Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 09:08:46 pm

Title: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 09, 2011, 09:08:46 pm
Maybe understanding the failure of Harris' bad cop attitude, they are trying the good cop side?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Holt on February 09, 2011, 09:15:27 pm
Maybe Ceres isn't the goal?
It might just be a stepping stone to bigger things. Or the beginnings of a larger Earth presence on Ceres which they'll use to expand their mining operations in an attempt to combat their debt issues?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: GlennWatson on February 09, 2011, 10:51:22 pm
Earth needs money.  Ceres has it, or at least Earth thinks they do.  Maybe Earth can't afford to send a larger force, or maybe they don't think they need one for a small moon.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 10, 2011, 04:00:09 am
Maybe understanding the failure of Harris' bad cop attitude, they are trying the good cop side?

I think it is consistent with the whole EFT storyline, since they sent Gy Gaillard there to ''convince'' Cereans to join to UW, which was indeed a low cost operation, because the UW was looking for new sources of revenues.

Once Guy failed they sent in Butcher Harries Starfleet, the World Conqueror and its escort, if you remember that arc Harris fleet got raped and all his ships seized by Cereans. Which means that the cash hundry UW lost a whole starfleet, which means their cash problems got even worse.

To coumpound the problem the UW having suffered a severe defeat, they must use their remaining starfleet to ''protect'' their other possession, Luna, Mercury or other UW possessions leaving the UW at this point would be a catastrophe.

So to make it short the UW have lost a starfleet to Ceres and can't afford another space battle, so this is why they got their troops in the sneaky way using a commercial flight. Why they have sent so few soldier is for the simple reason that sending more would have rung the alarm bell of Ceres.

So having already lost a starfleet the UW high command wouldn't risk launching a full scale invasion of Ceres without the starfleet needed to make it happen.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 10, 2011, 06:11:41 am
Looking at what's been presented thus far, the UW has sent in a roughly company-strength force of light infantry, apparently without even crew-served heavy weapons much less more extended support elements.  These people are clearly getting familiar with the internal populated volumes of Ceres which are open to any tourist or other potential customer.  To what extent are they getting into restricted-access spaces which the Belters don't permit casual visitors to enter?  

Think of Chez Trief, the proprietors of which invite customers into their dining room but not into their kitchen or storage spaces.

The militarily most important portions of Ceres - the "infrastructure," if you will - are not susceptible to this kind of reconnaissance, while the conspicuous insertion of this large number of organized troops could only sound an alarm among the Belters.  

(There's also the fact that such a large number of healthy young people obviously not gainfully employed would present Ceres' entrepreneurs with an enticing wealth of able-bodied economically valuable manpower.  Skilled or unskilled, labor would be the tightest constraint upon wealth-creation in the asteroid belt, meaning that these troops could not wander far from the Hotel de Crillon without being subjected to every kind of recruiting appeal imaginable.)

A real invasion would better have been conducted much more subtly, with people infiltrated in small numbers over a long period, none of them showing any sign of UW service, many seeking work in those parts of the Belter economy such that they are enabled to gain control of key operations when the UW made its move to take over.  

Perhaps this infiltration has already taken place, and the light company pictured in this sequence is merely the equivalent of a ceremonial guard - the obvious iron fist - being deployed in advance of the UW bureaucrats entering Ceres Spaceport to proclaim their regime.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 10, 2011, 06:54:20 am
A real invasion would better have been conducted much more subtly, with people infiltrated in small numbers over a long period, none of them showing any sign of UW service, many seeking work in those parts of the Belter economy such that they are enabled to gain control of key operations when the UW made its move to take over.  

I think the subtle invasion attempts already took place, remember that in the beginning the UW sent Guy Gaillards as an emissary to ''convince'' Ceres to join or the classical Hitler game : Surrender already or we will bomb the crap out off you.

This almost worked since Guy was able to get the diplomatic incident the UW wanted and the starfleet showed up to claim UW demand.

Sure maybe in the same way they bough the Hotel maybe the UW troops have bough a very big and important infrastructure on Ceres ... maybe a Fusion Power plant ? The space port itself or the ''Air provider'' and will from there try to stage an incident.

