The Official Conspiracy Theory Takes On WTC-7

According to the OCT:

1) There is nothing whatsoever strange about the fact the FDNY knew that WTC-7 was going to collapse hours before it actually collapsed on 9/11 -- even though WTC-7 was not hit by a plane and no fire-proofed steel-framed high-rise had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of the world before 9/11 -- because everyone who examined WTC-7 closely on 9/11 could see that WTC-7 was visibly bulging and leaning.

2) There is nothing whatsoever strange about the fact that there has never been any official mention -- by the FDNY, FEMA or NIST -- of the supposed fact that WTC-7 was visibly bulging and leaning for many hours before it collapsed because it makes perfect sense that the two agencies tasked with officially investigating WTC-7's collapse would ignore this critical evidence (the very evidence that allowed the FDNY to conclude that WTC-7 was going to collapse hours before it did) for well over six years.

considered any evidence concerning what was supposedly perfectly clear to all on 9/11 -- namely that WTC-7 was visibly bulging or leaning.

It doesn't have to be on the internet. Any reference to this supposed evidence in any FEMA or NIST release anywhere in the universe will do. Let's see it, hack89.

for investigations that have not been completed and reports that have not been released. NIST has not released the WTC7 report - why is so hard to imagine that they will not release every piece of supporting information until the report is finalized? Do you really believe that 100 percent of everything they collect will be posted on the internet? Can you show me where this is normal government policy? For example, can I see every piece of evidence from every NTSB investigation?

I forgot - what does all this prove? How is this a smoking gun for Cd?

Scores of articles, papers and presentations have been released by FEMA and NIST. Literally tens of thousands of pages.

NIST has dedicated a whole website dedicated to discussing the issue from A to Z, including its own "debunking" FAQ: http://wtc.nist.gov

FEMA completed its investigation into WTC-7, and NIST released a long-winded progress report with no less than 8 pages summarizing its eyewitness interviews of those at the scene on 9/11.

But, in all those pages, in all these releases, there is not a single, solitary mention of the very evidence the FDNY supposedly used to determine WTC-7 was obviously about to collapse on the day of 9/11 itself -- namely, that the building was visibly leaning and bulging for hours before it fell.

Why not?

Please explain why FEMA & NIST have to this date withheld from the public something you believe was common knowledge to every witness who carefully examined WTC-7 on 9/11.

how is this a smoking gun for CD? Is this proof that the FDNY was involved - pretty weak smoking gun if it is. There is a lot of evidence as to why WTC7 would fall - I simply fail to see how this one point undermines the entire story. More to the point, if this is the best that the truth movement can come up with, can't you at least understand why you are a tiny, ignored internet fringe group? If you could simply come up with some hard evidence or a single whistle blower then you wouldn't have to labor so hard building mountains out of mole hills.

But it's a huge one.

Since you can't make it go away, you seek to minimize its importance.

to WTC7? Isn't this simply another part of this effort? It is a huge, gaping hole in the truther reality if they can't explain away massive structural damage and raging, unfought fires.

But was WTC-7 visibly leaning and bulging, hack89? If so, why have FEMA and NIST ignored something you believe was obvious to every witness on 9/11, something you believe a surveyor's tool objectively confirmed, for 6 years?

Stop the misdirection and confront the question.

they haven't released their report yet.

None of 503 first responder oral histories mentions anything about WTC-7 leaning or bulging.

The FEMA WTC-7 investigation doesn't mention one word about WTC-7 leaning or bulging.

NIST WTC-7 progress report doesn't mention one word about WTC-7 leaning or bulging.

Nothing else ever officially released by the FDNY, FEMA or NIST mentions one word about WTC-7 leaning or bulging.

care to tell me how it was done? Just need to know what to believe.

How could he tell how it was done? That's what the investigation is supposed to find out. :eyes:

1. The story of the FDNY measuring WTC7 and knowing it was going to collapse was created by the plotters to give credence to the idea that an impossible collapse was actually expected.

yet

2. NIST, the main player in covering up the CD of WTC7 did not use this critical piece of fabricated evidence.


Is that what you are trying to say?

are there others who talked about leaning and bulging? Just wondering...

It was no surprise that it collapsed.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:




http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:






http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:






http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...





http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

How else can you explain why both FEMA and NIST have ignored the evidence presented there for almost 6 years?

I just now discussed this in the last five paragraphs of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212362">this post of mine here in this thread.

... but it IS very strange that the leaning isn't mentioned in either the FEMA report or the NIST prelim report. One would think it would be a critical piece of info for anyone trying to analyze the collapse.

I don't know what this means. I'm waiting to see what the NIST final report on WTC 7 says about this issue, if anything.

By the way, I don't think CD with explosives is at all likely, because demolition with explosives would have made unmistakably loud booming sounds. So, if indeed anything at all was done to WTC 7 besides just debris from the Twin Towers hitting it, then it would have to be something other than CD with explosives. Maybe some kind of secondary arson, e.g. with thermite? But I don't think that's especially likely either. So, for now, I just consider this to be an unresolved mystery.

ETA: I really think we should not be quick to dismiss a professional magazine for firefighters as "disinfo." It seems to me that Firehouse should be considered a credible source. But the problem here is that multiple credible sources seem to conflict. Why isn't the leaning mentioned by FEMA and NIST???

but when they back up a point from the 'truther' side we get told that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable"....

What a bunch of hypocritical hacks some of you 'debunkers' are.


'Debunkers'.... :rofl: 'Shills' is a better description....


Ghost

Point 1 in the OP says merely that word of bulging and imminent collapse was disseminated in advance of collapse - does not go as far as saying it was created by malefactors who knew the building was about to be blown up (although this is one of the possibilities left open by mhatrw).

Point 2 says this fact, however, has yet to appear as an argument in the official (written) reports, which far as I know is true. Perhaps the NIST report will indeed use the advance reports of bulging as part of its evidence presentation.

Your further fallacy: If advance reports were fabricated by malefactors (which mhatrw did not say outright) it still might follow logically that NIST wouldn't want to use that as evidence (especially if not borne out in pictures or video) and thus keep their own role clean(er).

if it doesn't point towards CD or a conspiracy? You just seem to confirm my point that he is making mountains out of mole hills.

One of scores. Since you can't explain it, your only choice is to claim that it's trivial.

FEMA and NIST have never mentioned anything about WTC-7 visibly leaning or bulging in 6+ years. (BTW, neither has any official FDNY release.)

That means one of two things:

1) neither FEMA nor NIST (to their credit) find this evidence credible, or

2) nobody from the FDNY has ever mentioned this critical evidence to FEMA or NIST, proving that everything FEMA and NIST have release up until this point -- six years and four months after the fact -- is worthless.

Which is it, hack89?

there was plenty of evidence of how badly damaged the building was. It's collapse comes as a surprise to no one except the truth industry. You have inflated the value of this "critical evidence" way beyond what it should be. It is a classic example of a truther examining lint with a microscope while ignoring the big picture. If you had any intellectual honesty, you would outline how you think the CD of WTC7 was pulled off - give everyone some context by which to examine your "evidence". "It's now 6 years and 4 months after 9/11" and no truther has yet to even propose the outline of how it was done. Why should I take your excursions in the weeds seriously while you so actively avoid the big questions?

The big picture is that on 9/11 the FDNY somehow correctly predicted something that had never before happened in the history of the world based on supposed evidence that has never been officially acknowledged by the FDNY, FEMA or NIST.

what particular conspiracy theory does this support? If this is another brick in the wall, what does the wall look like?

Connect the dots for me and explain how this proves CD.

Since you can't explain your own theory, you are playing a little game of misdirection instead.

I for one would like to see some evidence of the buldge and lean.

In all those hours did nobody take a picture?

... it might have been a very slight lean, at an angle not great enough to be clearly visible in a photograph. (According to Firehouse's account, if I recall correctly, the firefighters used a transit instrument, i.e. a special kind of telescope, to observe the lean.) So, an absence of photos showing the lean doesn't prove that there was no lean.

Still, I would expect the transit data to be mentioned in the FEMA and NIST reports.

.... it still IS a surprise that the alleged leaning was not mentioned in either the FEMA report or the NIST prelim report. One would think that the amount and direction of the pre-collapse lean would be critically important in analyzing the collapse.

I don't have an explanation. It's just very strange. As I said in another post here, I'll wait and see what the NIST final report on WTC 7 has to say about the leaning, if anything.

While the final NIST report on WTC 7 is not complete. This is a pretty good assessment of how the investigation is leaning (no pun intended).


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

And this attempts to answer your question.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Yes, if you construct the building in the way WTC-7 was..

My thoughts on WTC 7 have evoloved since the long-ago blog post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=211807">you quoted. But I still have questions.

I'm already familiar with the http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf">Gilsanz paper (PDF) you referred me to. I've also read the following: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf">Chapter 5 (PDF) of the http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm">FEMA Report, the http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf">Interim Report on WTC 7 (PDF) in NIST's http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/progress_report_june04.htm">June 24 Progress Report, and Arthur Scheuerman's paper on http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf">The Collapse of Building 7 (PDF).

I had not yet seen the http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/wtc-7-fire-weirdness-taking-fema-and-nist-at-their-word/">NIST slide show of April 5, 2005 (PDF) that you referred me to. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

On page 4 of the slideshow, "Schedule for Completion of Investigation," I notice that they expected to finish the WTC 7 final report by Decembet 2005. They still haven't finished it. Hopefully they will finish it soon.

