An editorial and my reply to it RE: bogus 911 claims.

[BenBurch]

A talk radio host I know real well has been buying in to the whole "truther" version of the 911 story. I've been trying to talk sense to him about it. He sent me a link to http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/115376 with the comment. "Another sucker?"

Here is my reply, if I am wrong in any details, please let me know so I can send him corrections?

Thanks!!!


Indeed, every point is false or misunderstood!

Bullet by bullet;

1. Explosions? - ask ANY fireman about what happens in a building fire. Things go POP. Things go BOOOM. In the case of the basement, a large volume of jet fuel fell down the service elevator (and other elevator) shafts and became an explosive concentration there. See the accounts on firehouse.org of charred bodied firefighters found in elevators. Some so charred that the firemen did not immediately recognize them as bodies. Also note the reports of the stink of aviation fuel in the lobbies.

I can go into a lot more detail here.

2. There is no "Pancake theory". This is a straw man hauled out time and again and repeated over and over until some people think its true. Real "Big Lie" technique here. Yes, the floors pancaked as a result of the complete failure of the supporting walls, how could they have done otherwise? But that utterly secondary to why the buildings fell. NIST covers this very well in their very long report on the disaster.

I can cite you many sources to back up my claim.

3. No, Controlled demolition is not at ALL consistent with what we see there. I have reviewed video of dozens of controlled building demolitions and they look and sound an behave NOTHING like those failures, [name removed]. Controlled demolitions collapse at the base, not at some random point hundreds of feet in the air. And we have AUDIO from inside the building at the moment of collapse of WTC 2, and there are absolutely no explosions heard. And the cell phone would absolutely have picked that up had they been there. Here is the link to that, please do not listen to this before bed or with [your daughter] around; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLPwem5JsQk I have MANY other reasons to believe that a CD was not even POSSIBLE on that day. Chief of which are the fires and damage. There is NO way you could have had wired-up the necessary explosives in there and still have the wiring intact. Nor could you have that volume of fire without the charges "cooking off" at random times. Additionally, the sort of access to the building you would have needed for WEEKS prior to any successful controlled demolition would have been noticed by both tenants and maintenance workers and could not have been covert. We are talking ripping out drywall and using cutting torches on multiple occupied floors, and several thousand man-hours of labor. All controlled demolitions absolutely require extensive pre-weakening of the structure that you just could not do in an occupied building.

I can cite you statements of professionals in this field saying just this.

4. There are no peer-reviewed studies (unless you count Dr. Jones' vanity journal JONES) that have a result like the writer describes. We also find that the concrete in the WTC likely contained coal fly ash which would appear to have been caused by high temperatures because it was; In the coal furnace at the power plant. There is a LOT more detail I can dig up here.

If this person can provide a study I have not seen, I will review it. If I decide it is accurate I will freely admit it and try to make that fact known.

5. Jones is just plain wrong here, [name removed]. I designed software for equipment that does the sort of X-ray diffraction spectroscopy and microscopy (At EDAX a Phillips subsidiary which used to be here in the Chicago area but has since moved elsewhere) that he claims to be using and his result does not show thermite because it does not have any significant barium in it. Others I am in contact with who do this for a living agree. Additionally, the samples are not samples from the WTC, but came from dust a long way from the towers. And even then he has no good chain of custody on those very small samples, and refuses to allow others with actual competency in this sort of work access to them. And he keeps changing his story about them. In short he is a fraud. You *are* aware of his past, right? He was central to the whole "Cold Fusion" debacle at BYU. He also has published a paper in which he claims he can prove with archeological evidence that Jesus Christ visited meso-american peoples. He is not a reliable or particularly sane source.

6. Steel beams recovered from the wreck? Really? Nothing like that existed - what the truthers claim shows that are beams that were cut with torches in site demolition. They HAD to use torches to untangle that wreck. No other means was available. Plus, I have worked with thermite, and thermite is absolutely incapable of cutting a vertical beam. It falls makes a hole in any horizontal beam and falls straight down. Demolition people do not use Thermite ANYWHERE as a result. All thermite would have done is start fires; You cannot have a thermite burn without just an immense shower of sparks and a very bright light being emitted. And this is a moving goalposts argument; We point out there were no explosion signatures at the moment of collapse and then they invent Thermite to make the "explosions" quiet. Then when we disprove thermite, they claim, utterly without evidence, there is a super-secret silent explosive. (Seriously!) And any physicist can tell you, silence and explosives never can go together.

