Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
9/11 Open Thread
We're four years out: Thoughts, rants, spam, poetry?
Uncle Sam|9.11.05 @ 11:48AM|#
Politicians are so predictable. I suggest that Osama's plan is going along much as he expected.
|9.11.05 @ 11:56AM|#
Uh-huh.
The Taleban removed from power. Safe and open haven in Afghanistan
gone. Two thirds of al Queda leadership dead or captured. The
Pakistani nuclear network disrupted. The first tentative steps
towards democracy in Lebanon and Egypt.
Have you read what bin Laden thought would happen in the Middle
East? Or is the fact that the U.S. faces a hard task in seeing the
Iraq War through to good results enough to conjure up the notion
that Osama is rubbing his hands together in a cave that has been
his home for going on four years now...
|9.11.05 @ 11:57AM|#
Don't forget 9/11 folks, as we "pray" for the "victims" of hurricane Katrina. They're both the same, you know. Only one boosted bush's approval, and the other helped to sink it.
|9.11.05 @ 12:00PM|#
To the best of my knowledge, Fox News Channel today was the only
major domestic television channel which re-aired many of the
horrendous events of 9/11/01 -- e.g., the planes hitting the
towers, the explosions, the fire, the smoke, workers jumping to
their death rather than burn alive, the aftermaths at the Pentagon
and in a Pennsylvania field, the towers ultimately crumbling, and
the then-shock of newscasters and stunned onlookers.
I was glad these graphic images were re-aired.
All other channels should have followed suit. We desperately need
to be reminded of that pivotal day, and of how we felt, lest we as
a society lose (any further) the focus and resolve required to
eliminate our enemies.
Ron Hardin|9.11.05 @ 12:04PM|#
It's time to forget it. Everybody who's interested is
economizing it, seeing what they can get for themselves from it
now.
What was revealed remains : the threat of modern weapons is too
great now to co-inhabit the globe with 11th century
governments.
It's not only in the US interest to change that, but
everybody's.
So the plan is to make conditions inhospitable to terrorism
everywhere. You don't stamp out terrorists ; but they can't get a
foothold anywhere.
9/11 is a distraction from what is to be done
|9.11.05 @ 12:11PM|#
sage,
You reflect on 9/11 and the first thing that pops into your head is
Bush's poll numbers?
Tell me, how much lube does it take to get your head so far up your
ass? Does it interfere with your bowel movements?
|9.11.05 @ 12:31PM|#
Here's my idea:
Sometime today spent just 10 minutes to remember the dead, give
silent thanks to those who gave so much, and sometimes gave all, to
help others.
Seriously, just 10 minutes of not being mad at anyone for anything.
I'm sure many will be stunned at how it feels if you can even let
yourself do it. You can go right back to hating Bush, Islam, FEMA
or whatever object of ossessive antipathy you use to avoid thinking
about your own life.
10 minutes, that's all I ask.
Eryk Boston
|9.11.05 @ 12:44PM|#
Greg T.: "Uh-huh.
"The Taleban removed from power. Safe and open haven in Afghanistan
gone. Two thirds of al Queda leadership dead or captured."
Yeah, well obviously Al-Qaeda needs a safe and open haven in
Afghanistan. Without it, they obviously could not possibly conduct
terrorist operations in Bali, Madrid, or London...
"Two thirds of al Queda leadership dead or captured"? Yeah, right.
How many "number three men of al-Qaeda" are there for us to
kill/cpature anyway? Somehow they seem to be able to launch
terorist acts without these constantly-killed-or-captured "Number
Thrree men"...
And let's not forget that they actually did bring down a
government--in Spain. (OK, strictly speaking, it may have been not
the bombing itself but the Spanish government's blaming the ETA
that brought it down, but such nuances are lost to Al Qaeda--they
see it as a victory and use it as a recruiting tool.)
But don't worry--when they strike here, the damage will be
minimized by our effective evacuation plans. (I'd put a smiley here
if it wasn't so tragic.)
|9.11.05 @ 1:03PM|#
nipplehippie,
Actually I clicked to H&R from here, so
that's what I was thinking of at the time. Of course, before that I
was remembering where I was, much like I imagine others would do.
But how can I bring up bush's poll numbers when it's 9/11, there's
a war going on and we have a city to rebuild, right? Cockbite.
|9.11.05 @ 1:04PM|#
Well, I posted at 12:31 and the next bit of bombastic tripe came at 12:44. Did I get 10 minutes?
|9.11.05 @ 1:07PM|#
Uncle Sam:
Do you know what his "plan" was? You should. After his mujahadeen
used RPG's and other firepower to beat back one world superpower
(USSR), they felt emboldened. Then, Bin Laden was embarrassed when
Saudi Arabia turned down his offer to protect them from Saddam
Hussein, and instead sought protection from GHW Bush. He took this
as a personal slap in the face. So, embarrassed and emboldened, he
looked for a way to do what he did to the Russkies: bring the fight
to Afghanistan, where he could do the same to America. The idea was
posed to him to fly planes into landmark buildings, and they set
the plan in motion. It worked, somewhat: they did "bring the fight
to Afghanistan". The second part, defeating yet another superpower
on his home turf, didn't quite work out.