Anyhow, I've long recognized that many of the arguments for explosive demolotion of the WTC buildings, including WTC 7, were faulty. (See my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/demolition-of-wtc-lets-not-overstate-the-case-please/">Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please, November 20, 2007.)

Yet, from late summer 2007 through early February 2008, despite these flaws which I already recognized, I nevertheless believed that explosive demolition of WTC 7 was a likely possibility because of the almost perfectly straight-down vertical nature of the collapse. (See my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/straight-down-collapse-of-wtc-7-what-do-debunkers-say/">Straight-down collapse of WTC 7 - what do “debunkers” say?, September 22, 2007.)

But eventually I came to see how such a collapse could occur naturally (See my blog posts http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/review-of-hardfire-debates-between-mark-roberts-and-loose-change-crew/">Review of Hardfire debates between Mark Roberts and Loose Change crew, February 9, 2008, and http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/two-wtc-7-collapse-videos-can-both-be-real/">Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real?, February 11, 2008, and the comment threads beneath those two post.) I no longer believe that explosive demolition of WTC 7 is a likely possibility, mainly because I have not yet come across any good response, by any WTC demolition theory advocate, to the counterargument that explosive demolition would entail not just "sounds of explosions" but unmistakably loud booming sounds which are not heard in any WTC 7 collapse videos.

But I still do have questions about the collapse of WTC 7. Some of my questions are discussed in this blog post of mine: http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/wtc-7-fire-weirdness-taking-fema-and-nist-at-their-word/">WTC 7 fire weirdness, taking FEMA and NIST at their word, February 15, 2008.

Closely related to the questions discussed in that blog post is the question of how WTC 7 leaned before collapse and the fact that this leaning is not mentioned in either the FEMA report or the NIST prelim report.

Why is this significant? Because the most likely direction of the lean does not seem to support the specific collapse-initiation hypothesis that is spelled out in the paper you referred me to by Ramon Gilsanz, http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf">Single Point of Failure (PDF), Structure magazine, November 2007, and in the 2004 NIST interim report. Since the structural damage was on the south side, one would expect that WTC 7 would have been leaning slightly toward the south. On the other hand, the column that is believed to have failed first is column 79, on the north side. This doesn't disprove the collapse-initiation hypothesis, but does seem, other factors being equal, to make that specific hypothesis at least a little bit less likely than it might otherwise be.

Thus, it would seem that NIST may be leaving out evidence that does not support its hypothesis, which is not exactly the most scientific thing to do. Again this observation does not disprove NIST's hypothesis, but it's a possible reason to question NIST's methodology.

At the time I wrote my blog post on http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/wtc-7-fire-weirdness-taking-fema-and-nist-at-their-word/">WTC 7 fire weirdness, taking FEMA and NIST at their word, February 15, 2008, I still believed that some kind of secondary arson was very likely, e.g. using thermite. I no longer consider that to be as likely a possibility as I once did, mainly because of Steven Jones's lack of an adequate response, so far, to alternative explanations of his iron-rich spherules. But we'll see what happens with his red/grey chips.

Actually, to know what to expect in the way the building leans, you'd have to know a lot more than just that the building was damaged on the south side. You'd have to know how the building was designed, as well as how it was actually constructed, other contributing factors to the lean other than just the damage, and examine all of this with a certain amount of understanding of engineering and engineering principles. And, for the record, this, in my opinion. is where many conspiracy theories are born (not refeering to this poster). The fact is that many people, with limited knowledge and, often, a lack of critical thinking skills, construct absurd alternate hypotheses which are laughable on their face. The ASCE (125,000 + members) participated in and has contributed a great deal to many of the studies conducted for WTC7, as well as WTC 1 & 2. Doesn't it seem strange to you that "WTC 7's collapse was suspicious", yet there's been no outcry like that from ASCE?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212383">SDuderstadt wrote:



That is true.

That is why, when I read the FEMA report, the NIST prelim report, and the papers on WTC 7 by Ramon Gilsanz and Arthur Scheuerman, I kept an eye out for information about which direction (and how far) the building was leaning before it fell, rather than assuming that I already knew this.

It seems to me that this information would be crucial data in analyzing the collapse. Don't you agree?

That's why I was very surprised that it wasn't included. The FEMA report and the NIST report did include enough other detail about pre-collapse observations that the absence of any information about the pre-collapse lean was very conspicuous.



I'm not advocating any particular hypothesis. At the moment, I don't consider any foul-play hypothesis for any of the WTC buildings (beyond the jet crashes) to be particularly likely, although I haven't ruled out the possibility of secondary arson for WTC 7.



Nowhere nearly all 125,000 + members are likely to have participated. Please don't exaggerate here. In any given field, only a small fraction of professionals actually delve deeply into any given research area.



As I said, I'm not advocating any foul-play hypothesis at the moment. There may well turn out to be perfectly mundane answers to all my remaining questions. As I've said several times in previous posts, I'm waiting to see what NIST's final report on WTC 7 has to say.

On the other hand, you seem to be advocating, here, a blind faith that the experts have everything under control. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point here; if so, please correct me.

Anyhow, you might be interested in the following JREF posts by Frank Greening (a.k.a. Apollo20), who is certainly not an advocate of any foul-play hypothesis regarding the WTC buildings:

• http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2483626&postcount=237">Confessions of a 9/11 Agnostic on page 6 the JREF thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111">Debate! What debate?


• http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2975418&postcount=58">The real 9/11 Conspiracy in the JREF thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93649">Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

I do agree with you that people (especially non-experts) should try to avoid jumping to conclusions based on inccomplete information. But there's nothing wrong with asking questions about seeming inconsistencies, as long as one is willing to accept reasonable fact-based explanations of those seeming inconsistencies, if and whenever such fact-based explanations finally do appear on the scene. The mere fact that one is not aware of any hue and cry by experts on a given question is not, in itself, a reason to avoid asking that question, although it is a reason to remain open to at least the possibility that the experts might already have a perfectly good answer.

Well, there's lots of information at the NIST site:

http://wtc.nist.gov

Presentation: "WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary", December 12, 2006, Therese McAllister, NIST

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

The working hypothesis doesn't incorporate the damage or the diesel fuel into its parameters.

In other words, they appear to be able to show that the building could fall simply on the basis of the fire and the design alone. The damage and the diesel fuel become icing on the cake in that instance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212416">Boloboffin wrote:



That is correct. And that would imply an extremely serious design flaw, because skyscrapers aren't supposed to collapse due just to fire.

Arthur Scheuerman, in his paper on http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf">The Collapse of Building 7 (PDF), blames the length of the spans on the north and east sides of WTC 7. His hypothesis is that the fire on the 12th floor made those long beams sag, and that then, when the fire on the 12th floor died down, the beams cooled and contracted, yanking at column 79, in the northeast corner, thereby causing column 79 to fail.

If that hypothesis is true, then WTC 7 would indeed be the world's first and only steel-frame skyscraper to have collapsed solely due to fire.

If the folks at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth want to be taken at all seriously, one of the things they need to do (besides radically revising Richard Gage's slide show) is to get their relatively few structural engineers and high-rise architects together and see whether they can find anything substantially wrong with Arthur Scheuerman's hypothesis.

I think you're well on your way to becoming a "debunker" and just don't realize it yet. BTW, "debunkers", by no means, believe there aren't unanswered questions (a la, some - not all- of the questions raised by the "Jersey Girls") nor are we, in any sense, defending the Bush adminstration, either for their utter lack of preparedness nor their willful exploitation of 9/11.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212449">SDuderstadt wrote:



Depends what you mean by "debunker," I guess.

There's "debunker" in the generic sense of "one who debunks," and then there's what can be called the "9/11 debunker" camp, the latter of which is marked by a more-or-less consistent defense of the official story in all its aspects. Even Jim Hoffman can be said to be a "debunker" in the generic sense, insofar as he has written articles debunking the Pentagon no-jetliner claims. But he's obviously very different from the various people I've seen online who (in my experience, at least) exhibit a more-or-less consistent defense of the official story in all its aspects. Well-known people in the latter category include Mark Roberts and the authors of the "Screw Loose Change" blog.



It would be nice if you could write some posts here, or better yet start some threads, about what you see as the still-unanswered questions.

I think you would be less likely to be perceived as an "OCTabot" if you were to devote, say, at least 10% of your posts in this forum to topics on which you can show active support for the cause of a new investigation of 9/11 (beyond merely saying, now and then, that you do favor a new investigation). If you were to do that, then I think your attempts at debunking would be more likely to be received as constructive criticism, whereas it seems to me that you are now seen by many here as an "OCTabot" because (as far as I can tell) almost all of your posts in this forum are devoted to defending the official story. I would strongly encourage you to take a more constructive, balanced approach and try to lead by example, rather than just criticizing others here.



People in the "9/11 debunker" camp vary in their attitude toward Bush.

look at any number of my posts. Notice that they are nearly always in response to either outright factual errors, asking for evidence of claims or taking aim at truly goofy 9/11 theories (nukes, no-planes, etc.). How people get that I am an OCTabot or that I reflexively and always defend the "official story" (whatever that is), is frankly absurd and I will not stop asking questions or correcting factual errors, nor will I devote 10% of my posts to anything other than what I choose to discuss. I have no credentials to prove to the truth movement. If anyone wants to call me an OCTabot, that is their choice but it troubles me how people cannot figure out that constantly labeling people as an OCTabot as a substitute for debate on the merits and the facts is a rhetorical device used to actually avoid real debate. It's a form of "psychic foreclosure" that says, "I don't really have to debate the facts with you because you are just shilling for the government". As I have said pointedly many times, I despise the Bush administration.