Moreover, the site was cleared by building demolition professionals who would have known exactly what they were looking at had there been anything like that in the wreck. Do you seriously believe that ALL of them would keep quiet for 8 years on the murder of thousands of Americans by our own government just for fear of their paychecks? And the site was attended by off-duty firemen for months so that THEY could be the ones to carry out the remains of any of their fallen brothers. They would not have been silent about this either.

Again I don't believe any of this because I am trusting Bush. I believe it because I did my own research.

[CurtC]

About the pancake theory - that was initially thought to be the cause, but later simulations and analysis of the videos shows the real cause: sagging floors pulled the exterior perimeter columns inwards, until those columns were so bowed that they could no longer support the vertical load upon them. You can see this happen in videos - the collapse starts when these columns buckle.

[DC]

Controlled demolitions collapse at the base, not at some random point hundreds of feet in the air.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=EhPzpdSSSqI

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=d77E0E46c2k

[ElMondoHummus]

Addendum, corrections, etc.
Point 5 - Admitted nitpick, but truthers get off on discoursing on such minute elements:

"his result does not show thermite because it does not have any significant barium in it..."

Actually, thermate is what contains barium. Given that Jones's findings don't contain barium, he's unwittingly excluding thermate, but he's not speaking at all towards thermite. Ingredients-wise, thermite is at heart iron-oxide and aluminum and doesn't require barium's presence.

Point 6 - Not a correction, but some extra info: If you wanted to expound further on the Ground Zero clearing work, Gravy's site has that one page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera) that really hits people upside the head with the amount of work done. Too many fantasists get away with handwaving past the number of people and amount of time actually spent combing through the debris, and use that handwave in their arguments regarding the "lack" of an investigation. They forget that the debris was handled by many people, and well inspected.

By the way, you ought to see the comments section of that link he sent you. Toddstallion's bringing out all the old hits. :D

[DC]

about Thremite

there is alot diffrent Thermite

http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite_pics-videos.html

[BenBurch]

About the pancake theory - that was initially thought to be the cause, but later simulations and analysis of the videos shows the real cause: sagging floors pulled the exterior perimeter columns inwards, until those columns were so bowed that they could no longer support the vertical load upon them. You can see this happen in videos - the collapse starts when these columns buckle.

Thanks! Passed that on;

I've run my reply to you past some people (with names removed) and one reminds me;

> About the pancake theory - that was initially thought to be the cause, but
> later simulations and analysis of the videos shows the real cause: sagging
> floors pulled the exterior perimeter columns inwards, until those columns
> were so bowed that they could no longer support the vertical load upon
> them. You can see this happen in videos - the collapse starts when these
> columns buckle.


And indeed you CAN see that in the videos. The pulling in on the columns is not subtle whatsoever.

But I had forgotten that pancaking was the initial theory.

But this is how things work in science and engineering; You develop a hypothesis and then you TEST it out and based on what you find you either accept it or abandon it. In this case it was abandoned. Likewise Lord Kelvin thought the Earth must be really young and the "Intelligent Design" people still quote him. He based this on his calculation of how long it would take a molten earth to become a solid ball and the observation that there was still molten material in the center of the planet. But Lord Kelvin did not know about the radioactivity that actually keeps the earth's interior hot.

[Alt+F4]

about Thremite

there is alot diffrent Thermite

http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite_pics-videos.html

Very true. Thermite has even been used in arson cases yet not one single FDNY Fire Marshall reported any indication of thermite at ground zero. These are professional arson investigators who worked the pile for months after 9/11. Why believe Stephen Jones over them?

[DC]

You develop a hypothesis and then you TEST it out and based on what you find you either accept it or abandon it.

or like NIST did, stop the FEA modeling and just claim

Initial Collapse = Global Collapse

[BenBurch]

Addendum, corrections, etc.
Point 5 - Admitted nitpick, but truthers get off on discoursing on such minute elements:

Actually, thermate is what contains barium. Given that Jones's findings don't contain barium, he's unwittingly excluding thermate, but he's not speaking at all towards thermite. Ingredients-wise, thermite is at heart iron-oxide and aluminum and doesn't require barium's presence.