The bottom line is that the UW already have lost a Starfleet and I don't see them risking whatever they have left in another ''Harris Butcher at the gates'' incident, these troops are there for a purpose however. :-\

ETA:
Between the UW lack of starfleet, the lack of central nerve to severe and being vastly outnumbered, I don't see how this will work out
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 10, 2011, 06:59:55 am
Looking at what's been presented thus far, the UW has sent in a roughly company-strength force of light infantry, apparently without even crew-served heavy weapons much less more extended support elements.

I try to imagine howitzers in Ceres environmental systems and I boggle.

Maybe the UW military thought about it a little bit.

Presumably the first four were there to create disorder, and then the rest of the troops are supposed to restore order. They could behave as police, and when there are more incidents with the new troops then they bring in more and declare martial law.

Presumably they believe that there would be a lot of Belters who would welcome police protection, and this would give them a start at contacting those
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: GlennWatson on February 10, 2011, 08:05:46 am
Quote
Presumably they believe that there would be a lot of Belters who would welcome police protection

Thats the heart of it I think.  Earth leadership must be a strange mixture of ingnorance and hatefullness.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 10, 2011, 10:28:23 am
I wonder about the timing, the 4 show up, time passes, the troops show up. They were in transit for some amount of time. Once in flight they keep going. Messages move instantaneously over the Tanglenet, ships do not. Maybe this "phony war" to borrow a phrase, is a plan B.

Since UW is able to buy property they could have given the troops beer money, but didn't. So no commercial interaction wanted.

As to how they arrived, in Steinbeck's The Moon is Down, the unnamed invaders came by the civilian ferry like every one else.  As best as I recall anyway. It's a good little book folks, Hitler hated it and that has to be good.

Was it an inspiration in any way?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 10, 2011, 10:43:56 am
I wonder about the timing, the 4 show up, time passes, the troops show up. They were in transit for some amount of time. Once in flight they keep going. Messages move instantaneously over the Tanglenet, ships do not. Maybe this "phony war" to borrow a phrase, is a plan B.

In think you are about that it reminds me of Irving Hitler's War, were Hitler had called off the invasion of Poland for the negotiation even tough his subversive troops were already behind enemy lines.

The 4 failed to get the ''UW soldiers beaten by Cereans mob'' and ''UW officer gang raped by anarchist mob'' headlines, but the troops in transit were already on their way and recalling would have just blown up the plan.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 10, 2011, 10:52:39 am
When they find that there is no onw to prevent it , perhaps they will open an ice mine.

If all they want is money they could do exactly the same thing that the origional settlers did to gather valuable minerals with greater ease because they have a settlement to start from.

They can also operate a hotel at a profit, perhaps buy out other businesses as they become availible.

If they are willing to take the time they would be able to do everything the origional population ever did to make money and they would be able to send plenty of new people to do it.

I recall in the movie "Bravehart" the King of Englands comment that the cheif problem with Scotland was that it is full of Scots. Fortunately it was not hard to outnumber them.

If this was the plan, (and I have no knoledge of the plot so this is the kind of guess anyone can guess)I would expect that the answer would be the Natives ability to recruit the soldiers by seduceing them into their society, then the commander would have a problem similur to Captain Bligh 's problem when the Bounty stayed too long in Tahiti.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 10, 2011, 11:35:14 am
Heavy weapons, suits and such could be there already in crates labeled machinery. No inspectors, who knows.

And the sign says, short haired army looking people need not apply, as you were, make that read Danger, High Voltage, Keep Out, Especially Invaders. Works for me.

I really like Ed's passion about current events, he has seen this before and he is not a bit happy.

And Then There Were None, the ancestor of all seduce the invaders stories.
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: macsnafu on February 10, 2011, 12:53:51 pm
When they find that there is no onw to prevent it , perhaps they will open an ice mine.

If all they want is money they could do exactly the same thing that the origional settlers did to gather valuable minerals with greater ease because they have a settlement to start from.

Obviously, the UW wants more than money--they want the power of controlling people.  Their previous defeat on Ceres makes them look bad, and undermines confidence in the UW's ability to keep things under control.