As far as your comments about Mark Roberts, I think it is quite unfair to claim he exhibits a "more-or-less consistent defense of the official story in all its aspects". I happen to agree with Mark on nearly everything because his analysis is so cogent and to the point. I'd again like to know what exactly is meant by the "official story" in this regard, as even a cursory read of what Mark writes is not "here's what the 9/11 Commission Report says, so let me defend its claims". Rather he skillfully dissects various conspiracy theory claims and myths with logic, facts and scientific/technical information. I'll say this one more time: we're NOT defending the "official story", we are taking issue with grossly underinformed, misinformed and illogical claims made by some in the truth movement. I have also stated my motivation. For the most part, the claims of many truthers deny facts, science and Logic by presenting mined quotes, outright misquoting, stacking the deck, and a number of, frankly, embarrassing logical fallacies.

If you want to sometime, we could compile examples of these things from opposing sides and I will confidently make the following prediction: Almost without exception, all of the above is on the side of the so-called "truth movement" and it ought to ask itself why that is. More importantly, as I have said before, if we were to construct a narrative from the most common and widely held 9/11 conspiracy theory alternative hypotheses, it is far less believable than the "official story". The vast majority of the scientific, engineering and logistical evidence, as well as Logic is squarely on the side of the "debunkers", which is why I gravitate to them. Most, if not all the 9/11 CT's are, frankly, absurd on their face, which is why the "truth movement" is faltering so badly.

You might yourself why people like Bill Clinton proclaim "9/11 was not an 'inside job'!". Why haven't people like Al Gore come out and thrown their support behind the movement? Why doesn't Seymour Hersh write a book exposing MIHOP or LIHOP? The reason is pretty simple: it's all bullshit. As I have said before, there are unanswered questions about 9/11 and it is easy to see that the Bush administration did not want the full truth about their lack of preparedness to come out, but that hardly proves they wanted the attack to happen. There is little question that Cheney exploited 9/11 but it is simply not true that he was "in charge of air defenses/NORAD on 9/11", not did he or anyone else order the military to "stand down", nor was Marvin Bush in charge of security at the WTC on 9/11, nor were either of the Towers evacuated to allow the planting of any kind of exlosives, etc., etc. As I have said repeatedly, I am open to any smoking gun that might be discovered but, after nearly 7 years we keep getting promises from the "truth movement" as to bombshells that never do anything but fizzle.


The "truth movement" has put its best foot forward and it just does not have a case. And I doubt that it ever will because there is no there, there. I apologize if this seems harsh, but I am tired of answering the same questions over and over, debunking the same goofy claims over and over and more than tired of defending my liberal credentials, which I will put up against anyone here. I am far more interested in addressing health, education, huge disparities in wealth and income distribution, promoting the concept of democratic capitalism, curbing the runaway influence/power of corporations, etc. I am also interested in furthering knowledge, so I will reserve the right to challenge goofy 9/11 CT's, especially when a number of their proponents imply or charge that any of us are traitors, Bush enablers (did I mention I think he should be tried and convicted after leaving office?), etc. The bottomline, at least for me, is I will refrain from referring to people as "truthers" when they stop referring to us as OCTabots. Not a moment before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212469">SDuderstadt wrote:



Here in the 9/11 forum, as you just now admitted, you do almost nothing except criticize other people's posts. Furthermore, it seems to me that the posts you criticize are consistently those of people who question the official story in one way or another. I've never seen you criticize Lared's posts, for example.

Why does this make you an official-story defender? As an analogy, consider the difference in behavior between (1) a defense attorney in a courtroom and (2) a D.A., in the D.A.'s office, critiquing a draft of a case put together by a novice assistant D.A. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the latter would both (a) tear apart the holes in the weaker parts of the case (b) discuss potentially stronger points that the novice assistant D.A. ought to do more work on. On the other hand, a defense attorney would focus only on attacking weaknesses in the presecutor's case and would not spend any significant amount of time (in the courtroom, at least) on pointing out potential strengths. Defense attorneys can certainly have doubts about their clients' innocence, but aren't doing their job if they voice those doubts in the courtroom (assuming that the client has pled innocent).

It seems to me that your behavior here in this forum is analogous to that of our hypothetical defense attorney in the courtroom (albeit, perhaps, a defense attorney with private doubts about the client's innocence), rather than like that of our hypothetical D.A. critiquing the work of a novice assistant D.A. The metaphorical "client" in this case is not a person (you've voiced your hatred of Bush on various occasions), but rather "the official story" as presented in, primarily, the 9/11 Commission Report. Here in this forum, I have not seen you spend any significant amount of time discussing what you see as the flaws or possible flaws in, say, the 9/11 Commission Report.

(Note that I am opining here only about your behavior here in this forum. What your motives might be, I have no idea. My "client" metaphor is not intended to suggest that you are literally a "paid shill.")

Skipping down to what you said about Mark Roberts:



Analogously, a defense attorney does not necessarily say, "Here is my client, so let me prove to you what a saint this person is." A defense attorney's job is not to prove that the defendant is a saint (although that's one possible strategy). Rather, the defense attorney's job (assuming that the defendant has pled innocent) is to (1) tear apart the prosecutor's case and (2) avoid making an alternative incriminating case against the defendant. To those ends, a defense attorney might even say, for example, that the defendant "is an inexcusably nasty person, but didn't commit any crime."



As far as you are aware, has he ever written any substantial critique of the 9/11 Commission Report or any other official statement regarding 9/11?



I would love to hear from you, in detail, what you see as the real unanswered questions. Could you please write some posts about this, or, better yet, start a thread here about these questions?

Near the bottom of your post, you wrote:



I would appreciate it very much if you could write some posts here discussing, in detail, the crimes for which you think Bush should be tried and convicted after leaving office. (Perhaps you might prefer to write those posts in one of the big forums and then provide links here?)

Also near the bottom of your post, you wrote:



For the past few years it has not been putting its best foot forward.

When it apparently did put its best foot forward (according to my admittedly limited knowledge of the 9/11 Truth movement's history -- JackRiddler, please correct me if I'm wrong) was back in 2002 to 2004, when its main focus was on supporting the Jersey Girls rather than on advocating any particular theory.

More recently, Jon Gold has attempted to restore that focus with his video "9/11: Press for Truth." And he seems to be making some progress, albeit slowly. Even the Loose Change kids have recommended his video above their own (or at least the second edition thereof).

Back up higher in your post, you wrote:



No it's not. See my explanations above.



Of course, it's up to you to choose how you spend your time.

But why don't you choose to spend at least some time discussing (not just mentioning), say, your own doubts about the 9/11 Commission Report? You've said that you have such doubts, and you've said that you do favor a new investigation. If indeed you have doubts, why not voice them in some detail? If indeed you support a new investigation, why not set an example of the kind of approach, toward that goal, that you would approve of?

I'm not saying you should "stop asking questions or correcting factual errors." As JackRiddler http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=113081&mesg_id=113081">has pointed out, for example, falsehoods serve nobody. But why not set a positive example, as well?



But would you not prefer that more people here listen to your criticisms and take you seriously?

And is it not true, in your experience, that most people are more apt to listen to criticism if it comes from people who have demonstrated, by their actions (not just occasional brief disclaimers), that they share underlying common goals?



Well, if you seriously would like to overcome that barrier, I've suggested a way that you can do so, at least with the more moderate "truthers" here.

Of course, it's up to you to decide.

As I said before, I will continue to post what I choose to post, without regard for how that might play with the "truther community". What I find particularly troubling about the "truth community" is that nothing ever seems to be their fault. If you take issue with some of their goofier claims, eventually you will hear, "well, why aren't you criticizing the 9/11 Commission Report?", much as as you do concerning what Mark Roberts chooses to write about. Mark, as well as others of us, consider what some in the "truth community" do to be a terrible disservice to the truth by perpetuating unfounded claims and, in the process, directly or by implication, smearing some of our finest public servants (first responders, etc.). I am tired of hearing that FDNY must have had some nefarious motive for reporting that WTC 7 was leaning or that they had to put a transit on it to confirm that. Does anyone here really think that they put a transit on the building as some sort of future investigation as to why the building eventually fell?

I've even heard posters here question whether the firefighters would even be qualified to assess the integrity of a building and, even more astonishingly, question that a firefighter would even use a word like "integrity" when referring to a building. Do you really think in the confusion and sheer chaos of that day, that firefighters were even thinking about a subsequent investigation into an event they were't even certain would actually occur? Why would anyone think that would be on their minds as opposed to averting any further loss of life? In another post, someone even claims the oral histories of the first responders have been "suppressed". Really? How did I find them, then? I'll even post a link.



http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

How in the world anyone can claim that the NYT publishing 12,000+ pages of oral histories from first responders, in any way, is "suppression" defies Logic. This is just more bullshit from some in the so-called "truth movement".



Of those people that question the actions of firefighters on 9/11, I would ask, do you really think firefighters are not concerned with the stability of a building in which they could, quite possibly, lose their lives? If you doubt what I am saying, please research the training firefighters receive, especially around the issue of high-rise structures which pose even more of a danger for them for a variety of issues. BTW, while I writing this, it occurs to me why I am so adamant about this. I remember similar type questions from the Swift Boat brigade about John Kerry, claiming that he really wasn't wounded or that there had not even been gunfire on a particular day (even though his accuser's Swift Boat was photographed as having been hit by .50 cal machinegun fire that day). Am I accusing all "truthers" of using Swift Boat tactics? No, as there are a number of sincere people asking reasonable questions, however, I don't believe they avail themselves of the readily and publicly available information sources to answer those questions.

