Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition

[anonapersona]

Then maybe this article is just a bunch of lies? How do these supposed "facts" in the article come about?

Two ways, very often an "expert" is sent and article written by someone else and asked to "author" it to lend it credibility. We've heard of that recently in medical journals, for example. College professors are often targeted and I suppose if they are not paid very well in their day job they are more likely to fall for the fee.

The other way is if the "expert" just sits down and tries to poke holes in things that they read.... Let's see, a jet is 20 stories tall and the hole was 10 stories tall so it must be a lie, Ah Ha, Gotcha! Uh, maybe the wheels came off?? Maybe the lower half of the plane folded inward on contact with the ground, like a car that hits a brick wall crumples in the front?? Shoot, planes are just lightweight aluminum tubing for goodness sake, throw it at a brick wall hardened against terrorist attack and see how small you can make it.

It is quite amazing to see the articles of this sort, and how they are so quickly picked up and circulated around.

What I want to know, is did anyone else remember seeing a cover on an National Enquirer sort of magazine in the grocery store that said terrorists were planning to attack the WTC? It was well after New Year's Day when those sorts of "predictions" were normal on those sorts of mags, and the cover had a penciled drawing of the top of a twin tower being chopped off and falling. I remember thinking it was out of place, the wrong time of year for that, and it was certainly before 9/11. Did no one else see that? Am I imagining it? And, why did the first person to die from anthrax work at the company that puts out those magazines??? I've tried to research those things and there is no library that stocks that junk that I know of, no archives online either.

anona, with my own conspiracy theories...

 

[Soulmanure]

"MAybe Morgan Reynolds should find somewhere else to live if he doesn't like our nation. Sorry for the Rant But I'm getting tired of the B.S. I doubt Michael Moore would even fall for something this ridiculous.

If everyone used their energy to help find solutions instead of creating more problems and confusion things would be resolved shortly. The facts are we are at war, the fact is the american people elected George W. Bush Now if we could just stop worrying about the stupidity and start concentrating on moving forward we might someday actually accomplish something completely again.
dave"

I agree that this administration probably did not commit the attack on the building. On the other hand, the idea that the public does not have a right to express its sceptisicm strikes me as deeply undemocratic. We may be at war, but it is unclear as to why we are at war in Iraq (there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11, while there are other countries that more clearly have WMD's), whether there was any truth to the reasons we went in there in the first place (as the Downing St. Memo and numerous other sources have indicated, the Bush administration most likely fixed the "evidence"), or even if victory is possible (again, there is no exit strategy). As the history of decolonisation has shown us, invasions of other countries tend to end in the colonizer leaving in failure and the colonized country moving towards dictatorship (this is what happened, for the most part, in Africa and the Middle East).

Given that the current administration has shown itself to be less than forthrite with information and, quite possibley, deceptive, it is unclear why a country which barely elected it should support a war that is, if polls are to be believed, generally unfavored.

And, speaking of Nixon, even in a democracy power has a strong corrupting tendency, leading leaders to lie and manipulate in order to achieve their desired goals.

Ultimately I think the twin towers debate is a red herring--the real issue is why we are in this war in the first place and how we can actually get out of their without doing what we did to Afghanistan in the eighties/nineties (back when we were training Bin Laden).

 

[125gJoe]

I'm sorry, "Soulmanure" ..in fact, I copied and pasted it.

There are so many in this United States of America that do not understand why we bombed the hell out of Iraq.

Quoting you: "We may be at war, but it is unclear as to why we are at war in Iraq (there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11, while there are other countries that more clearly have WMD's)"

You completely forgot Saddam gave us the finger at inspections for WMd's??!

And, out of our graciousness, we gave them many months to hide and sell those weapons. Have you seen the aircraft dug up by one of your (military) neighbors who may happen to be in Iraq? It's a big big desert over there ..

To be unclear as to why we bombed the hell out of Iraq is to equal as being in a coma for a long time -- or watching to much "reality shows" on TV!

The next time "something" happens is going to be worse -- get real, it's not the '80s anymore.

Lock this if needed. I think people should understand the bombing of Iraq...