Yes, they could make money, but it's doubtful that they could make enough money to significantly dent the UW budget, especially if they are inflating the currency.

Besides, government and military personnel are not used to thinking in entreprenurial terms, and would probably not run a business very well.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 10, 2011, 01:58:54 pm
Think of Chez Trief, the proprietors of which invite customers into their dining room but not into their kitchen or storage spaces.
New guy in town: "I'm throwing a big party next month, money is no object, and I think you should cater.  May I see your kitchens?"
Owner of Chez Trief: "Follow me.  Would you also like to see our storage spaces?"

The militarily most important portions of Ceres - the "infrastructure," if you will - are not susceptible to this kind of reconnaissance,
Surface buildings, their connecting tubes, and their radiation are easily detectable from space.  No secrets there.

I've got the impression that Tanglenet doesn't need large-scale infrastructure.

I would expect most good-sized human-occupied buildings (or major sections of building complexes) to have their own power and air supplies, with backup.  (Not for defense, just intelligent engineering in a hostile environment.)  Depending on the economics, they might usually get their power and/or air from larger centralized sources, but wouldn't depend on them for critical needs.

What sort of infrastructure subject to reconnaissance do you have in mind?

A real invasion would better have been conducted much more subtly, with people infiltrated in small numbers over a long period, none of them showing any sign of UW service, many seeking work in those parts of the Belter economy such that they are enabled to gain control of key operations when the UW made its move to take over.

Perhaps this infiltration has already taken place, and the light company pictured in this sequence is merely the equivalent of a ceremonial guard - the obvious iron fist - being deployed in advance of the UW bureaucrats entering Ceres Spaceport to proclaim their regime.
If a significant number of new people had arrived in the recent past, I'd expect widespread speculative gossip.  So, I expect that the invasion force will be the four 'canaries', the soldiers we've already seen, and any more that arrive later (which could be quite a few).

Since the arc is titled "The Christmas War" and it's only a few days until Christmas, whatever happens should happen soon.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 10, 2011, 03:12:04 pm
???
Could Earth's government be planning to attack while King Reginald is undergoing treatment on Mars?  They might think that the government would be paralyzed and defense would collapse.  (Killing him wouldn't work as well, as a successor could take over.)  Capturing the "palace" and a few other key points might be their entire plan (not unlike the TFG/AU invasion of Somalia).
::)
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: GlennWatson on February 10, 2011, 05:32:45 pm
Of course Earth planned the attack while Reginald was away.  There are no coincidencs in fiction. 

My guess is Reginald will play a major role in this story.  Maybe bringing help from Mars.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on February 10, 2011, 05:42:33 pm
A couple thoughts on the arc...

Months ago, Babbette was willing to buy one Continental for .04 grams of gold (roughly $1.75 in today's cash if my math is right.) However, she was unwilling to rent two rooms for Continentals.

Since then, Ed says that trillions more Continentals have been created, monetizing the UW debt on the backs of anyone holding paper money. The e-gold exchange rate must have plummeted.

Having all the UW troops holding only deflated greenbacks would tend to help keep them from mixing with the locals, however there would still be the temptation to defect. Would I be a UW general, I'd send only handpicked married grunts with spouses and large needy families still back on earth.

I'm sure Reggie knows he has a price on his head.  I'd be surprised if he went into a medically induced coma knowing the invasion was on, unless he knew the UW couldn't track him down. Otherwise we could see him on his way back to earth encased in carbonite.

Have any of the earlier deserting troops become advance double agents? Otherwise I'd be a bit concerned if a unit of the military that I deserted from was in town. In fact, I'd ether be getting ready for a shooting war, or light out for the asteroids rather than face a hanging at one earth G.

Ceres could easily be a beachhead for the takeover of Mars. But they have to win on Ceres first.