Look, I know it feels better to say, "every time you rob us of our
civil liberties and bomb other countries, you play into Osama's
plan", but, the fact is, as far as we know, the Patriot Act wasn't
really on his to-do list.
The rape of our liberties in the name of "The War on Terra" is not
bad because it plays into Osama's plan---it's just plain bad.
There's no need to qualify it, it's just bad.
|9.11.05 @ 1:23PM|#
What a horrible thing that was, watching the second plane hit
the tower and knowing then that it was no accident.
I think we haven't seen anything since because the bar for
destruction was set very high on that day four years ago. They
won't strike again until they can clear it.
Sadly, I believe something is coming (nukes?), and I don't know
what to do about it beyond buying a gun and some gold.
|9.11.05 @ 1:26PM|#
"Yeah, well obviously Al-Qaeda needs a safe and open haven in
Afghanistan. Without it, they obviously could not possibly conduct
terrorist operations in Bali, Madrid, or London..."
Those operations - while financed to some extent by al Queda - were
conducted by locally placed terrorists. One of the strengths of al
Queda organizing principles is its de-centralized, umbrella
structure. It's incredibly difficult to stop every terrorist attack
but there are no longer thousands of jihadists going to Afghanistan
to receive training for conducting terror operations in their
countries of residence.
""Two thirds of al Queda leadership dead or captured"? Yeah, right.
How many "number three men of al-Qaeda" are there for us to
kill/cpature anyway? Somehow they seem to be able to launch
terorist acts without these constantly-killed-or-captured "Number
Thrree men"...
When the #3 person in an organization is taken out, someone
replaces them. Should we start referring to replacements as the #4,
#5, etc. so people won't get confused? Or perhaps we should do some
version control: 3.1, 3.2...
In the four years since the 9/11 attacks, al Queda has hit mostly
soft targets or used local assets to attack local targets. We
haven't seen an attacked coordinated on the scale of 9/11 nor have
we seen WMD used against any target.
Is your point that the U.S. hasn't succeeded in rooting out a
highly decentralized organization spread across the globe that had
years to finance and train thousands? Well, I would have to agree
that total success has not been achieved. Then again, it never will
be. If we found every major leader of al Queda tomorrow, other
terror organizations would move to fill that void.
The primary goals of the war on Islamofacists are to -
(1) prevent terrorist networks from acquiring/using WMD
(2) disrupt terror networks capable of organizing and using a
global organization and support structure to make large-scale
attacks on U.S. soil and global interests
The U.S. will never succeed in stopping small cells of terrorists
from blowing up a night club in Bali; we will likely fail to stop a
small cell of terrorists from bombing a railroad station or mall in
the U.S. Small scale terror attacks will continue to happen no
matter how successful a relatively open society prosecutes the war
on Islamofacists. They will continue to succeed in setting off
bombs in public spaces. But, if the two major objectives list above
are achieved, there will not be any large-scale attack that kills
thousands or disrupts developed economies on a macro scale.
Do I think the U.S. government is doing a good job disrupting the
terror networks capable of hitting the homeland? Sorta. The fact
that we're dealing with people with a 14th century mindset helps
but the evidence shows that al Queda has accomplished very little
in the past four years - especially when you read what they state
their desired outcomes of an open conflict with the U.S. are.
Do I think the U.S. government has done a good job of preparing the
country to react quickly and effectively to a massive terrorist
attack? Hell no. Events from the past two weeks show that the Feds
aren't even organized to quickly respond to foreseeable disasters.
If the terrorists succeed in causing the evacuation of one or more
major metropolitan areas, the Feds will likely provide little help
to millions of Americans that have paid billions of dollars for a
coordinated, large-scale, and effective response.
But these are all secondary points. I was responding to a comment
that stated the bin Laden would look back on the past four years
and see that things are going according to his game plan. My
response was intended to show that, despite the predictable
incompetence of government on all levels, things have gone pretty
well when viewed from a strategic perspective. The U.S. is doing a
much better job of achieving its short- to mid-term goals compared
to al Queda. OBL is on record with what he hopes al Queda would
accomplish in this timeframe and he hasn't achieved much of his
agenda. The occasional message from him and his #2 notwithstanding,
his organization's standing in Arab world has taken a big hit in
the past four years.
|9.11.05 @ 2:07PM|#
I think Osama would call the last four years a mixed bag. On one
hand, judging by his prior fanatasies of forming a Central Asian
caliphate, the 9/9 assassination of Ahmed Shah Masoud, and his
near-capture at Tora Bora, I don't think he counted on losing his
safe harbor the way he did.
On the other hand, he has to be licking his chops at the
opportunities provided to him by Dubya's Iraqi escapade. For
recruitment, for training, for rallying Muslim public opinion, for
satisfying death-cult bloodlust, for creating political rifts in
the West, and perhaps even for creating a new safe harbor.
|9.11.05 @ 2:08PM|#
"We desperately need to be reminded of that pivotal day, and of
how we felt, lest we as a society lose (any further) the focus and
resolve required to eliminate our enemies."
some of us can close our eyes and remember without help from the
television. thanks, though.
|9.11.05 @ 3:05PM|#
Strategic lesson:
When war is declared on you
Best pay attention
Television off
I will not participate
I will walk my dog.