Iraq thumbed its nose at the world... Guess what, USA gets the blame..(?) Huh??

--------

I'm not bashing (again, copy/paste "Soulmanure"), but I feel so strongly that people should never -never confuse why we bombed Iraq... Is it wrong to repeat the facts that Saddam used "human shredding machines", that he gassed his own people, and that his sons would carry on with the same?? We live a great life in the USA, why not give others a chance??

 

[Soulmanure]

125gJoe,
I understand your position; namely, that Saddam opposed weapons inspections and thus transgressed UN security council resolution 1441. This was the U.S.' legal argument for invading Iraq. However, a number of the Iraq weapons inspectors, including the Bush administration's hand picked Charles Duelfer, concluded that the inspections were not only working, but that the U.S.' premise was incorrect: Saddam's WMD capabilities had been in decline since 1991. Here's an article outlining the scenario:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

It seems to me, then, that if we combine what the weapons inspectors themselves have said and are saying along with the Downing Street Memo, then we have a fairly good indication that the reasons the U.S. gave for bombing Iraq were indeed false. Not only is there no established connection with Al Qaeda, but there was no solid evidence that Iraq had WMD's or that the inspections weren't working.

Captured Iraqi military officials have also backed this up: Saddam did not have a viable WMD program, essentially due to the first Iraqi war and the continued carpet bombing under the Clinton administration (not to mention the economic Sanctions). If there was strong or even weak evidence that these weapons were sold after the invasion, I think the Bush administration would push this argument, which it barely has.

But my main point was this: we live in a democracy and war is the most serious and severe decision a country can make. The public, any portion of it, ought to have a right to be heard when it believes that there are serious reasons for not going into war. There are very powerful reasons, it seems to me, for not having undertaken this war, but they were not given due consideration. This makes this position different from Britain’s Chamberlain in the run up to World War II. Nazi Germany was a powerful economic and military force, while Iraq was a weakened, destabilized entity.

 

[slipknottin]

This is not going in the right direction, guys...

 

[Soulmanure]

Oh man,
I just read the chit chat rules, and I did venture into the unacceptable. Sorry for going off politically. Won't happen again!

 

[125gJoe]

125gJoe,
I understand your position; namely, that Saddam opposed weapons inspections and thus transgressed UN security council resolution 1441. This was the U.S.' legal argument for invading Iraq. ... ....

Yes.

That's all that was needed.

Even the 'no fly zone' was constantly being violated.

-------

Perhaps there is some underlying reason we didn't bomb them much sooner, but rather delay and give them time to "get rid" of the "illegal" wepons they had. I'm not sure we will know the truth on the delays - but that's how it went down...

I thought it interesting how all those 'Migs' were dug out of their desert recently. Hmm... Big desert = big haystack.

 

[125gJoe]

It looks like it is time to lock this one...

The original topic made me think of unique and weird a "perfect implosion" of those two magestic buildings was possible.

Not only that, but one of the planes hit sideways - not in the middle, therefore that building should have fallen to one side or another, not perfectly straight down. That is, if steel melts that easily... Conflicting reports are out there about the temperature needed to liquify steel.

Back to WTC building #7. That should have never "imploded"...

So, there it goes. Points to ponder...

 

[anonapersona]

quick search

A quick search lead me to this.... after you sift past the consipracy theory stuff that comes up.

WTC7 structural failure analysis

A quick read of this shows that the failure mode was strikingly similar to how a professional team would have severed critical support beams. Not unlike what the 1997 (?) terrorist attack on the WTC attempted to do, but the WTC1 & 2 did not fail when explosives were planted at vertical supports.

But, A leads to B does not mean that B means that A caused it . Until a critical support was gone, the building would stand. If I can punch you in the throat and you fall to the ground, then if one day you fall to the ground it does not mean that "I" punched you in the throat, nor that someone else punched you in the throat, nor that someone punched you at all. The building fell because a critical support was damaged. That does not imply it was specifically targeted for damage nor that any particular group targeted it for damage. That it was damaged seems to be true. How it was damaged seems to be covered by the report I cited.