I am generalizing here, but I feel many "truthers" exist in a fog of doubt about the events that day and those doubts result in dubious theories that don't even make logical sense. To sum up regarding your questions about Mark Roberts and Lared, I frankly feel they both make far more sense than anything I have heard from the "truth movement". I have never heard Mark Roberts say that the 9/11 Commission Report got everything right and I doubt if Lared feels that way either. But, to expect those whose interest is putting to bed silly rumors and myths about what happened that day to, in the interest of equal time, turn their attention to the flaws in the 9/11 Commission and their report, is like the guy who gets a speeding ticket and demands of the issuing officer why they aren't off after "real criminals" instead. For the record, the flaws of the 9/11 Commission pale by comparison to the really silly notions of much of the "truth movement". Admittedly, the Commission trod lightly in assessing responsibility, although they did point fingers at both the Bush and Clinton administrations. However, in my opinion, that is nowhere near as egregious as charges flung at Larry Silverstein, FDNY, the Port Authority and many others.

As far as your questions about ASCE and engineering in general, why don't you call up Gene Corley? I'm sure he'd love to chat with you and answer your questions. In the meantime, I remain an unrepentent debunker. If some here choose to call me an OCTabot, so be it. However, if the "truth movement recognizes it cannot achieve its aims without greater numbers, it should also realize that it won't do so by constantly questioning the motivation, integrity or intelligence of debunkers. If you want to criticize me because I don't dwell on the shortcomings of the 9/11 Commission, fine. However, as I have said before, the "truth movement" gets far more things wrong than the 9/11 Commission ever could. Sorry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212542">SDuderstadt wrote:



If you actually aim to persuade people here of anything, it might help to consider how your posts "play" with the people you aim to pursuade.



You wrote this in response to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212542">a post in which I did say that "For the past few years it has not been putting its best foot forward." JackRiddler has made similar statements.



I wrote this in response to your claim that he's not an official-story defender. I explained why he is (at least in effect, even if that's not his intent) acting as an official-story defender.



I agree that all too much nonsense has been spread in the name of "9/11 Truth," and I agree that we should try to avoid casting any aspersions on firefighters and other first responders.



Actually, the latter accusation is being made not against the FDNY per se but against the editors of Firehouse magazine. Personally, I don't think it's likely that the editors of Firehouse magazine would have any such nefarious motive either, although I suppose it's remotely possible that Firehouse magazine might exaggerate just a little bit in the interests of helping the FDNY avoid a conceivably possible future lawsuit for allowing a fire to burn out of control.



No, but the fact that they did so (assuming they did) is indeed relevant to any future investigation of how the building fell, as I've explained http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212457">here and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212537">here.



No, but one would expect NIST, FEMA, and other collapse investigators to interview firefighters about their recollections. The NIST interim report on WTC 7 does include summaries of witness testimonies about the locations of fires and structural damage. The witnesses aren't ideentified, but it seems likely that at least some of them would have been firefighters.

About the http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html">link to the oral histories obtained by the New York Times:



If I recall correctly, they were initially suppressed until the New York Times managed to get them released.



Of course firefighters are concerned about the stability of a burning building. The mistake that some people have made is in assuming that, because no steel-frame skyscraper had ever collapsed completely due to fire, this means firefighters should never have had reason to worry about the possibility of such a collapse.



It is true that many people in the 9/11 Truth movement are not as well-informed as they should be. Most likely, this is true of most other political movements too. However, in most other political movements, this doesn't matter as much, because most political issues are relatively simple compared to the question of what really happened on (and before) 9/11. As one of the Jersey Girls once said, you have to do 400 hours of research just to graduate from kindergarten on this topic.



In most of the posts of Lared's that I've seen, he has not bothered to support his remarks with any kind of coherent argument at all.

Mark Roberts, on the other hand, has amassed quite a collection of info on his websites, of varying quality, some very good, some not so good.



Please review my explanation of what I mean by an "official story defender," http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212534">in the post you replied to.



Not a fair comparison because the police department does, in fact, go after "real criminals."



Perhaps so, but if you would like to be more effective at persuading people here to abandon the latter notions, then it would probably help a lot if you could also spend some time critiquing the 9/11 Commission report. Why bother to do something at all if you're not going to make the effort to be more effective at it? And, since you say you do support a new investigation, why not show that support in a constructive way?



Do you think so? I would have expected, on the contrary, that he's already got more than enough people bothering him. I would expect him to be especially tight-lipped these days, now that another WTC collapse investigator, Ramon Gilsanz, is being sued by thousands of people for his WTC work. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23about.html?ex=1361509200&en=231586d8a02a6078&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">For Engineer, a Cloud of Litigation After 9/11 by Jim Dwyer, New York Times, February 23, 2008.) But perhaps my expectation is wrong. Have you spoken to Gene Corley yourself, or do you personally know others who have called him up out of the blue and been well-received?

Anyhow, as I said earlier, I will wait for the final NIST report on WTC 7 (or at least a draft thereof) and then decide what to do next, if anything. Until then, this topic isn't a high priority for me because I no longer strongly suspect foul play.

ask for from so called debunkers?

Perhaps you could set a good example and tell the so called debunkers what part of the truther mythologies you find fault with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=213813">LARED wrote:



I've already written quite a few posts containing very specific, substantive criticisms of the beliefs of various people in the 9/11 Truth movement. For plenty of examples, see my DU Journal, which contains quite a few of my posts.

Others here, including JackRiddler, have also written such critiques.

and, you seem to think that there is something superior in being a "debunker".

Hardly a surprise, considering the source.

silly me.

1. The direction in which the building was initially leaning may or may not be relevant to the collapse initiation. A unwavering belief that it is the cause or related to the cause of the eventual collapse of the building is an example of a "post hoc rego propter hoc" fallacy, as well as failing to take "complex cause" into account. NIST probably did not address the lean simply because it had much more to do with FDNY retreating from the building and establishing a collapse zone around it (which were different issues) than why or how the building eventually collapsed. For example, the east and west penthouses collapsing into the building first probably had nothing to do with the building leaning. The other main reason it probably wasn't addressed is because the only people this seems to matter to are those who claim the building was brought down by CD. In their world, the building lean undermines their claim that the building was fine until it collapsed, thus, it could only have been CD. Unfortunately, NIST, as well as almost everyone else recognizes that, not only is there no evidence of CD, there is substantial evidence against CD. CD is truly a red herring claim.

2. The second excerpt of my post you referenced is not even remotely aimed at you, so there is no need for you to expound on your take in that area. I understand and respect your opinion there.

3. I never said all 125,000+ members of ASCE participated in the studies. I merely put the number of members in parentheses to signify that it is one of, in not the most, significant and reputable engineering organizations. My point is there is no outcry from the vast majority of the members about the conclusions reached by NIST or ASCE/BPAT. One of the most important charges these entities have/had is to understand why the buildings collapsed and to make recommendations for future building design to avert such calamitous results to the extent possible in the future. I know a number of structural engineers and, to a one, none of them suspect CD (this is, admittedly, anecdotal and should not be taken as anything more).

4. I am, by no means, advocating "blind faith in the experts". However, one can infer certain things from the fact that so few architects and/or engineers have joined AE911truth to date. There is simply very little professional support for CD claims (including not a single expert in controlled demolition). Beyond that, the available evidence adequately explains a lot of what happened (though not perfectly) and the evidence against CD is overwhelming. In addition, I know that you are still exploring the idea of some variant of "arson" (I forget how you phrased it) and I'd like to urge you to research how WTC 7 straddled a power substation (if you've ever heard a transformer explode, you'd swear it was a bomb) and, due to emergency facilities located within WTC 7, there were obvious fuel sources in several large diesel tanks located within the building. As I have said before, the more one researches these things, the more reasonable the "official conspiracy theory" becomes. Again, I don't have "blind faith" in the experts but, what do we have experts for if we're not going to listen to them when there is no credible argument against them?


In your last paragraph you've summed my argument up pretty well. While there are a number of sincere people asking honest questions, there are also quite a few who are, frankly, either too lazy to do the necessary research to avoid having to ask unnecessary questions over and over, or they simply are exhibiting unmistakable signs of confirmation bias. As I have said before, I despise the Bush administration and the thought they would be caught red-handed in either LIHOP or MIHOP is almost too delicious to consider (I'm certainly not implying I am insensitive to the nearly 4,000 deaths that day, nor the death and destruction Bush has caused in Iraq). However, rather than reason backwards from the outcome I'd love to see, I, instead, followed and questioned the evidence forward to a PROVISIONAL conclusion (meaning I remain open to a "smoking gun" or other irrefutable evidence) that LIHOP or MIHOP is just not a reasonable conclusion. I think we have much more important work to do to bring the Bush adminstration to justice for crimes for which we have more than sufficient evidence. As I said before, they've done enough nasty shit we should nail them for, we don't have to invent shit they didn't do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212446">SDuderstadt wrote:



The lean may or may not be relevant to the collapse initiation itself, but it most certainly is relevant to any attempt to analyze the collapse. If nothing else, it could serve as a sanity check on other pre-collapse observations. For example, if the building were leaning in a surprising direction, this might imply that the amount and kind of interior damage was different from what was otherwise believed.



When I say that the lean is clearly relevant to analysis of the collapse, this does not imply that I think the lean itself must necessarily be the direct cause of collapse initiation.

The direction of the lean is as relevant to collapse analysis as all the other pre-collapse observations that were taken into account, such as exterior damage and fire observations.