I will not let my
Patriotism become
A button they push
|9.11.05 @ 3:06PM|#
I think we haven't seen anything since because the bar for
destruction was set very high on that day four years ago. They
won't strike again until they can clear it.
If Al-Qaeda's main objective, beyond the satisfying of its members'
bloddlust, is to instigate Islamist revolutions in the Muslim
world, then it's possible that they've decided that launching
terrorist attacks in the US would be against their interests for
now, given that their effect might be to increase public support
for staying the course in Iraq.
At the same time, they could conclude that launching attacks in
nations where the likely political effect would be to turn public
opinion (further) against maintaining military involvement in that
godfosaken country would make strategic sense.
|9.11.05 @ 3:07PM|#
Since this stupid comment software got rid of the spacing, the above is grouped in 3 groups of 3 lines each.
|9.11.05 @ 3:14PM|#
Wow. The GOP has absolutely UNLEASHED its Media Action Team today. Are they payig you guys extra to work on Sundays?
|9.11.05 @ 3:21PM|#
I remember the faces of the missing on the fliers
afterwards.
So many unburied dead.
|9.11.05 @ 3:37PM|#
In light of trying to come up with something on my own, I will
simply link to an essay* written by the late** Mark Penman:
Beavershots
and Bloodshed
*Today it would be called a blog entry, but Penman was doing his
shtick before the term was even around.
**Mark Penman, aka Laissez Firearm he killed
himself around June of 2001. Despite his death, his essays still
seem fresh, and at times eerily prescient.
|9.11.05 @ 4:12PM|#
What do you think would be sufficent provocation for the US to set off a nuke in the Middle East?
Windypundit|9.11.05 @ 4:45PM|#
I remember watching the towers burn in real time as it was
happening, and I remember wrestling with the fact that it was too
late. No matter how rich and powerful and capable we are, we could
never bring back all the people who were murdered by the crashing
planes, by the roaring fireballs, and by the smoke filling the
towers.
That must be what it's like to make a mistake with some fast-moving
machinery and see half your hand fall to the floor: There's the
pain, and there's the realization that it's irreversible and you
can't undo it no matter how hard you try.
I did manage to find a little good news, though. Ramzi Yusef's
boastful quest to bring the towers down had failed again. The
towers may have been burning, and thousands may have been dead, but
the towers still stood. That glimmer of hope lasted about 45
minutes, until I saw a huge dust cloud envelop one of the towers
from top to bottom, and I figured out what had to have caused
it.
|9.11.05 @ 5:44PM|#
9/11 = conservatives get what they want
Hurricane Katrina = liberals get what they want
Arrgh.
That said, I've been in a constant state of melancholy ever since
about 4pm, 9/11/01 when I woke up and turned on the TV. I remember
the lines of cars waiting at gas stations up and down Manchester
Rd. Its seems so ridiculous now, why were people so worried about
getting gas? I had to work that night, and every damn TV in the
unit was running 24 hr. news coverage. It was a pretty solemn
night. I fucking hate 9/11 and its legacy.
Ellis Wyatt|9.11.05 @ 5:49PM|#
Anyone who still thinks 9-11 was anything but an inside job is
in deep denial of the facts.
>Kerosene does NOT melt steel (see your Coleman stove): the
towers falling was a controlled demo. Do not try to say "softened"
- it has been thoroughly refuted. No spin is possible.
>WT7 was a controlled demo, which ANYONE can see just by looking
at ANY of the videos of it's collapse. No spin is possible.
>Flt 93 was shot down, it's debris scattered over 8 miles, which
is completely impossible in the context of the official story that
it crashed due to a fight over the controls. Furthermore, a close
inspection of the "crater" shows plants growing INSIDE the crater,
another impossiblity if the crater was created that morning thru
collision. 93 was shot down, period. There is no way to spin
it.
>There was no Boeing at the Pentagon, and a cursory overview of
the many photos of the scene will show that there is no possible
way it COULD have been a Boeing crash. There is no way to spin
it.
Get over it.
Do not cite "eyewitnesses" - that is hearsay.
Do not cite "experts" - that is a fallacious appeal to
authority.
Do not cite "incompetence" - the most "incompetent" were richly
rewarded.
Do not cite the "Commission" - it was an obvious whitewash, and
it's still an appeal to authority.
Do not cite "conspiracies" as being impossibly complex, or
unprecedented - the official line is that some 20 "terrorists" (who
can't fly planes, had their Saudi visas fast-tracked, and who don't
show up on ANY passenger manifests) *conspired* with Osama (who was
"living in a cave" in bumf*ck afghanistan) to pull off the single
most sophisticated crime in American history. The official story is
one of CONSPIRACY in the first place, ergo: the existence of
conspiracies are central to the official line.
It is not my fault you are cowardly and unable to think for
yourself. It is not my fault that you are being lied to by those
you think are your righteous "protectors". It is not my fault that
George Bush "won" and/or Kerry "lost".