Point 6 - Not a correction, but some extra info: If you wanted to expound further on the Ground Zero clearing work, Gravy's site has that one page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera) that really hits people upside the head with the amount of work done. Too many fantasists get away with handwaving past the number of people and amount of time actually spent combing through the debris, and use that handwave in their arguments regarding the "lack" of an investigation. They forget that the debris was handled by many people, and well inspected.

By the way, you ought to see the comments section of that link he sent you. Toddstallion's bringing out all the old hits. :D

Passed on.

[BenBurch]

Will somebody please tell DC that he's been on my ignore list for a while now? Thanks.

[scissorhands]

about Thremite

there is alot diffrent Thermite

http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite_pics-videos.html

So which kind of thermite did they use on 9/11, DC?
You need to provide evidence of resulting compounds or elements, from these various reactions, in samples taken at GZ.
:)

[defaultdotxbe]

or like NIST did, stop the FEA modeling and just claim

Initial Collapse = Global Collapse
NISTs early calculations already showed that once the collapse began the buildings structure would be unable to arrest it

[Drudgewire]

By the way, you ought to see the comments section of that link he sent you. Toddstallion's bringing out all the old hits. :D


Holy crap!!

Americans are not known for their critical thinking ability.

...

every single diplomat in the world privately knows 9-11 was an inside job.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif

[X]

A local radio host (one of a pair who does a morning show) is also into conspiracy theories, including 9/11.

He mentioned it one day over the summer, so I e-mailed a link to a few sites debunking the stuff. I immmediately recieved his reply: a link to a woo-ish Canadian site containing long-debunked notions.
Plainly, many people simply don't want to learn different than what they already hold true.

[pomeroo]

A talk radio host I know real well has been buying in to the whole "truther" version of the 911 story. I've been trying to talk sense to him about it. He sent me a link to http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/115376 with the comment. "Another sucker?"

Here is my reply, if I am wrong in any details, please let me know so I can send him corrections?

Thanks!!!


Excellent job, Ben.

[BenBurch]

NISTs early calculations already showed that once the collapse began the buildings structure would be unable to arrest it

Indeed I had computed a similar result the day after it happened. Not as detailed, but its easy to show that the forces are of the right magnitude to continue unchecked.

[Brainster]

Since you're on the left end of the spectrum of American politics, I wonder if your friend is as well. If so it might be useful to ask him if he agrees with some of Karen S. Johnson's other standpoints:

1. Sponsored legislation to secede Arizona from the Union if the president declared martial law and suspended the constitution. The kicker? It was in 2000, and the president was Bill Clinton.

2. Thinks the Oklahoma City bombing was an inside job.

3. Believes in the North American Union conspiracy theory, which holds that the Bush Administration plans to unite the US, Mexico and Canada into one country.

4. Endorsed and co-chaired Ron Paul's 2008 campaign in Arizona. Chaired Pat Buchanan's 1996 run in Arizona.

Not to mention her more mainstream Republican positions, like opposing gay marriage.

[BenBurch]

Excellent job, Ben.

Thanks!

[BenBurch]

My friend follows up;

Subject: Another nut?

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

To which I reply;


Not a nut, but she *might* not have what she thinks she has, and she absolutely does not lend any credibility to the Truther's claims.

She appears to have about the same theory of this case as I do - that we had a situation of depraved indifference to what was happening and that once it happened, we cooked the result to finger who we needed to finger to allow first a war in Afghanistan to allow the natural gas pipe and then a war in Iraq to allow us to seize their oil.

The investigation was inadequate ONLY because they did not want it to be seen exactly how much intelligence we COULD have had if we had ever hired enough people to translate and collate all the information we had.

But we did not hire those people.

We did not collate it.

We simply did not know what was coming because of those two things not happening.

My darkest suspicion is that we may have stayed INTENTIONALLY in the dark about what they were saying. (Though I cannot prove that at all and would never claim it as fact.)