By no means were all the fires directly relevant to the collapse-initiation hypothesis either. The only directly-relevant fire was the one on the east side, floors 10 to 13 (if I recall correctly), primarily on the 12th floor. Does this mean that the NIST prelim report could have justifiably ignored all the other fires and all the south side damage too? Of course not. The correct approach is to consider all the pre-collapse damage observations first (both fire and structural damage) and then figure out which of these phenomena are likely to have caused collapse initiation.

That's essentially what NIST did, in its http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf">interim report on WTC 7 (PDF), except that NIST omitted one possibly key piece of pre-collapse data: the amount and direction of the pre-collapse lean. Said lean may or may not have played a role in collapse initiation, but, without knowledge of what that lean was, we can't say definitively whether it did or did not play a role in collapse initiation.



All these issues are simply irrelevant to the role that the lean could have played in analyzing the collapse.



"Not a single expert in controlled demolition"? Are you aware of the Danny Jowenko interview? (See http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/#new">transcript here.) Admittedly, Jowenko was responding to very incomplete information.



I'm already well aware of these things. NIST has already determined that the fuel tanks did not play any significant role in either the fires or the collapse. (The NIST interim report notes, for example, an "absence of diesel smells" by people evacuating the building.) And one would hope that the electrical substation was shut down soon after the fire started, if not before.

First, find any structural engineer and ask him/her about the lean question. I think you will find that pretty nearly all of them will tell you that the direction of the lean doesn't really figure in all that much, but, for sake of argument, let's say it does. And let's further say that the direction was different than the direction you think the building should have fallen in. What, exactly, do you think that would prove? With all due respect, I think you're a great person and one of the more thorough "truthers" (for lack of a better word) but I don't see all that much evidence that you are very knowledgeable about engineering issues and principles. I don't claim to be an expert either, however, my first job out of undergraduate school was as an assistant building official and I actually attended the ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials) Conference in Monterey, CA in 1975, at which we were considering and voting on changes to the UBC (Uniform Building Code).

As far as your comment about Danny Jowenko, I think you pretty much undermine his comments as evidence of controlled demolition when you write, "Are you aware of the Danny Jowenko interview? (See transcript here.) Admittedly, Jowenko was responding to very incomplete information."

It was actually a bit more than "responding to very incomplete information". Jowenko was being manipulated by CD proponents who are, not only controlling what he sees (a classic case of "stacking the deck", they are also asking him to comment and he has, at that point, no information about the design or construction of that building. The problem with 9/11 CT's in this regard is that they apparently believe that all buildings are designed and built in the same way and, thus, should collapse the same way. If someone wants to compare WTC 7 with another building that didn't collapse, fine. Let's just make sure it's an apples to apples comparison. That means someone would have to first:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever)

5) Which was struck by another building and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

Once they've met that challenge, they need to explain why neither Mark Loiseaux, Brent Blanchard nor any other prominent controlled demolition expert believes that WTC's 1, 2 or 7 were brought dowm by CD and, in fact, they say just the opposite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212471">SDuderstadt wrote:



Why do you think so? Have you asked a structural engineer?



First off, I was talking about the pre-collapse lean, not the direction that the building fell. Second, when I spoke of a the possibility of the building leaning in a surprising direction, what matters here is not what direction I think the building should have leaned, but rather what direction would be consistent with the structural engineers' analysis of structural damage.



As I explained in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212457">my previous post, it would prove that the interior structural damage was somehow different from what the engineers otherwise deduced. I'm speaking only very generally here. I'm not claiming that it would prove any one particular thing. My point was simply to explain why the lean should be included in any reasonably complete account of the structural damage - and why, therefore, I was surprised that it wasn't included.

Perhaps it will be included in the final report. One of the NIST slide shows mentioned that they had obtained many more boxes of information about WTC 7.



I prefer to keep my personal life separate from my participation in online forums, but, yes, I do have considerably more knowledge about "engineering issues and principles" than your average layperson, though I'm not a structural engineer in particular. I'm not going to be making any arguments from authority using myself as an authority, so I see no need to prove my credentials here. However, if you ask any scientifically knowledgeable person to read my blog (especially the comment thread beneath http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/demolition-of-wtc-lets-not-overstate-the-case-please/">this post), that person will probably attest that I do have a strong background in at least basic physics.



I am well aware of that fallacy and have pointed it out repeatedly myself, in other forums and on my blog.

In my post above, I gave an incorrect link for the NIST slide show of April 5, 2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf">Here is a corrected link (PDF).

CONTACT: Michael E. Newman
(301) 975-3025
michael.newman@nist.gov

I have never seen a picture or video showing the bulge or lean.

It is the basis on which the FDNY predicted the collapse, so where is the evidence? There were enough cameras there that day!

Actually, NIST hasn't been very forthcoming with pictures if I recall correctly.

and the point of the OP got a little lost along the way.

The point being, just how did the FDNY predict the collapse of the building hours in advance when they had no previous experience of any such collapse?

Details on the extent and location of the bulge and lean are.. a little lean (pun intended).

WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Daniel Nigro:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro


That is exactly why Nigro gave the order to pull people away from WTC 7.

You can't be.

to abandon WTC 7 and establish a collapse zone.

That's the reasons he gave for doing it. One of them is that WTC Towers 1 and 2 had collapsed earlier. Nigro was going to take no chances that 7 would kill any more of his men that day. It was a good call.

and you know it.

Silverstein was acquiescing in what the Fire Department was telling him

And you know it.

You've already tried to misrepresent Silversteins comments by economy with the truth in this thread and you're at it again. Is the truth not an issue for you?

They are not singing from the same hymn sheet, the Fire Chief said he didn't even speak to Silverstein, Silverstein said he did and offered the Fire Chief his advice "you know the smartest thing..." and then they pulled it.

A "fire commander" could be any number of people that day, and at any time. Several people made decisions about keeping people away from 7. Nigro was the final arbiter. He made his decision about 2:30 or so.

The truth is an issue for me. That's why I try to adhere to it. Any further intimations that I do not will be reported to the moderators. Quit attacking me.

"and then they pulled it." -- That is not what Silverstein said. He said, "They made that decision to pull."

Question: According to Silverstein, who made the decision?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why did you partially quote Silverstein about the "pull it" thing and ignore the fact that he had suggested to the "fire commander" ("could be anyone" - oh yeah right) that the best thing would be to "pull it".

I'm just suggesting that you put partial quotes in context in future otherwise people might think you are being disingeneous. This is not an attack just friendly advice.

I appreciate it was probably an honest mistake on your part.

First off, your assertion that "this is not an attack." Over the past several days you have harassed me relentlessly. Any post from you responding to me is now expected by me to be an attack until proven otherwise, and I have ample cause to think this. You were also trying to imply that the post deleted by the moderators was not an attack. Take it up with them. They judged it an attack or they would not have deleted it.

Second, you put this into quotations: "could be anyone" as if that were something I had said. That is not what I said. I said the fire commander who called Silverstein (whom he has not and never has identified) could be "any number of people". That is true. There are several people who could have called Silverstein during that long day and been correctly described as "the fire commander." Nigro has taken himself out of that pool.

Third, you lament my "partially quoting Silverstein", but you are the one who has misrepresented that quote in this thread. In your post #66, you said:



"and then they pulled it." This implies that they were taking his advice. I supplemented your misrepresentation with the rest of the quote. My "partial quote" was in the context of yours, and was the only relevant part of the quote needed to correct your misrepresentaton. I said in #68:



That actual statement by Silverstein is in complete concert with what Nigro describes.



Nigro made the decision to pull. He says he didn't talk to Silverstein. Silverstein doesn't ID who he talked to, which could have been any number of people. That statement was his way of being a mensch about what the Fire Commander was clearly suggesting should happen. Fire departments do not call building owners to ask them what to do about fires.

Maybe you should write that last sentence down and refer to it whenever these spells propel you to your keyboard. FIRE DEPARTMENTS DO NOT CALL BUILDING OWNERS TO ASK THEM WHAT TO DO ABOUT A FIRE.

Furthermore, Silverstein's suggestion that they "pull it" could not be a suggestion to demolish the buildings.

1) Fire departments do not demolish buildings.
2) Silverstein has stated that he meant a contingent of firefighters fighting the fire at his building.
3) "Pull it" is not slang for demolishing a building with explosives.
4) If he was admitting to insurance fraud on national television, a battalion of lawyers would have descended on him and stripped him clean of every dime he possessed.

So you have now been factually inaccurate about your attacks on me, about what I have said, about who's being disingenous about the Silverstein quote, and about the Nigro quote and the Silverstein quote not fitting together.

You might want to drop the "disingenous" tactic.

Stop attacking me, stop harassing me.

I don't believe him.

"FIRE DEPARTMENTS DO NOT CALL BUILDING OWNERS TO ASK THEM WHAT TO DO ABOUT A FIRE."

Silverstein disagrees, he said a "Fire Commander" spoke to him.
Clearly.

Silverstein told them the "smartest thing to do.."
Clearly.

I don't get your argument.

I'm sure the FDNY have the bulge and lean well documented, they have two teams for such matters.

About his trying to save the lives of other firefighters after so many of them had died that day?

Really? Is that your final answer?

Can you tell me, using only the words of the actual Silverstein quote, exactly what question the Fire Commander asked Silverstein? Because I don't see a question there. Do you understand what I'm asking? Take the words of the actual question from the Silverstein quote, place them in the quotation marks (" ") showing that you are directly quoting Silverstein, and put them in your very next response to me on this thread.