Do not blame me for what you are feeling as you read this. Your
feelings are YOURS, and only YOU are responsible for them.
9-11 was an inside job, a hoax.
Get over it. Get off your asses and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I assure you that defenders of the government will be shown no
particular mercy, because mercy is the fallacy of deferred justice.
You WILL get EXACTLY what you DESERVE.
Deserve something better than tyranny, fools.
|9.11.05 @ 5:51PM|#
Every year I take the day off and spend it with my
family...
I remember the pain of that morning, wondering if I'd be pushing my
brother's coffin thru a church, he was on duty as a midtown NYPD
patrol officer...
I watch the stories about the people, their loss, the great things
done by ordinary people to help others they didn't even
know...
Sometimes I still get choked up...
And somehow I don't ever think about politics...because my memories
of that day have nothing to do with politics.
|9.11.05 @ 5:51PM|#
I was driving from Millinocket to Machias, ME when it happened,
on vacation with my wife and infant son, but my parents and most
everyone else I cared about were in the city or elsewhere in my
home sate of New Jersey. I was split apart, with relief on the one
hand that my immediate family was so far away from the catastrophe,
and horrendous guilt on the other that I wasn't there to share in
my other loved ones' terror and helplessness.
While I don't think about it every day anymore, I am still
grieving, and I am still murderously angry. I expect I still will
be four years from now.
|9.11.05 @ 6:23PM|#
A Joke:
How do you circumcise an al Queda terrorist?
You can't...there's no end to those pricks...
Thank you, be here all week...
Uncle Sam|9.11.05 @ 6:59PM|#
I don't think ObL gives a ... about the Patriot Act. I think
he'd be willing to take a great loss, such as his life, to take the
U.S down a notch or two.
He had to have grasped that the 9/11 attack would provoke the U.S.
into doing something. He must have been aware of the PNAC
web site explaining what the U.S. should do if only there was
another "Pearl Harbor". First stop, of course, was Afghanistan. The
next stop was revealed in the stated policy of two administrations
calling for "regime change in Iraq.
The question is, how long can the U.S. endure the continuous drain
on the treasury, the armed forces, and civilian morale, of
occupying two far-off countries with loads of hostile
Arabs?
|9.11.05 @ 7:06PM|#
Anyone who still thinks 9-11 was anything but an inside job
is in deep denial of the facts.
Or still wisely taking thier meds.
|9.11.05 @ 7:23PM|#
Strange that no one has mentioned this:
By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law
107-89), the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as
"Patriot Day."
Like the name? Hate it? No opinion either way? Need to check with
Huffington Post first?
Uncle Sam|9.11.05 @ 7:24PM|#
I don't think there's a smart person anywhere in the world that thinks anyone could take on the U.S. in direct confrontation, therefore the U.S. must be taken on indirectly. A war of attrition may take more patience, but can do the job eventually.
|9.11.05 @ 7:24PM|#
So it's been four years? ...Already? It seems like just
yesterday! ...I wonder why.
...So how many more years do you think it'll take before all
Americans are completely safe from terrorist attacks?
|9.11.05 @ 7:36PM|#
Air travellers should all learn Lightning Jujitsu. Apparently it worked in WWII?
|9.11.05 @ 8:23PM|#
By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law
107-89), the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as
"Patriot Day."
Does anyone other than me find something pathetic and
self-deprecating about this resolution? If you insist on using the
date of a famous historical event to create a "Patriot Day" (as if
Memorial, Veteran's, and the 4th weren't enough), shouldn't it be
the date of some important national triumph? Maybe the date of
Lexington or Yorktown or Midway - or even Fort McHenry.
Basing it on a day in which thousands of Americans were murdered
and a famous national landmark destroyed by a group of student-visa
zealots who could collectively be packed inside a Ford Expedition,
and all in no small part due to government incompetence, is the
kind of thing that you wouldn't even expect the Shi'as to
embrace.
It's just one more example of how badly the American psyche, quite
fear-ridden even in peaceful times, was shaken by that tragic
day.
|9.11.05 @ 8:37PM|#
Eric II and others,
So does this place Patriot Day up there with Arbor Day and Sugar
Candy Day?
Do our Congresspersons and Senators have cushy jobs or what?
Wait.
Is declaring Patriot Day like a step in a process like
beatification on the way to Sainthood, as in time off with
pay?
Then I see a tough sell coming seeing as how I think I very
recently enjoyed the day of Saint Labor Unions. Correct me if I'm
wrong. (Had such a good time.)
But, if Congresspersons and Senators are working to finagle us more
time off with pay, then they deserve a raise.
joe, agitate for that.
|9.11.05 @ 8:43PM|#
"Does anyone other than me find something pathetic and
self-deprecating about this resolution?"
i agree. i think this whole "soviet kitsch" thing has gone too far.
first it was hep kats wearing fur hats and CCCP jerseys, now it's
these over-the-top may day parade slogan type shits.
|9.11.05 @ 8:45PM|#
Jason Ligon,
Just looking at all this lightning jujitsu and dry-humping of
carpets has caused my legs to be about as "give out" as Andre
Agassi's must be now.
|9.11.05 @ 8:59PM|#
Like everyone else I was horrified by the murders of 9/11.