Prosecuting sexworkers for making porn, and draping the statue of Justice with a curtain was much, much more important.

But there are also issues with Edmonds' story;

1. If she can name the real killers of those thousands murdered on 9/11, she is letting a gag order stop her? I mean, how callous do you have to be? How totally off your moral center must one be to sit on information like that? No court would ever convict her were she telling the truth.

2. Can she can provide proof of those gag orders? Ask her. Ask her to FAX you the written orders. And if there WERE any gag orders, surely she has danced around the matter and named enough names, especially in the Sunday Times piece to be clapped in irons? Why, then, is she still free?

3. She can't prove any of her specific assertions of fact. Not one. If she came out and spilled EVERYTHING, and there was anything TO prove, don't you think Senator Kennedy and others would be on that like White on Rice? And if there is something there, see point one. And if there is not, she would be violating no gag order by stating false information.

4. A single translator sees only a small part of what goes on. In her case just a few bits in Turkish. How can she know the big picture, or understand the difference between real data and data planted to throw people off? She was not an intelligence analyst and had no clearance to see any more than she was shown. In any intelligence finding there is almost ALWAYS absolutely conflicting intelligence that says the exact opposite of what the finding has found. And this is so because people sometimes communicate their own suppositions as fact, and people sometimes communicate complete lies to get somebody else to act on the lies as though they were truth. She was a contract translator who was on the job less than six months and was shown only what they wanted her to have.

5. Pakistan supporting Al Q and Atta? This shocks ANYBODY? They have been sheltering Bin Laden forever.

And she does not say anything that makes this a false flag operation or controlled demolition; Her story is one of covering up a failure that might just possibly have been an intentional desire not to know.

In short, she isn't cut from the same cloth as the Truthers and it does her a vast disservice to lump her in with them.

I think the Truth Movement makes people like Edmonds seem ridiculous.

Her story absolutely needs investigating, but those clowns hang all over it as though it validated them.

Finally, I think SHE believes she has something. I am open to the idea that she does, but am not certain of it.

-Ben

[tanabear]

NISTs early calculations already showed that once the collapse began the buildings structure would be unable to arrest it

What calculations showed this? NIST says in their report, "For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."

[BenBurch]

What calculations showed this? NIST says in their report, "For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."

Well, its certainly been calculated elsewhere! And discussed here at exhaustive length.

Once it began there was no ability of the remaining structure to arrest it.

[Brainache]

What calculations showed this? NIST says in their report, "For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."

If you really need those calculations, what makes you think anyone here would want to give them to you? Or if they gave you some calculations, how would you know they were real and not just some crap someone made up to fool you?

I think your only options in this case are to study engineering so that you can do the calculations for yourself, or trust that the engineers of the world would be kicking up a fuss if NIST were peddling a load of crap.

What other options do you have?

[BenBurch]

... or trust that the engineers of the world would be kicking up a fuss if NIST were peddling a load of crap. ...

Trust me, we would!

Hell, that would be something I could get into a Journal! I haven't been published since around 1984.

[DC]

NISTs early calculations already showed that once the collapse began the buildings structure would be unable to arrest it

oh i must have missed that in the NIST report, on what page is that pls?

[DC]

wow and BenBurch is an engineer???? :boggled:

[DC]

So which kind of thermite did they use on 9/11, DC?
You need to provide evidence of resulting compounds or elements, from these various reactions, in samples taken at GZ.
:)

no
actually i just wanted to show that you cant say it misses this or that to be thermite. there are many diffrent kinds of Thermite. that was the point.

[Corsair 115]

actually i just wanted to show that you cant say it misses this or that to be thermite. there are many diffrent kinds of Thermite.There are lots of different kinds of ice cream too. That does not therefore mean the theory that ice cream was used to bring down the WTC towers has any legitimacy. You need evidence to verify a theory.

[BenBurch]

There are lots of different kinds of ice cream too. That does not therefore mean the theory that ice cream was used to bring down the WTC towers has any legitimacy. You need evidence to verify a theory.

The culprit was Ben & Jerry's Demolition Sundae.

Is DC trotting out the "Anything COULD have happened, therefore something did." argument again?