With the troops seen wandering around, and the failure to start shit at the Iron Rock, I'm guessing that they're still trying to figure out plan B.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 10, 2011, 07:34:13 pm
I wonder, does Luna use Continentals, do their L5 habitats. What about ships shuttling between

Mars does not, but maybe they use Eldorados :)
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 10, 2011, 08:17:28 pm
As to how they arrived, in Steinbeck's The Moon is Down, the unnamed invaders came by the civilian ferry like every one else.  As best as I recall anyway. It's a good little book folks, Hitler hated it and that has to be good.

Was it an inspiration in any way?

No, I had never heard of The Moon is Down, until it was mentioned in the Forum. However, I will acknowledge that this arc was inspired by a real event in history (though in a backward sort of way). Please, everyone, let's hear your guesses about the origin of this arc. If you figure it out, I will let you know via private e-mail. If you get it, you will be rewarded with a big, public attaboy/girl, when the arc over.

Finally, I want to commend you all for the thought you have put into this arc. I see a lot of clever analysis and creative ruminations about the plot. I am pleased to see how many intelligent, critical thinkers we have reading EFT.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 10, 2011, 08:54:07 pm
Aw, garsh, li'l ole us?

The Soviet occupation of Lithuania maybe?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 10, 2011, 09:46:10 pm
I'd given Chez Trief as a ready example because no restaurant permits a customer or sightseer to simply walk into the "back office" without asking.  A ruse is easy enough, but if the plan is to gather actionable information without the people on the target suspecting mischief in the planning stage.....

When I'd written of "infrastructure, I'd meant more than:

Surface buildings, their connecting tubes, and their radiation are easily detectable from space.  No secrets there.

And I wasn't including Tanglenet in the consideration, though I'd expect the UW to be putting some human resources into information warfare with that kind of disruption in mind.

As for  "most good-sized human-occupied buildings (or major sections of building complexes) having their own power and air supplies, with backup.  (Not for defense, just intelligent engineering in a hostile environment.) I'm thinking more along the lines of production facilities, stores of processed materials, finished manufactured goods, maintenance and repair shops.

Remember, the UW "haven't forgotten this juicy watermelon."  What is it about Ceres - especially in the eyes of the UW politicians and bureaucrats - that makes it so appetizing?  The wealth-creating capacity of the Belter population.  Nothing much more than that.  The governmentally inclined would tend to look upon fixed capital elements of these types as the physical means by which to get their knife into that melon. 

If a significant number of new people had arrived in the recent past, I'd expect widespread speculative gossip.  So, I expect that the invasion force will be the four 'canaries', the soldiers we've already seen, and any more that arrive later (which could be quite a few).

The "canaries" could be a conspicuous acute provocation, as has been suggested, but the infiltration could have been initiated not long after the Harris debacle, with UW covert operations people - of both genders, of varying ages, even posing as families with children - coming in very small numbers and gradually gaining presence among the Belters. 

Authoritarian governments tend to develop lots of capacity for covert operations, particularly in the destabilization of potential opposition. 

All of this is merely speculation, of course.  But this is speculative fiction, isn't it?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 10, 2011, 10:39:50 pm
There could be all sorts of sleepers on Ceres though I expect plenty of them went native like the tax collectors.

I suppose all sorts of transients like ships crews could be bribed or coerced. The conspiracy theorists are certain militia and other groups' members who have tax issues are routinely turned by The Man. How paranoid this may be is not so easy to clarify in light of the long effort to talk Randy Weaver into taking a hacksaw to a shotgun.

Could the spaceport mugger have even been a UW operative?

Industrial security is plenty tight as industrial espionage is plenty common. The Cerian Coke bottler, remember cokens, has it's secret ingredient list in as good a vault as any diamond merchant's. Lots of the most valuable assets in the local infrastructure will be dangerous as well. Smart security includes keeping idiots away from the buss bars.

One easy target might be the radiators. All that stuff produces waste heat which either goes down into the ice or out into space.

As well, they will want the nuts and bolts intact. Only a fool blows up the sewage plant then takes over the city.

There are nickel iron asteroids out there with cubic miles of damned near tool steel diluted with impurities like gold. How many mining ships could that silly war fleet have bought anyway?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 10, 2011, 11:20:24 pm
There are nickel iron asteroids out there with cubic miles of damned near tool steel diluted with impurities like gold. How many mining ships could that silly war fleet have bought anyway?