As an engineer, I was also deeply saddened by the destruction of
the Twin Towers. These skyscrapers were built by hard-working
rational people: architects, civil engineers, mechanical HVAC
engineers, construction contractors, electricians, carpenters, and
plumbers. This must have been the project of lifetime for many of
them - something they could have looked back on with pride for
their rest of their lives.
The towers were destroyed by gang of mystics who were too ignorant
and lazy to know even how to begin building something remotely
similar.
|9.11.05 @ 9:50PM|#
"As an engineer, I was also deeply saddened by the
destruction of the Twin Towers."
Watch out or Ruthless 'll have joe agitating for a national
Architecture Day too! ; )
"...The towers were destroyed by gang of mystics who were too
ignorant and lazy to know even how to begin building something
remotely similar."
...and since they came down, we've been subjected to the ignorance
of another gang of mystics who were...
...eh...it's too easy...never mind.
|9.11.05 @ 10:34PM|#
Eric II wrote: "If you insist on using the date of a famous
historical event to create a 'Patriot Day' (as if Memorial,
Veteran's, and the 4th weren't enough), shouldn't it be the date of
some important national triumph?"
You forgot to mention Flag Day, June 14th:
http://www.flagday.org/Pages/PausePage.html
|9.11.05 @ 10:37PM|#
Osama in his wildest dreams couldn't have imagined his plans
would have gone so well. He's played Bush like a fiddle. Did he
think we'd do something like invade Iraq? Could he have imagined
such short-sightedness and incompetence? Maybe he knew more about
Bush than we did with his 90% approval rating on 9/12.
The whole point of terrorism as a strategy is to cause your enemy
(usually much stronger than you) to overreact and act irrationally
and damage itself more than you ever could. Mission
accomplished.
|9.11.05 @ 11:27PM|#
Greg T. at 11:56 AM:
Or is the fact that the U.S. faces a hard task in seeing the
Iraq War through to good results...
"Good results" is not an applicable term here cuz our government
never should have attacked Iraq to begin with. Iraq posed no threat
to us, but the American people were lied to and subjected to a
massive neocon and government propaganda offensive to convince them
otherwise.
|9.12.05 @ 2:23AM|#
"Kerosene does NOT melt steel (see your Coleman stove)"
Excuse me, but yes, it can; if burned under the right conditions,
most any hydrocarbon can produce a temperature high enough to melt
steel and other ferrous metals. The fact that a Coleman stove does
not melt when burning kerosene or as is usually the case, Coleman
Fuel(similar to white gas), is proof of little more than good
design. A potbelly stove does not melt when burning coal either,
but coal (Pennsylvania anthracite) and coke (its derivative) were
commonly used in the iron and steel industry. There are forging and
foundry furnaces both that burn kerosene, fuel oil, natural gas or
even propane. They can be made to actually melt steel.
As any steelworker, welder, or even blacksmith can attest, the
problem in melting steel is not the producing of a high enough
temperature (about 2300 to 2800 degrees F.),...the difficulty is
keeping the metal from burning. A smith will tell you that if you
heat steel that hot and expose it to the air, it will either burn
like a Fourth of July sparkler or form a heavy oxide coating that
insulates it. A welder will tell you that to melt or fuse steel, it
must be covered with a flux of some kind or an envelope of
shielding gas that does not support combustion.
If the structural steel in the towers was actually melted rather
than merely softened, I rather think that the operative heat
probably came from the burning planes themselves rather than the
fuel. Modern planes are built of aluminum and magnesium alloys,
which will both burn at a hellish heat once they ignite. In an
enclosed building the burning fuel would easily produce enough heat
for that. Burning magnesium and aluminum are highly oxygen reactive
, so much so that they will literally suck the oxygen out of not
only air and steam, but even metalic oxides such as iron oxide
(rust and iron ore.) This would have robbed the oxygen from the air
and permitted the steel to melt instead of burn. It is a process
known as the Thermite reaction and is used for welding the ends of
railroad rails together in place, among other things. The
temperature easily reaches 5000 degrees F. (Thermite charges also
do a nice job when dropped down the barrels of the enemy's
anti-aircraft guns, too!)
One more thing: it was said that the structural beams were covered
with a fire-retardant but that it was not sufficient to protect
them from sustained heat. However, it may have been sufficient to
protect them from the air and allow them to melt rather than
burn.
The first tyrany to overcome is ignorance (the lack of
knowledge.
He that welds iron in a wood fire may acomplish anything!
|9.12.05 @ 2:23AM|#
"Kerosene does NOT melt steel (see your Coleman stove)"
Excuse me, but yes, it can; if burned under the right conditions,
most any hydrocarbon can produce a temperature high enough to melt
steel and other ferrous metals. The fact that a Coleman stove does
not melt when burning kerosene or as is usually the case, Coleman
Fuel(similar to white gas), is proof of little more than good
design. A potbelly stove does not melt when burning coal either,
but coal (Pennsylvania anthracite) and coke (its derivative) were
commonly used in the iron and steel industry. There are forging and
foundry furnaces both that burn kerosene, fuel oil, natural gas or
even propane. They can be made to actually melt steel.