Can you prove he isn't?

This is a high stakes game.

except that believing him means you have to relinquish your fantasies about Building 7.

OK.

So we should take the word or Presidents, Militaru Commansers, Police Chiefs, Mayors and Fire Chiefs just because they say so.

I would rather see some evidence if it's all the same to you, I've learnt over the years not to take the word of anyone who is in a position of power at face value.

He might be lying, are you saying that's impossible?

Somebody grabbed a transit and set the sights on a portion of WTC 7. They came back later and could see that the building was slowly bulging. It was useful only for those purposes.

All of that is included in Nigro's "damage" statement.

Why did they grab a transit?
Where did they point it?

This story is a little sparse on details.

It's pretty strong evidence if it's true. NIST and FEMA wouldn't hesitate to use it I would think.

And this visible bulge would be well documented with pictures, or do Fire Chiefs not worry about having to justify their actions that cost millions of dollars and trigger massive law-suits?

They had hours to record it.

Does the FDNY have someone following them around recording what they do?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/units/photo/index.shtml

Can we see all their 9/11 pictures of WTC 7?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/incidents/flight587/flight587_0032.shtml

It seems the FDNY Photo Unit does take great care to chroncile its emergency response activities, I presume for legal purposes amongst other things.

Unfortunately their gallery seems to be missing 9/11 from 2001 - there is a "Ground Zero section" but that covers the cleaning up activities.

Does anyone have any information on what they recorded on 9/11 and how they covered WTC 7?

mentioned here..

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/units/photo/photo_unit_p2.shtml

Same as the Photo Unit but with video. I wonder what they recorded in connection with WTC 7.

Anyone know? Did they cover the Fire Chief's ass when he (unilaterally) decided to let a multi-million dollar building burn and collapse without putting up a fight?

Cover the Fire Chief's ass? WTF are you implying here?

to not fight a multi-million dollar building collapse.

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

asses were covered over WTC7.

But have we seen anything from the Photo Unit and the AV unit concerning WTC7?

It would be most strange if we didn't.

I think that now you're proving you know very little about law. You need to research "sovereign immunity" and "failure to rescue".

..to abandon a fire and let a building crash and burn then he better be able to prove he made that decision on a sound basis.

That's one of the reasons for the existence of the FDNY documentation units.

Just where are their Unit photos on 9/11, sounds like they were taking thousands of them (or more).

He has given his reasons and they are sound.

Their photography units were busy helping to look for survivors (by producing a photo map of the area). WTC 7 was not their concern.

n/t

Sounds like he did as well.

It's not everyday you decide to abandon a burning 47 story building and let it crash and burn.

You can play semnatics all you like, but a "Fire Commander" spoke to Silverstein and Silverstein gave the nod.

to withdraw firefighters from a building that appears as if it might collapse. This is your dumbest post yet.

It does not seem to me that Bassman is implying anything sinister about the FDNY http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212540">here. When a fire department makes a decision to allow a fire to burn out of control, there's always the risk that the department (or the chief who made the decision) might get sued later, or otherwise called on the carpet, no matter how justified the decision may have been.

And it seems to me that high-level officials, in the FDNY or anywhere else, would naturally keep in mind the need to document potentially troublesome decisions, in anticipation of a possible future need to prove that the decision was justified. It seems to me that such concerns would be second nature to any high-level manager in a position to make such momentous decisions.

Of course, on 9/11/2001, the FDNY did have many other things to worry about. But someone in the FDNY did take the time to call Silverstein. If they took the time to call Silverstein, why not take the time to document the severity of the fires and structural damage too?

(One possibility might be, perhaps, that the FDNY did take photos and NIST just hadn't obtained them from the FDNY by 2004 for whatever reason. All the photos in the MIST 2004 interim report on WTC 7 seem to have been taken by private photographers.)

It's reasonable to assume that ass covering would have ensued. Any subsequent lies or ecomonies with the truth may also be part of said ass covering.

When you get to a certain level in any organisation then politics always becomes the main concern, ask any manager. Just because someone is a Fire Chief doesn't get any sympathy vote from me, they are no longer ordinary Firemen (who I have the greatest respect for), they are something else.

The real question is, where are the Photo Unit and AV Unit's 9/11 pictures of WTC7. They we even in the air that day, they were all over the place. They had hours after the first collapses to get around to WTC7.

fear a lawsuit because WTC 7 eventually collapsed?????

Could it have been saved?

I hope the FDNY Chief had evidence to back up his unilateral decision.

He did have the Photo Unit and the AV unit at his disposal so I suppose his ass is covered.

Isn't it?

what possible legal problems do you believe they would have incurred?

..was abandoned and left to crash and burn.

Hmmm, let me think about the legal implications of that.

9/11/01 was not a normal day. There was just so much they could do, and WTC 7 was not the priority it would have been on any other day.

You can continue to stamp your feet about this all day long and all night, too. It's not doing any good.

Seven hours.
No pictures?

and the NIST study seems to be taking them at account, if the recently release predecisional papers are actually from NIST (and as far as I can tell, they are). One of the chapters is a quite lengthy detailing of exactly what we can see in the visual evidence that NIST was able to gather.

this is an absolute red herring.

... it seems to me that there could still be some serious political fallout if a fire chief decides not to fight a given fire, but then, in the future, can't prove that the decision was justified.

Do you not agree?

for the reasons cited? I don't understand why so many people seem to be trying to second-guess the FDNY. I think losing 330 of their fellow firefighters that day explains their caution.

My point is simply that I would expect there to be FDNY photos of WTC 7's fire and the damage. In particular, I would expect there to be FDNY photos showing the pre-collapse lean and bulge, if possible. An absense of FDNY photos wouldn't disprove the fire and damage, but it would be a surprise.

Why? Because it seems to me that nearly all managers, of any kind, including fire chiefs, would have a conditioned reflex for CYA concerning any and all major decisions. You never know when a decision, however justified, might get challenged in the future. Hence the need to retain evidence justifying any and all major decisions.

Furthermore, I would expect CYA to be such a deeply conditioned reflex that it wouldn't be forgotten about in a crisis. See, for example, the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x161513">On 9/11, during the attacks, he calls in lawyers?, about Cheney calling lawyers on 9/11. The thread begins by reprinting an article treating this as some sort of scandal, as if it proved how heartless Cheney is, when in fact it's one of the things I would expect any high official with half a brain to do in a crisis, to help make sure that his or her emergency decisions don't cause problems down the road. (I'm certainly no fan of Cheney, but his calling lawyers on 9/11 is not one of my gripes about him.)

In the case of a fire chief, I wouldn't expect him to call lawyers. But I would expect him to want to retain some evidence (preferably including photographic evidence) of the validity of any given decision not to fight a fire, just in case anyone were to decide to challenge the decision in the future for whatever reason.

Hence it would be very surprising if there were NOT at least a few FDNY photos of WTC 7 showing the severity of the fire and damage.

Let's wait and see if NIST's final report on WTC 7 contains any photos from the FDNY, and let's see if any of those photos show the pre-collapse lean and bulge.

Absolutely - I didn't know CYA was a well known abbreviation.

I'm sure his ass is well covered, it would be strange if it were not.

Except FEMA and NIST seem to have not seen that which is covering said ass.

If it was SO obvious to the FDNY that the buildings were coming down then it should be the first port of call for NIST.

Guess what.. go on guess what!
Someone isn't singing from the same hymn sheet.

Silverstein played no part in the decision-making process. Nigro didn't call Silverstein. Someone else did. 9/11 was a very chaotic day.

Silverstein's story very pointedly says that "THEY made the decision to pull." Silverstein is only describing his acquiescence to something he couldn't change anyway. Someone, not Nigro, gave Silverstein a courtesy call.

Is there any deceit that you will not stoop to to defend the OCT?



You're transparent.

fire department commander = Chief or Nigro? Do you realize how many commanders a fire department might have? If you met a Navy Commander, would you assume he commanded the entire Navy? Your lack of critical thinking skills repeatedly get you into trouble in debate.

What do you think?

have you seen the Photo Unit and AV units stuff from WTC7?

They had quite a few hours to document it.

I suspect they were a little more busy trying to locate their fellow firemen in the Pile.

What Hayden describes with the transit is a very rough calculation, unsuited for scientific use. I don't think they took the time to establish the exact location and height of the transit relative to GPS or a map. It sounds like they put one up, took a sighting, came back later, and took another sighting. That would be enough for their purposes. If they didn't write these figures down, I wouldn't be surprised.

The NIST report is not factoring damage or the diesel fuel tanks into their hypothesis. The lean is literally beside the point for them. Apparently they can demonstrate that the building would have fallen from the fire alone. That makes unscientific guesswork about what that bulge was doing unnecessary. If the building would have fallen due to the fire alone, then the damage and any diesel fuel bolstering the fires is icing on the cake.

If the building would have fallen from the fire alone, then that is much more relevant to the main purpose of the NIST study, which is to develop suggestions for new building codes to protect people in the future. NIST doesn't care that you don't get answers to your questions.

Good for you.

I'd like to know for sure.

"The lean is literally beside the point for them. "

It's important, it isn't important? Which?

This is THE supposed basis of the FDNY collapse call, and NIST and FEMA don't mention it. Why?

Now did the FDNY Chief cover his ass or not with his unilateral potentially expensive decision? Where were those units?

Yes the units were very busy!

http://www.nyip.com/ezine/digital/fdny.html

But not looking for their comrades.

So, what did they record in connection with WTC7? Anyone know.

"But not looking for their comrades," you said.

From your own link.