Yeah, this has bugged me about this conflict between the UW and the Belters since the beginning of the strip.  The asteroid belt is an environment where it's just about raining soup.  Why would the UW not be doing much to establish its captive corporate entities out there extracting all that wealth (including the monetary metals which are obviously being horded in both the private sector and by politicians and bureaucrats to sequester their corruption-gained goodies)? 

They'd been doing something along those lines - ineptly - on Luna.  Recall the "Fly, Robyn, Fly" arc describing the Lunar Kiddie Slammer which had been established in the failed government-operated former tourist trap, the Macroscian Tower.  They're not disinclined to sink spending power stolen from the taxed portions of the economies under their strangling thumbs on "business" ventures. 

Instead of a light infantry detachment, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that this  hundred-and-fifty-critter force burner'd over from Luna was a light engineering company sent in to get their microgravity "legs" before getting married up with a follow-on of real mining machinery (not just crates concealing crew-served weapons and other implements of destruction) with which to embark upon a materials extraction mission to get the UW direct and uncoerced access to the wealth of the Asteroid Belt. 

Maybe the UW politicians don't trust any of their captive "private" corporations to do this job, and they think that a disciplined force of soldiers will be less likely to go rogue or simply rob them blind.

Of course, it might also be that the UW military is doing this on its own initiative.   In a great many countries over recent decades - most notably Red China but also in Egypt and other similarly enlightened venues - the officer class do not wait to become retired before taking up ownership positions in all sorts of industries.

Which they guarantee will be lucrative.  What kind of labor relations problems are going to be had with managers who can call in artillery barrages on their workers' houses?   
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 11, 2011, 12:13:18 am
However, I will acknowledge that this arc was inspired by a real event in history (though in a backward sort of way). Please, everyone, let's hear your guesses about the origin of this arc.
I'm clearly not much of a guesser. I would have thought the answer was in the last panel of today's strip.

In any event, I approve of showing how the Cerean society can cope when it actually faces a tough problem. Assuming the problems will be easy ones doesn't convince the skeptics.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 11, 2011, 12:35:20 am
Yeah, this has bugged me about this conflict between the UW and the Belters since the beginning of the strip.  The asteroid belt is an environment where it's just about raining soup.  Why would the UW not be doing much to establish its captive corporate entities out there extracting all that wealth (including the monetary metals which are obviously being horded in both the private sector and by politicians and bureaucrats to sequester their corruption-gained goodies)? 

The government only wealth a bunch of citizens to tax to hell ... public companies are not for profit, but to ''provide benefits for society''.

The UW is not interested in mining themselves, they want the submission of Ceres to avenge Harries starfleet defeat and to acquire more authority and consequently wealth.

For states and the people that run them there is no better wealth then territory and the morons who will work it for them
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 11, 2011, 07:02:38 am

Yeah, this has bugged me about this conflict between the UW and the Belters since the beginning of the strip.  The asteroid belt is an environment where it's just about raining soup.  Why would the UW not be doing much to establish its captive corporate entities out there extracting all that wealth (including the monetary metals which are obviously being horded in both the private sector and by politicians and bureaucrats to sequester their corruption-gained goodies)? 

Maybe they did, and then the companies went rogue on them?

Didn't it work that way in the USA? The british spent a whole lot of money developing north america, including a whole lot fighting the french here. They thought the north american colonists should pay their fair share of that expense. But a lot of them revolted instead. Some of them just didn't want to pay, and some of them agreed that it was a legitimate debt but they deserved to have representatives in Parliament to have some say in how much to charge and how to collect it.

It would make sense the UW would not want to spend more money developing the Belt until they had a police force that could make sure their employees (or somebody else) didn't just walk off with it all.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 11, 2011, 07:21:52 am
Aw, garsh, li'l ole us?

The Soviet occupation of Lithuania maybe?


FYI, it wasn't the illegal annexation of Hawaii, either. The inspirational incident happened further back in history.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 11, 2011, 07:41:01 am
Aw, garsh, li'l ole us?

The Soviet occupation of Lithuania maybe?