As any steelworker, welder, or even blacksmith can attest, the
problem in melting steel is not the producing of a high enough
temperature (about 2300 to 2800 degrees F.),...the difficulty is
keeping the metal from burning. A smith will tell you that if you
heat steel that hot and expose it to the air, it will either burn
like a Fourth of July sparkler or form a heavy oxide coating that
insulates it. A welder will tell you that to melt or fuse steel, it
must be covered with a flux of some kind or an envelope of
shielding gas that does not support combustion.
If the structural steel in the towers was actually melted rather
than merely softened, I rather think that the operative heat
probably came from the burning planes themselves rather than the
fuel. Modern planes are built of aluminum and magnesium alloys,
which will both burn at a hellish heat once they ignite. In an
enclosed building the burning fuel would easily produce enough heat
for that. Burning magnesium and aluminum are highly oxygen reactive
, so much so that they will literally suck the oxygen out of not
only air and steam, but even metalic oxides such as iron oxide
(rust and iron ore.) This would have robbed the oxygen from the air
and permitted the steel to melt instead of burn. It is a process
known as the Thermite reaction and is used for welding the ends of
railroad rails together in place, among other things. The
temperature easily reaches 5000 degrees F. (Thermite charges also
do a nice job when dropped down the barrels of the enemy's
anti-aircraft guns, too!)
One more thing: it was said that the structural beams were covered
with a fire-retardant but that it was not sufficient to protect
them from sustained heat. However, it may have been sufficient to
protect them from the air and allow them to melt rather than
burn.
The first tyrany to overcome is ignorance (the lack of
knowledge.
He that welds iron in a wood fire may acomplish anything!
|9.12.05 @ 2:23AM|#
"Kerosene does NOT melt steel (see your Coleman stove)"
Excuse me, but yes, it can; if burned under the right conditions,
most any hydrocarbon can produce a temperature high enough to melt
steel and other ferrous metals. The fact that a Coleman stove does
not melt when burning kerosene or as is usually the case, Coleman
Fuel(similar to white gas), is proof of little more than good
design. A potbelly stove does not melt when burning coal either,
but coal (Pennsylvania anthracite) and coke (its derivative) were
commonly used in the iron and steel industry. There are forging and
foundry furnaces both that burn kerosene, fuel oil, natural gas or
even propane. They can be made to actually melt steel.
As any steelworker, welder, or even blacksmith can attest, the
problem in melting steel is not the producing of a high enough
temperature (about 2300 to 2800 degrees F.),...the difficulty is
keeping the metal from burning. A smith will tell you that if you
heat steel that hot and expose it to the air, it will either burn
like a Fourth of July sparkler or form a heavy oxide coating that
insulates it. A welder will tell you that to melt or fuse steel, it
must be covered with a flux of some kind or an envelope of
shielding gas that does not support combustion.
If the structural steel in the towers was actually melted rather
than merely softened, I rather think that the operative heat
probably came from the burning planes themselves rather than the
fuel. Modern planes are built of aluminum and magnesium alloys,
which will both burn at a hellish heat once they ignite. In an
enclosed building the burning fuel would easily produce enough heat
for that. Burning magnesium and aluminum are highly oxygen reactive
, so much so that they will literally suck the oxygen out of not
only air and steam, but even metalic oxides such as iron oxide
(rust and iron ore.) This would have robbed the oxygen from the air
and permitted the steel to melt instead of burn. It is a process
known as the Thermite reaction and is used for welding the ends of
railroad rails together in place, among other things. The
temperature easily reaches 5000 degrees F. (Thermite charges also
do a nice job when dropped down the barrels of the enemy's
anti-aircraft guns, too!)
One more thing: it was said that the structural beams were covered
with a fire-retardant but that it was not sufficient to protect
them from sustained heat. However, it may have been sufficient to
protect them from the air and allow them to melt rather than
burn.
The first tyrany to overcome is ignorance (the lack of
knowledge.
He that welds iron in a wood fire may acomplish anything!
raymond|9.12.05 @ 6:29AM|#
(fair use. From The Economist, Sept 10 2005)
The following is from the Letters page of The Economist. The letter
is about an article comparing jihadists with anarchists (in
history, not the "h&r ruthless" kind). (my bold)
SIR - Osama bin Laden and the anarchists who preceded him are hardly unique when it comes to justifying the slaughter of civilians to further their goals. Sovereign governments have long made a practice of "total war"; not least the allies in the second world war whose bomber pilots had little difficulty rationalising the destruction of civilian homes after the strategic targeting of military and industrial installations became too difficult. Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris justified it at the time by noting it was better to drop a bomb anywhere in Germany than none at all. When we go to war, whether as part of a nation-state or as part of a disaffected minority, we commit ourselves to the atrocity of murder. Whether we confine ourselves to hitting "legitimate" targets at that point is merely a matter of semantics. All nations have done this and will do so again when they feel the need to. Moralising against those who return the favour is as much human nature as it is hypocrisy.
