.
>> I think everyone - on all sides of this issue - understands that
>> the intent (however well/poorly justified) was to disarm *Sadaam's*
>> Iraq. Clearly an independent sovereign Iraq will need arms to maintain
>> civil order and their borders.
>
> I bet you still think democracy will flourish there as well.

I do not, but I don't care one way or the other. The end state
of Iraq is a problem for the Iraqis, not the West.

>
>
>>> Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it. -
>>> That was also wrong. There were no WDM.
>
>> As it turned out. But the evidence at the time - vetted by multiple
>> governments and intelligence agencies *around the world* pointed
>> to there being some.
>
>
> And where are these "facts" now?
>
> Why is it that all of the "facts" have evaporated? Bush refused to

The arguments put forth at the time are well recorded and
documents. You are going to have to accept that there is
a profound difference between a lie and a mistake in judgement.
Then again, maybe you don't. Certainly the New York Times
can't tell the difference. When Bush makes a bad call, it's
a "lie". When one of their own up-and-coming reports fabricates
entire stories, and get's caught doing so, it's a "mistake".

> listen to his experts and twisted the truth to fabricate evidence
> (such as Iraq's attempt yo purchase uranium from a African
> nation). Joseph C. Wilson point out the lie, and they outed his wife.
>
> This is clear and hard evidence that the Bush administration FAKED evidence,
> and did so purposely.
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND
>


No, what is clear is that Wilson is flatly a liar who contrived to tell a
story that was wrong in much of the detail, and his wife is a self-important
pretty girl who wants the world to think she was the female James Bond
when when she wasn't much more than a high-grade researcher. The
Wilson/Plame thing is the weakest of all possible arguments for
your views.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy wrote:

> On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Dallas D <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Freedom of speech is kewl...
>>
>
> Only if you are in The Allowed Free Speech Zone.

And "kewl" is only cool if you are below the age
of 14 and at least slightly retarded.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 1, 9:33 am, "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Having said that, I have my doubts about the story of Flight 93 and
>> > its demise.
>>
>> That you would bring it up on rec.woodworking is somewhat disturbing. If
>> you find yourself thinking a lot about throughout the day, or have other
>> similar delusions, you should get professional help; otherwise it is
>> probably harmless.
>
> I'm sorry, was I participating in a thread 'outside' the permitted
> zone?
>
> Doubts are very common emotions when either the facts don't add up, or
> are missing.
> If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are
> very easily led.
> You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished.
>
> Those of us who ask questions, learn.
> Incidentally, you have removed any doubt I had about you. <G>
>
That says a whole lot more about you than about me.
Bye now.