FYI, it wasn't the illegal annexation of Hawaii, either. The inspirational incident happened further back in history.

A colonial enterprise then ? I bet for the French invasion of Algeria, the Bey owed them money, they send emissaries to make him pay, then soldiers to secure the debts and steam-rolled the country ?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on February 11, 2011, 07:54:46 am

FYI, it wasn't the illegal annexation of Hawaii, either. The inspirational incident happened further back in history.

Well, I don't think Place de la Concorde is much of a clue. so it's tough to guess.  If we say history rhymes, it could be one of  a dozen instances. Are more clues unfolding in a few days?

 Off on a tangent: Take a look at the history of the FP-45 Liberator Pistol.  It was a cheap, one shot handgun meant to be airdropped to the resistance in France. The user was suppose to get close enough and kill the occupying German army and take his weapon for the resistance. The below link explains this and also details a modern day tragedy.

http://carteach0.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberator-pistol-sad-case-of-historical.html (http://carteach0.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberator-pistol-sad-case-of-historical.html)

No need in the strip really, the locals are already well armed.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Quicksilver on February 11, 2011, 08:55:55 am
Well, I'm with Ed in the analysis up  until he seems to be saying he buys the Twin Towers as a fake incident generated as a pretext for war. Am I misunderstanding him, or is he expressing belief in the inside job conspiracy theory? Outside that, he's clearly right on the money.

And obviously, just because a character has an opinion does not mean the author shares it.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 11, 2011, 09:10:22 am
this arc was inspired by a real event in history (though in a backward sort of way). Please, everyone, let's hear your guesses
I've already spent too much time looking through Wikipedia.  My guess is the Bear Flag revolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic#Bear_Flag_Revolt
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 11, 2011, 10:55:56 am
The british spent a whole lot of money developing north america, including a whole lot fighting the french here. They thought the north american colonists should pay their fair share of that expense. But a lot of them revolted instead. Some of them just didn't want to pay, and some of them agreed that it was a legitimate debt but they deserved to have representatives in Parliament to have some say in how much to charge and how to collect it.

It would make sense the UW would not want to spend more money developing the Belt until they had a police force that could make sure their employees (or somebody else) didn't just walk off with it all.

Education on the political economy of Great Britain's colonies in North America, on the history of those colonies, and on the military aspects of the struggle between the two principal northern European imperial powers - England and France - through the 17th and 18th Centuries seems to really suck, pardon my split infinitive.

Much as I'd like to jump right in and teach about it, this isn't the place to do the job, and I'm not immediately aware of any one or two or three good online sites which provide summaries suited to meet the need.  Most of what I've gained in the way of information fund has been by way of a lifetime's on-and-off study of the wars waged in North America by Great Britain, against both the French and the Americans, during the 17th, 18th, and early 19th Centuries. 

Let's start by observing that the "sunk capital" of Royal government expenditures in the North American colonies (as opposed to the enterprises undertaken by monied private individuals and limited liability companies) for the purpose of "developing north america" wasn't much at all.  On "infrastructure" over on this side of the pond, Parliament allocated just about damn-all in the way of budget.  The colonial royal governors were expected to levy and collect such taxes as were required to perform the limited local functions of civil government in that era, and did so.

The Crown's military spending, particularly in the latter half of the 18th Century, bothered the hell out of H.M. government, but that expenditure was required much less by a desire to make the Atlantic coast colonies any sort of economic engine than by a strategic military imperative in the effectively perpetual warfare against France. It was judged not only necessary to prevent the French (and to a lesser extent the Spanish) from threatening what the American colonies did represent in the way of imperial economic benefits (timber - particularly the extremely valuable tall-trunk'd trees suitable to provide masts for sailing ships - cordage, tobacco, indigo, and the other raw materials needed by England's expanding industrial and mercantile economy) but also to deny the French such benefits.  The French were consistently far less interested in settling self-sustaining agricultural colonies in either Upper or Lower Canada than they were in resource extraction, both from the interior and from the western Atlantic fisheries.