Bill Coffin
Oakhurst, New Jersey
|9.12.05 @ 9:11AM|#
Kerosene does NOT melt steel (see your Coleman
stove):...
Steel loses its ability to support loads at about 800 degrees, far
below its melting point.
You do not have to melt the steel in a building for it to collapse.
That is why steel beams and columns are sprayed with a fire
resistant coating.
Unfortunately the coating will usually not survive an impact or a
sustained fire. It's supposed to delay collapse until evacuation
can be completed. In the WTC the fire was so intense and the impact
so severe that collapse came sooner than expected.
|9.12.05 @ 10:15AM|#
I like how it's an 'inside' conspiracy, they're dastardly enough to do something like that, and clever enough to hide it from everybody, but darn it if they couldn't link it to Saddam.
|9.12.05 @ 11:22AM|#
...they're dastardly enough to do something like that, and clever enough to hide it from everybody,... but they can't load up Iraq with "found" WMDs (or is it WsMD).
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.05 @ 1:11PM|#
Wilson Elementary School held a scripted 09-11 program on
Friday. While Jake's 4th grade class sang a rather forgettable
patriotic tune, Katie's second grade class belted out a rousing
rendition of American Soldier that got them a standing
ovation and more than a few hankies dabbed at the teary eyes of the
150 (or so) parents that skipped work to be there at 9:15 am sharp.
(video cameras in hand).
Wilson is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic upper-middle-income school
in suburbia with a black principal. It also serves a few minority
kids from the poorer side of the freeway. Those parents were there
too.
I'm not sure what all that means but it was a long way from the
gate at Crawford or the walk in DC. Maybe this IS America.
|9.12.05 @ 1:49PM|#
>WT7 was a controlled demo, which ANYONE can see just by
looking at ANY of the videos of it's (sic) collapse. No spin is
possible.
The Sun goes around the Earth every 24 hours, which ANYONE can see
just by looking at the sky ANY day of the year. The Earth only
moves during an Earthquake, and then only a little bit. No spin is
possible.
|9.12.05 @ 2:08PM|#
Well, at least the most recent 90 day ultimatum is almost up, I think the end date was October 9th.
Ellis_Wyatt|9.13.05 @ 4:21AM|#
The Sun goes around the Earth every 24 hours, which ANYONE
can see just by looking at the sky ANY day of the year. The Earth
only moves during an Earthquake, and then only a little bit. No
spin is possible.
At reason.com, no-one can cite the logical fallacies contained in
the above?
The heliocentric model was developed through observation,
and the obvious differences between the (then) conventional wisdom
and observable fact.
The postulate that the earth also moves, as per the heliocentric
model, is also derived from observation.
You TRIED spin, but as I said, no spin is possible. Not half-baked
pleas to false premises, nor a thousand eyewitnesses or crying
mothers. Only the facts matter.
Excuse me, but yes, it [kerosene/jet fuel] can [melt steel]; if
burned under the right conditions,
Yes, such as an oxygen rich environment. In fact, you need to ADD
oxygen to do what the writer claimed, and ANYONE can look at the
schematics to said smelters (et al) and confirm this. No spin is
possible on the foundry floor either, fella.
However, omitting for a moment the firemen whom I have on tape
saying there were small fires and they only needed "two lines" (ie:
hoses) to put them out, and omitting the Windsor Torre in Madrid
(that fire that raged for 10hrs in a steel-frame building that
didn't collapse, like every other steel frame building fire in
recorded history), let's simply ask: were the WTC towers an
oxygen-rich environment?
Two words: black smoke.
Some more words: see the pics of the people standing in the hole in
the side of the building, where the alleged "800 degree" fires
were.
No sir, you are shilling, and poorly.
To the person who cited my spelling error ["it's"], thank you -
I've been making that one for years and you were right to correct
me.
Or still wisely taking thier meds.
I lost several friends that day, which is why I sought to discover
the reason. You can kindly go shove it up yer keister. Murder is
murder.
The first tyrany to overcome is ignorance (the lack of
knowledge.
Does the word "epistemology" mean anything to you?
The lack of knowledge is your own, sir. Possibly you should get
your knowledge from sources other than the cereal box that is CNN.
Try starting with a cursory overview of the morality of the State.
Jefferson will do nicely. To wit, have you read anything by former
Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp? Anything about GOP fundraiser
Larry King prostituting minors to sitting GOP legislators?
No? Didn't bother gaining any knowledge about that, did you?
Reason, indeed!
Four years on, and STILL you haven't figured out how it happened.
Open your frikken ears, folks. Osama (CIA code name "Tim Osman" -
look it up) has been in bed with the Bushes crime cartel for
decades (see: Arbusto - look it up).
Look it up. Look it up. Look it up. Look it up... everything I've
said is confirmable from countless sources, if only you'll
look.
Get over yourselves. The steamroller that is the second American
Revolution will not stop to humor your illusions.
|9.13.05 @ 9:48AM|#
Ellis,
From my own observations it appears "they" are more a bunch of
screw-ups than evil geniuses who can keep their underling's
toungues shut four years after the fact.