[Corsair 115]

Is DC trotting out the "Anything COULD have happened, therefore something did." argument again?I would say he is following LastChild's "grasping at straws" approach.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

actually i just wanted to show that you cant say it misses this or that to be thermite. there are many diffrent kinds of Thermite.


Have you brought this to Stephen Jones' attention? I'm sure he'd be very interested...

[gumboot]

My friend follows up;



To which I reply;


My only quibble is that the "go into Afghanistan to secure a gas pipeline" argument is nonsensical on the face of it. The United States went into Afghanistan for one reason and one reason alone - to get Al Qaeda. I think in regards to the US Administration's agenda/exploitation of 9/11 you're better of contrasting the commitment of forces in Iraq with the commitment of forces in Afghanistan.

The US government clearly didn't want to go into Afghanistan, and clearly were only half-heartedly committed to the operation, in contrast with their efforts in Iraq.

Consider: at the end of 2001 - three months after military operations in Afghanistan began, US ground forces in the country amounted to 1,000 US Marines, some special forces soldiers, and about 300 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division.

This is despite the fact that the five divisions of the XVIII Airborne Corps are specifically tailored for rapid deployment anywhere in the world, with the 82nd Airborne Division expected to be capable of deploying within 18hrs of notice, a Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division expected to be capable of deploying within 96 hours of notice, and all five divisions to be capable of being deployed in 30 days.

If the US administration had been serious about destroying Al Qaeda they could have had 90,000 ground combat troops in Afghanistan a month and a half before the Battle of Tora Bora.

[DC]

I would say he is following LastChild's "grasping at straws" approach.

Jones claims to have not only the smoking gun, he also has the gun.

i guess he does not need my help. and i already expressed what i think about Jones.

[DC]

so when there is no trace of Choclate, this is evidence that Icecram was not present.
even not vanille icecream, we miss the chocolate.

[uk_dave]

If the US administration had been serious about destroying Al Qaeda they could have had 90,000 ground combat troops in Afghanistan a month and a half before the Battle of Tora Bora.

Or they were over confident about being able to take afghanistan or they were just incompetent at military planning.

(As an aside, interesting program recently on BBC Radio 4 about Falujah. Apparently, after the murder of the US security contractors, the marine general wanted a few months to find and capture those responsible (they'd been identifiable from the tv pictures) but the administration told him to take the city instead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pip/m7a8j/ )

[Panoply_Prefect]

My only quibble is that the "go into Afghanistan to secure a gas pipeline" argument is nonsensical on the face of it. The United States went into Afghanistan for one reason and one reason alone - to get Al Qaeda. I think in regards to the US Administration's agenda/exploitation of 9/11 you're better of contrasting the commitment of forces in Iraq with the commitment of forces in Afghanistan.

The US government clearly didn't want to go into Afghanistan, and clearly were only half-heartedly committed to the operation, in contrast with their efforts in Iraq.

Consider: at the end of 2001 - three months after military operations in Afghanistan began, US ground forces in the country amounted to 1,000 US Marines, some special forces soldiers, and about 300 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division.

This is despite the fact that the five divisions of the XVIII Airborne Corps are specifically tailored for rapid deployment anywhere in the world, with the 82nd Airborne Division expected to be capable of deploying within 18hrs of notice, a Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division expected to be capable of deploying within 96 hours of notice, and all five divisions to be capable of being deployed in 30 days.

If the US administration had been serious about destroying Al Qaeda they could have had 90,000 ground combat troops in Afghanistan a month and a half before the Battle of Tora Bora.

Not to mention that the invasion of Afghanistan was a UN-approved (http://secint24.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml)operation, with ISAF athorized by the Security Council. While the war on Iraq was not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm).

[A W Smith]

Jones claims to have not only the smoking gun, he also has the gun.

i guess he does not need my help. and i already expressed what i think about Jones.
has the gun does he?
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/thermitecutter.jpg

produce evidence that he has either.

[DC]

has the gun does he?
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/thermitecutter.jpg

produce evidence that he has either.

you cannot possible be that stupid......

read my post again pls.

[T.A.M.]

DC:

Video one was a 3-4 sotrey building, and looked more like "every floor explodes" demolition.