So their focus was not on a building abandoned at 2:30 by Nigro's order but the actual Pile itself. As I said, they were trying to find their fellow firefighters.

There's more in the upcoming WTC 7 report from NIST* about how difficult it was to document WTC 7 because of the surrounding buildings and smoke. The helicopters were aslo pretty much grounded after a certain point. The nationwide ground stop applied to them as well.

*That is if the recent score of predecisional chapters by Alex Jones turns out to be the actual thing. I've looked over them and it sure does look like the real thing.

What's new.

They weren't looking for their comarades, they were doing their jobs, taking pictures, the pictures were useful to other groups, the other groups were looking for their comrades.

But at least you learned something I see.

So where are their pictures that day?

And the semantic games are yours. You're the one actually providing the link that destroys your attack and you continue to run around making that same attack.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212588">boloboffin wrote:



The 2004 NIST interim report on WTC 7 does include summaries of witness testimonies about observations of structural damage and fire locations at particular times. Some of these observations are very imprecise and acknowledged to be mutually conflicting. They are nevertheless included, perhaps as the best information available due to a shortage of relevant photos.

Given the inclusion of so many informal observations, it surprised me to find no mention of the building leaning, if indeed it was leaning. I would expect the direction of the pre-collapse lean to be relevant to analyzing the collapse.



The NIST interim report did not assume a priori that it could demonstrate that the building would have fallen from the fire alone. Rather, it contains a flowchart showing a variety of different possible lines of analysis, involving different possible sequences of events, some of which are shown to lead to total collapse, and others of which are shown not to lead to global collapse. Some of these sequences feature damage due to fire, while other sequences feature the south side structural damage, The latter sequences were shown not to result in total collapse.

Thus, even though the south side structural damage turned out, ultimately, to be inconsequential, this doesn't mean that the south side structural damage was ignored in developing the analysis in the first place. So the observations of south side structural damage did play an important role in the analysis, even if not in the final collapse hypothesis itself.

And it seems to me that an observation of a building leaning - and the direction of the lean - could have been as relevant as any of the other informal observations of structural damage that were included and used.

Of course, the absence of a mention of the lean doesn't necessarily imply anything more sinister than that NIST hadn't gotten around to interviewing enough witnesses yet. One of NIST's subsequent slide shows mentions that NIST subsequently obtained many more boxes of info about WTC 7. Perhaps one of those boxes includes information about the lean, and perhaps it will be mentioned in the final report. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.

For more about the lean and its likely relevance to collapse analysis, see my posts http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212457">here and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212537">here.

the damage and the diesel fuel isn't factoring into their working hypothesis.



The actual working hypothesis does allow for "debris-induced structural damage" to start the initiating event, but the second point shows that they have now narrowed this down to simply "fire-induced failures".

that is the absense of the mention of the basis on which the FDNY supposedly knew the building was coming down.

They didn't think that worth mentioning? They mention internal columns, floors and temperatures and many other things, but don't mention what the FDNY say they supposedly saw?

Why? It should be THE STARTING POINT for NIST if it was so obvious to the FDNY.

I'm sure they'd love to have you tell them what they're doing wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212494">Boloboffin wrote:



Judging by what Silverstein said, it appears that the conversation took place before the decision was made:



Note the "not sure," suggesting that a definite decision had not yet been made. Also, the sentence "And they made that decision..." occurs after Silverstein's description of the conversation.

So, if indeed "Silverstein is only describing his acquiescence to something he couldn't change anyway," then he was acquiescing to a hypothetical future decision, not a decision that had already been made.

However, if indeed the "fire commander" who spoke to Silverstein was someone other than Nigro, then it could still be true that, as Nigro says, Nigro made the decision without consulting Silverstein or anyone else.

ETA: Some people may be assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the timing implies consultation.

The conversation definitely took place before the decision was made.

Silverstein knew that the decision was not his to make. If it came to the worse, he was letting the Fire Department know that he understood.

Why don't we know?

We don't know because Silverstein hasn't told us.

It could have been the man in charge.
yeah, yeah...

..but the "smartest thing to do" is to pull it.

Now, Insurance Companies have a tough decision here, do they go for the money or not? Do they want to bring the system down or not? Tough call.

Anyway, I think I have a point, and the point is, how come after 6 years we don't know what happened to WTC7, who spoke to Silverstein, where the photos are from the Photo Unit and AV teams, why MIST ignored the bulge and lean claims and what the "it" was in the term "pull it"?

Insurance company: Go get our money, don't go get our money.

Yeah, tough decision. :eyes:

..bring the system down or not.

Oh, wait...

Did they want to bring the system down or not?

Tough call.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212575">Bassman66 wrote:



Why would the insurance companies have reason to fear that, by suing Silverstein and/or the FDNY, they might thereby "bring the system down"?

If there was any foul play in connection with the collapse of WTC 7, it seems to me extremely unlikely that the insurance companies would have been in on it in any way, or that they would have had knowledge of it.

It also seems unlikely to me that the insurance companies would have any trepidation about suing the FDNY if they perceived any good reason to question the FDNY's decision not to fight the fire.

Yes, there strange things about what happened on 9/11, but let's try to keep our speculations reasonable.

..or do you start overturning the stones that could eventually led to a change in the political system that potentially ends the cash cow.

It's a tough call.

I don't think the insurance companies would have reason to believe that, by suing Silverstein and/or the FDNY, they would thereby risk "verturning the stones that could eventually led to a change in the political system that potentially ends the cash cow."

People have sued the New York City government before for various things. NYC is a big city, and its government has a pretty deep pocket.

And it's certainly not unheardof to sue a landlord either.

so far reaching that nothing would ever be the same again.

On what basis do you think the insurance companies would have suspected an "inside job" regarding the WTC buildings?

Anyhow, as I just now pointed out in another post, Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority have sued the insurance companies. So, if an insurance-related lawsuit could expose an "inside job" regarding the WTC buildings, Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority have already taken that risk.

It looked like a CD according to live commentators?

Perhaps an investigation is required and access to all media including the images produced by the FDNY photo and AV units is required.

Perhaps the insurance companies were brought up to speed on some 9/11 realities, "do you really want to change everything"?

Because evidence of an 'inside job' would certainly change everything. The world would never be the same. This is the highest of high stake games.

Bassman, if you haven't done so already, perhaps you might want to call up the FDNY to find out whether it's possible to obtain their photos from 9/11, and, if so, how. I would guess that they should probably be available under FOIA, though I'm not sure.

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212751">you wrote:



What specific kinds of changes do you think would occur, and how would those changes be deleterious to the insurance companies?

..change things.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No amount of flagging my posts to the mods will change that.

You just don't understand how serious all this is (maybe you do).

and quit throwing words like "overthrow" around.

How did the Constitution come to be.

Are you so ashamed of American history? The People are America, the People, the People, the People.

The Constitution is near death, it needs restoring.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people,"

The People were robbed of their right to Govern in the last two elections, I believe I know what Thomas Jefferson would say.

overthrowing the British and overthrowing a constitutional government established as a result of that effort???

Do you honestly think we fought a war of independence and established a constitution so people could just decide to disregard it and overthrow the government? The funny thing here is that we are, for all intents and purposes, on the same side. I just take exception to your sloppy assertion that we need to "overthrow the government". That is not the same thing as jettisoning the Bush administration.

It was not elected fairly by the People.

"Do you honestly think we fought a war of independence and established a constitution so people could just decide to disregard it and overthrow the government? "

It should not be undertaken lightly but it is your duty to overthrow a despotic Government as stated by Thomas Jefferson, who knew the score more than you appear to.

this is getting silly. Like it or not, the election of 2004 is a settled matter. I am not saying there were not problems with the election, but that doesn't give self-appointed citizens like yourself the right to overthrow the government. Let the legislative branch do their job, okay?

When Jefferson spoke of overthrowing a despotic government, he was not remotely advocating abrogating the constitution by subverting it either by violent means or subterfuge. Again, do not presume to lecture me about Jefferson or what he said, as he never advocated overthrowing OUR government or constitution, which is precisely what you're talking about, no matter how principled your reasons might be. The orderly transition of power pursuant to an election is a thing of great value.

If a Government of the US becomes despotic and unconstitutional and the People is denied the option to change if fairly through the ballot box then I believe they have the duty to take to the streets, and I believe that IS what Thomas Jefferson meant.

If the ballot box is denied them and the legislature ignores the will of the People either because they lied about their intentions (Nancy!) or are afraid to raise their heads (anthrax) then what exactly are the people supposed to do?

Has any election been suspended? Who is the judge of whether the government has become despotic? You? Some RW militia? If they judged our government to be unconstitutional, does that give them the right to overthrow it? If they tried, would you not want that rebellion to be put down? Are you claiming the Bush administration is the entire government? Are you suggesting abrogating the role of the SCOTUS? The Legislative branch?

When Jefferson described taking to the streets, do you think he was advocating an overthrow of the government or was he advocating the right of the people to assemble peacefully and petition the government for a redress of grievances? Do you honestly claim that Congress is afraid to do its job because of anthrax? If your claim is valid, doesn't it occur to you that the GOP would not have lost power in the last election, with the prospect of huge gains for the Dems in the House and Senate in 2008? I happen to like elections, Bassman, even when they don't go my way. What I like even more is that people like you, however well-intentioned, are not allowed to take matters into their own hands by overthrowing our government.

denied the right to vote in the 2000 election.

Many people (of all persuasions) were systematically denied the right to have their vote registered in a visibly fair way by the proprietary code electronic voting machines.