Are politicinas slime bags who have sex with kids and line their
own pockets? Of course they are. Did they set up this apple cart
knockover to take over? Dude, they were already in charge and doing
fine, why bother with killing people who were paying them hundreds
of thousands in taxes each year?
But thanks for looking out, who knows, maybe you're right, or might
be right in the future!
Ellis Wyatt|9.13.05 @ 9:49PM|#
From my own observations it appears "they" are more a bunch
of screw-ups than evil geniuses who can keep their underling's
toungues shut four years after the fact.
I like "T.H.E.Y." - it helps keep perspective on the reality of the
(dis)organization. ;)
However, appearances can be deceiving. For example, it's well
established that Pearl Harbor was NOT a "surprise" to several in
the DoD.
The latter
question was answered in the affirmative on October 30, 2000, when
President Bill Clinton signed into law, with the support of a
bipartisan Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act. Amidst
its omnibus provisions, the Act reverses the findings of nine
previous Pearl Harbor investigations and finds that both Kimmel and
Short were denied crucial military intelligence that tracked the
Japanese forces toward Hawaii and obtained by the Roosevelt
Administration in the weeks before the attack.
Good ole Roosevelt had the radars dismantled, and it is rather
obvious (and proven) that such was intentional. What a GREAT MAN!
They kept their underlings tongues shut for nigh 50 years... except
that they didn't! See Sibel
Edmonds. See Randy
Glass. See Andreas Von
Beulow.
As you can see, or hopefully will see, the claim that it would be
"impossible" to keep the secret is fallacious, because the secret
wasn't kept. The ONLY part of whistleblowing that DIDN'T occur was
major media reporting. I have spent years researching this (since
March 2002, as I believed the official version at first), but I
promise you... there are HUNDREDS of people with INSIDER knowledge
detailing EXACTLY what they know, and backing it up with internal
documents, and more importantly (tho I could care less about law or
courts, as I'm a rationalist) affidavits.
Right? People are risking libel/slander/treason charges (if not
assassination) to get this information to you, and not one has been
found guilty yet. Why? Because the facts support
them.
As I said above, murder is murder, state-sponsored or otherwise. I
doubt you would say that Rodney King was a "terrorist", and that
the kops who beat the hell out of him were "liberators". You might,
but I'd be curious about what definitions you were using.
If GWB is IN ANY WAY an accomplice to 9-11, that's 3,000 2nd degree
murder charges in NY that he should face, as I think NY has no
death penalty, and hence no 1st degree murder. See Mark
Chapman.
Are politicinas slime bags who have sex with kids and line
their own pockets? Of course they are.
"Of course"? WHAT?!?!
So... you advocate no criminal charges for child rape? I'm an
Autarchist (Rule by Self of Self), so I don't need a court to
decide for me, but for those of you who do plea to the authority of
a Court, how the hell are you going to justify NOT prosecuting
them?
FWIW, as appaling as it sounds, child rape is the least of their
crimes. When it comes out what they did to hide EM energy
discoveries (see T. Townsend Brown's PATENTS, et al), the millions
dead from "oil wars" take on an entirely different pallor.
Did they set up this apple cart knockover to take over? Dude,
they were already in charge and doing fine, why bother with killing
people who were paying them hundreds of thousands in taxes each
year?
When you answer that question, a great deal about the nature of the
State will become clear to you.
And you might research whether the taxes are paying for anything
notable. Cheney, for example, is profiting in the tens of millions
from the Halliburton no-bid contracts his office has been
instrumental in authorizing.
What, no conflict of interest charges? Martha Stewart serves a year
(in Club Fed, admittedly), but Cheney gets off scot-free?
Sir, the double standard is not mine. There is no such thing as a
legitimate power monopoly, tho that is exclusively what
all States claim to be.
maybe you're right, or might be right in the future!
I may be wrong about a great many things, which would be consistent
with my life at large, but the core facts of 9-11 are not among
them. This is not a dogma. I do not accept conspiracy on faith - it
is simply the required action of they (plural) who would have you
believe something false.
I would apologize for hijacking this thread, but I'm on topic, and
what I am saying y'all had better learn and fast. Feds rolling thru
N'orlins confiscating guns is a direct violation of the 2nd
amendment, and THAT ALONE makes this government unconstitutional.
THAT ALONE makes those who support this government in any
way the very essence of "anti-american".
Got that? It's the informed dissidents who are the patriots, and I
am certainly one of them.
The buck stops right here, right now, with me rovoking my consent
for their actions in my name. Implicit in that is that I must stand
by my revokation fully, in all it's aspects, with all it's
consequences.
Such is morality, if it is to have any factually utile definition
at all.
Be well.
Ellis_Wyatt|9.15.05 @ 3:12AM|#
Censoring much, buddy? Durned shame that. Rational inquiry is
willing to listen to any evidence, and I have plenty.
What's sadder is that you know it, yet won't post my last comment,
or at least not any time soon.
Ellis_Wyatt|9.15.05 @ 3:15AM|#
Yup, a 20 paragraph post, filled with links, down the memory
hole.
Get used to it, folks. The fallacious dare not allow dissent.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245