Video #2 was more like "midway" demolition, and once again, it was a much smaller building (may be 15 storeys). As well, near the end of the video, it shows 2 buildings coming down, the one to the right clearly a normal demolition, I assume the one on the left is the unusual one.

You do realize that there is a reason why CONTROLLED Demolitions are done from the bottom, right?

TAM:)

[DC]

DC:

Video one was a 3-4 sotrey building, and looked more like "every floor explodes" demolition.

Video #2 was more like "midway" demolition, and once again, it was a much smaller building (may be 15 storeys). As well, near the end of the video, it shows 2 buildings coming down, the one to the right clearly a normal demolition, I assume the one on the left is the unusual one.

You do realize that there is a reason why CONTROLLED Demolitions are done from the bottom, right?

TAM:)

do you maybe realize, that it is just wrong to claim, CD's start at bottom, at least he should add, most CD's.
there are diffrent way.

but hey, when he wants to send weak claims to convince someone.
i dont care :)

just wanted to help.

[Pato2747]

Don't tell me. You got a reply saying: "hur lol but you mentioned the nist report, its from the guvmint1!!1"

[BenBurch]

My only quibble is that the "go into Afghanistan to secure a gas pipeline" argument is nonsensical on the face of it. ...

No doubt that is what the original mission was.

But there was ALSO a pre-existing threat against the Taliban from spring of that year over the gas pipeline. It is claimed that we promised them a carpet of gold if they allowed it, and a carpet of bombs if they did not. Strong rhetoric. Given that, if that is true, the decision to go in had the path before it already greased.

Governments often have multiple reasons for doing a thing.

And BTW, I wish we HAD gone in with a MUCH larger force initially and made escape for Bin Laden actually impossible. I want to see that swine's head on a pike somewhere before I kick off this sorry globe.

[T.A.M.]

do you maybe realize, that it is just wrong to claim, CD's start at bottom, at least he should add, most CD's.
there are diffrent way.

but hey, when he wants to send weak claims to convince someone.
i dont care :)

just wanted to help.

I am sure for anything, there are RARE exceptions. The standard practice, the one used 99.9% of the time, is a "from the bottom" CD. Perhaps it should be stated,

"Except for very particular circumstance, CD is started from the bottom."

His claims are far from WEAK.

and we all know your inclination on these matters, so the "just wanted to help" is perhaps the WEAKEST thing of all here.

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

I am sure for anything, there are RARE exceptions. The standard practice, the one used 99.9% of the time, is a "from the bottom" CD. Perhaps it should be stated,

"Except for very particular circumstance, CD is started from the bottom."

His claims are far from WEAK.

and we all know your inclination on these matters, so the "just wanted to help" is perhaps the WEAKEST thing of all here.

TAM:)

Is he referring to that concrete apartment block video?

That was an anomalous case where they wanted to not have to pulverize (in trutherspeak "dustify") the concrete because the building had SO much excess strength. So they used the top bit as a falling hammer. Only applies to that sort of building.

What that video does NOT show was the EXTENSIVE prep of the lower floors and the charges that were set off throughout the bottom half of the building just prior to the initiator charges. Had there been anything like that in WTC, all of the glass would have been blown out at once and we wouldn't be asking these stupid questions.

[Stellafane]

...just wanted to help.

No you didn't. You just wanted to be annoying. You don't have any place in this thread -- I'm not saying you can't post here, of course; anyone can post anywhere they like. But you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread. Your arguments have now degenerated down that well-worn truther path, where all you have left is really nothing more than juvenile attitude, so you try to pass it off as wit. That may work on other boards populated by uninformed boys. But here in the real world, it doesn't fly. So I really can't understand why you keep doing this. You're making yourself look like an idiot, and for the life of me I cannot fathom why you can't see that.

[Stellafane]

[utter derail]

Hey Ben, just noticed your avatar -- the Leviathan of Parsonstown! The place where the Earl of Rosse discovered spiral structure in galaxies! I've always wanted to see that observatory, an instument that was at least 50 years ahead of its time. Most cool...