"When Jefferson described taking to the streets, do you think he was advocating an overthrow of the government or was he advocating the right of the people to assemble peacefully and petition the government for a redress of grievances?"

Where does he say he's against taking to the street other than in a peaceful way? What do you think the right to bear arms is really about? It's there to protect the PEOPLE against tyranny, Government tyranny.

No one is denying the Bush administration is horrible. I personally cannot wait for 1/20/09. But you make it sound like we're living in Nazi Germany, when as bad as it is, it's not remotely like that.

As far as your point about voting, we won the election in 2006, remember that? I am all in favor of paper trails and other safeguards, however, it is a far cry from having a concern about the integrity of the ballot as opposed to an election not being held. Last I checked, we are still having elections. Unfortunately, many of our citizens do not even exercise their right to vote.

What do you think the purpose of the Constitution was? Do you honestly think Jefferson advocated taking up arms against a constitutional government? You need to make a distinction between an administration acting unconstituionally and an unconstitutional government (all three branches). There are remedies for the first which, by the way, don't include you taking arms up against it. Until such time as Bush abolishes the legislative branch or the SCOTUS (which has dealt him several blows recently), I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim we have a tyrannical government and I believe, based upon the excesses of the Nixon administration, the remedies we have in place are sufficient to ensure our form of government.

As far as your statement about the second amendment (the recent Heller decision notwithstanding), the debates surrounding its adoption centered upon preventing the federal government from disarming the states. However, irrespective of that, consider the state of weapnry them versus today. It's reasonable to assume that, with everyone armed with muzzle-loaded pistols and rifles, as well as with cannons, it was much more evenly matched. But, if you take up arms against the government today, it's not only a given that the military has a sworn duty to defend the government against an insurrection, they are likely to be better armed than you are. Why don't you quit throwing silly words like overthrow around and use the remedies available? Given your lack of critical thinking skills, I don't trust you to restore the constitution. I'm certain that there are far better people than you working on it.

BTW, before you go on yammering about the Constitution, you need to also study the United States Code (which is the law of the land). It doesn't provide for insurrections by the likes of you. I'm a liberal. I believe in democracy. That doesn't include people like yourself overthrowing the government.

"Do you honestly think Jefferson advocated taking up arms against a constitutional government?"

No. No. No. Resisting an unconstitutional Government - certainly! This administration has no constitutional mandate to govern.

"But, if you take up arms against the government today, it's not only a given that the military has a sworn duty to defend the government against an insurrection,..."

It's not a given that the military will defend an unconstitutional government.

"Why don't you quit throwing silly words like overthrow around and use the remedies available? "

Ghandi overthrew the Bristish with nothing. If enough people take to the streets this administration will be overthrown.

"I'm a liberal. I believe in democracy"

Democracy is dead, the last two presidental elections proved it, it needs resurrecting.

look, Bassman, whether you like it or not, there was an election in 2004. I was, to be sure, disappointed, but that does not mean the administration does not have "a constitutional mandate to govern". Maybe you ought to check out the section regarding the power of the President. Your claim is silly.

The 2004 election was not a fair election for the simple fact that electronic voting machines were used and the code on those machines is proprietary code, that is simply outrageous.

The exit polls were somehow wrong again.

There is no way to properly check the result because of those machines.

Bush openly stole the 2001 election, no question and to the shame of the Senate not one Senator would back the many black members of congress who wanted it investigated.

An investigation might have shed light on what actually happened. Since it didn't gain ground in the Senate, that doesn't give you the greenlight to act independently. This argument is getting sillier by the moment.

back an investigation is to the Senates eternal shame, many, many black Congress members asked and asked the Senate over and over.

Are you saying the black congress members didn't have a case?

It was a scandal, there was no democracy that day, they were asking for an investigation for heavens sake!

You seem to have a problem with representative democracy.

..the can of worms.

There was no representative democracy that day.

A can of worms.
Democracy was not served that day.

not your conjecture about democracy.

There was clearly an issue about the black vote in the 2001 election with so many from Congress asking for an investigation.

Not one single Senator backed the request, it only needed one!

This was a request for an investigation, what was wrong with investigating it?

Is this visible democracy?

Is this visible openess?

Is this visible fairness?

there was no investigation, for whatever reason, yet you make claims for which you have no proof.

for what reason?

Democracy should be seen to open and fair, it should be accountable or it isn't democracy.

The Senate snuffed out any chance of accountability that day.

Democracy died.

unless you can provide some evidence that any senator knew or suspected there was "vote fraud" and cravenly failed to support an investigation, this is, again, mere conjecture from you.

I can't remember but at least 10 and maybe more black members of Congress pleaded with the Senate for just ONE of them to back their call for an investigation. Not a single one stepped forward.

You don't need proof for an investigation, that's what the investigation is their to find.

There was no openess or faireness about democracy that day, there was no democacy.

it goes your way. Again, I am asking why no one in the Senate thought it worth pursuing.

rather than 2005, answer your own question. Hint: Al Gore, presiding over the Senate, did not want to investigate/contest the election (after Bush v Gore) because he believed a peaceful transition was critical and he did also did not want to gain office that way, a dramatic contrast to Bush.


You really need to learn how to properly conduct research.

rather than make sure democracy is seen to be fair and open
rather than making sure that the voice of the People is properly heard
rather than making sure that Americans were visibly seen to get their Constitution rights

you think think it's OK because they "believed a peaceful transition was critical" and this somehow is a higher priority than the constitutional rights of the People.

They didn't dare open that can of worms, as I said previously.

There was no democracy that day or since.

When is American going to ensure fair and accountable elections? Until they do then there is no democracy.

You don't listen very well, do you? It was his call to make. Am I saying I would have made the same decision? Not necessarily. But, I am willing to give Gore the benefit of the doubt here. I'm done.

..this was an issue where the People lost their constitutional rights, this is an issue where America got an unconstitutional Government.

This wasn't about an individual call.

The People were the losers, the People were robbed.

Just because Al Gore didn't want the cheating on all sides exposed is not a justification for his actions.

It beggars belief that you can defend this, but I'm somehow not surprised.

before you shoot off your mouth, Bassman. I also plainly said I probably would have acted differently, but Gore was concerned that a protracted battle would damage the presidency. Of course, I have to remember that I am posting to someone who truly doesn't understand why overthrowing the government is not permitted by the constitution.

..got to do with it anyway.

The People were robbed.

Openly robbed.

He was the candidate. It was his decision that he did not pursue it. That's why no senators supported it. Take it up with him.

..request by black members of Congress to find out why their constituents were systematically denied their constitutional rights.

Democracy has to be SEEN and PROVED to be fair, if it isn't then it's not democracy.

I'm sure he'll take your call. I'm done.

According to you, everyone is "in on it".

You do understand that, as VPOTUS, Gore was presiding over the Senate that day when the Senate was taking up the certification of the election. How, precisely, do you think it would have been preceived for Gore to allow a motion to challenge the results of an election he just lost? I find your inability to grasp nuance absolutely stunning.

Just ONE Senator had to back the petitions put forward by the black members of Congress.

There was no democracy because democracy has be openly accountable, there were enough Congress members asking for an investigation to warrant an investigation.

The Senate should hang it's head in shame.

Why are you happy for democracy to be so abused?

I've had it with your stupid strawman arguments. Where did I ever say that I was "happy for democracy to be abused"? I have said repeatedly that you need to understand the processes and dynamics at play during that time. Rightly or wrongly, Gore felt strongly (and honorably) that 1) since he was presiding over the Senate, he had to ensure that no one felt he was using that position to his personal advantage (unlike the GOP, who didn't see the conflict for Katherine Harris to simultaneously be FL SOS while being co-chair of the Bush campaign 2) he feared that any sort of protracted fight over the election past the SCOTUS decision in Bush v Gore would damage the office of the presidency and erode the confidence americans place in elected government. He had no way of knowing the damage Bush would wreak upon the nation and 3)if he had been successful in whatever manuevers were employed, he felt he would not be seen as winning the office in a fair and clean manner, something that Bush was not concerned with in the very least.

If you want to fault Gore for standing by his principles, give him a call. I'm sure he'll take your call. In the meantime, I'm done with this silly thread and your incessant inability to grasp both nuance and reality. HE was the candidate, it was HIS decison. I don't know why you think I or anyone other than Gore can do anything about it.

Just curious.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If indeed an "inside job" pertaining to the 9/11 attacks were ever unambiguously exposed, it would, of course, be the U.S.A.'s worst scandal ever. But I don't think it would result in an overthrow of the U.S. government. Rather, I think various high officials and their henchmen would get sent to prison, as happened in the wake of Watergate and other scandals. Alas, Bush and Cheney themselves might get pardoned, as Richard Nixon was.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What about all the acomplices in middle lower managment of the CIA, FBI, US Military, NIST, State Dept, NTISB, FEMA, NSA, FAA? Anything other than a LIHOP would necissitate active participation from some and a coverup from the others, at many levels.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=213235">I wrote earlier:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=213604">vincent_vega_lives replied:



Any viable inside-job scenario would have to be limited in the number of witting accomplices, to minimize the risk of exposure. I've been able to think of possible inside-job scenarios that would not require very many witting accomplices.

(Of course, my ability to think of such scenarios does not constitute evidence that any of them actually occurred.)

Here's a http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axV4TxN2YFeA&refer=home">news story from Bloomberg.com, March 8, 2007, about Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority suing insurance companies.

Have you researched here, in this forum, this topic?

... in which Bassman66 seems to think the insurance companies might have been aware of the "inside job" but warned not to sue.