[/utter derail]

[BenBurch]

[utter derail]

Hey Ben, just noticed your avatar -- the Leviathan of Parsonstown! The place where the Earl of Rosse discovered spiral structure in galaxies! I've always wanted to see that observatory, an instument that was at least 50 years ahead of its time. Most cool...

[/utter derail]

The stinking Irish weather made it a bad choice of locale... Almost as bad as we have here near Chicago... :/

[gumboot]

No doubt that is what the original mission was.

But there was ALSO a pre-existing threat against the Taliban from spring of that year over the gas pipeline. It is claimed that we promised them a carpet of gold if they allowed it, and a carpet of bombs if they did not. Strong rhetoric. Given that, if that is true, the decision to go in had the path before it already greased.


Except there's no evidence whatsoever that this even occured, and plenty of evidence that it didn't.

The gas pipeline claim is nonsensical on its face because no one wanted to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. It was a lukewarm prospect half a decade earlier for Unocal to move Turkmenistan gas across to markets in Pakistan and India, but within a year the US had shelved it in favour of the Trans-Caspian line which would not pass through Afghanistan but instead would go through Azerbaijan and Georgia into Turkey. The Unocal Afghanistan pipeline never passed beyond planning stages.

Meanwhile the Trans-Caspian plan died as well because Azerbaijan discovered their own reserves and now had no interest in providing a transit for Turkmenistan gas when they could sell their own gas to Turkey.

Then in the late 90's Unocal considered a very small oil line from the Caspian fields across Afghanistan and Pakistan to India, however the US lobbied very heavily for a competing oil line that would move from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey.

Finally, you have to look at the specifics of the situation. In the early to mid 90's Turkmenistan was desperate to find markets for its gas. Russia - its traditional market - was in a recession and were not purchasing it, but also wouldn't allow them to move their gas through Russia to non-Russian markets. India and Pakistan, meanwhile, has gas shortages. There was at least some financial incentive to piping gas across Afghanistan.

But jump to 2001, and Russia had recovered and was back to buying most of Turkmenistan's gas. As part of the deal they also allowed the gas to be shipped through the Russian grid to other markets. Pakistan had discovered their own domestic reserves, so had no need of gas from Turkmenistan, and Turkey were getting all the gas they needed from Azerbaijan. That left only India, who could get gas from much easier sources than piping it across three countries - one of which was their arch enemy Pakistan who could not only charge transit fees but cut the supply at any time.

Like I said, the only reason the US went into Afghanistan was because of 9/11. It actually fouled up the administration's plans because they really had not choice but to go into Afghanistan, but clearly didn't want to go in.

[gumboot]

Not to mention that the invasion of Afghanistan was a UN-approved (http://secint24.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml)operation, with ISAF athorized by the Security Council. While the war on Iraq was not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm).


The initial attack on Afghanistan was not approved by the UN Security Council.

The first UNSC resolution approving foreign forces in Afghanistan came two and a half months after hostilities commenced.

In contrast the Security Council legalised the occupation of Iraq on 22 May, 2003 which was only two months after hostilities commenced.

It should be pointed out that a war does not have to be authorised by the UNSC to be legal. In the case of Afghanistan the US invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter (collective self defense).

[BenBurch]

I'll do more checking, gumboot. I had thought that O'Neil's story about that was uncontroversial.

[gumboot]

I'll do more checking, gumboot. I had thought that O'Neil's story about that was uncontroversial.


I don't know who O'Neil is, but the "Carpet of gold, carpet of bombs" threat story originated from a Pakistani diplomat called Niaz Naik and even he categorically denies that pipelines were ever mentioned at the meeting.

911myths covers it here (http://www.911myths.com/html/niaz_naik_and_the_carpet_of_bo.html).

[A W Smith]

you cannot possible be that stupid......

read my post again pls.


Yes i read it. You cannot be that stupid but you proved it all to us by quoting the wrong post, You meant to quote this,
Have you brought this to Stephen Jones' attention? I'm sure he'd be very interested...
and reply , but instead quoted Corsairs post and posted this.
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3699036#post3699036)
I would say he is following LastChild's "grasping at straws" approach.

Jones claims to have not only the smoking gun, he also has the gun.

i guess he does not need my help. and i already expressed what i think about Jones.