This military necessity left Parliament with a budget problem, and like any other bunch of elected politicians, they wanted to find other sources of plunder rather than extorting funds directly (and obviously) from their constituents.  Making the American colonists pay for "protection" from the French and the Spanish seemed to be a very good excuse.

The problem for Parliament and the Crown was that with the American n'er-do-wells they were not dealing with the same kinds of people found in the counties of their "right little, tight little island."  Even the colonists in the most settled lands along the Atlantic seaboard had to expect combat with Indian raiders, whether the French were present to incite such attacks or not.  The populations of New Jersey and Connecticut and Rhode Island had to anticipate militia call-ups for fighting along the nearby frontier, or to repel attacks within their own colonies. 

Between the necessity of taking up military arms and the fact that the frontier provided dissatisfied lower-class Americans ample opportunity to "vote with their feet" (how do you keep an indentured bondservant from simply walking to hellangone away when he can vanish beyond the local government's reach in a day or two of travel?), the American colonists were a vastly different breed from the class-bound and relatively helpless forelock-tugging "Y'r Lordship, sir" English working man. 

Ah, I'm going on too long.  With regard to Crown military spending in the American colonies, suffice it to say that nobody among the colonists "agreed that it was a legitimate debt" Parliament was trying to impose upon the Americans.  They may have made noises in that direction (particularly the loyalists who looked to make a bundle themselves by way of "tax farming" and other collection measures), but the Americans suffering under British mercantilist trade restrictions and other economic strangleholds knew full well that the worldwide war against the French empire was only in very small part their war, and in many ways they were paying plenty more than their share to enable the King to wage that war. 

Not only those conditions predisposed to revolt.  A bit of time spent studying the English Civil Wars gives ineluctably to the conclusion that the American Revolution was really not much more than a continuation of those conflicts, and neither Parliament nor the King could have been much surprised that this insurrection should have taken place.  The opinions of Burke and like-minded British politicians show that in England there were many who knew that the Americans were really doing nothing more than what had been done to overthrow the Stuart monarchy in the 17th Century. 

Had the advice of those perceptive parliamentarians been received instead of allowing the pig-headed arrogance of H.M. government to prevail, the Revolution might well have been defused, and we'd all be Canadians.

God forbid.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 11, 2011, 11:39:58 am
Waving metaphorical mechanical arms here.

Danger --  Sandy Sandfort -- Danger.

Twin towers conspiracy theories are a slippery slope Mr. S. We could get lost in them as surely as JFK was killed by a meteor.

In my suspicious opinion as a former fry cook and so as much an authority on this stuff as anyone. the Feds suspected something small was going to happen around 9 11 and thought it might be useful but were way off on the scale of it all. Those People might be hijacking a plane, OK, so we make a big fuss, add even more control to the airports and hope Fidel will still give the planes back like in the old days. What they got blew their minds too. They made full use of it, no dummies in DC but nothing more than that.

That is what Prof Ed means, the disconnect between some damned suspicious plane crashes and Saddam's date with the hangman.

Quote
Of course, it might also be that the UW military is doing this on its own initiative.   In a great many countries over recent decades - most notably Red China but also in Egypt and other similarly enlightened venues - the officer class do not wait to become retired before taking up ownership positions in all sorts of industries.
Interesting thought, a UW Norinco?

Which reminds me of the 700,000 + M1 carbines and 80,000 garrands the Philippines wants to sell back to the US public. It ended up on State's desk and Mrs. Clinton said no way.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 11, 2011, 12:32:13 pm
Well, I'm with Ed in the analysis up  until he seems to be saying he buys the Twin Towers as a fake incident generated as a pretext for war. Am I misunderstanding him, or is he expressing belief in the inside job conspiracy theory? Outside that, he's clearly right on the money.

He called it a pretext. Clearly it was a pretext for the invasion of Iraq, a nation which had less connection to 9/11 than the USA or France did. Nobody has ever given a convincing reason for the invasion of Iraq, but Saddam's (probably false) claim that Iraq had oil second only to Saudi Arabia might be one, and the Israeli claim that Iraq had something like the fourth largest army in the world and was a prime threat to them could be another, and of course it's a dandy place to invade iran from.

It could be argued that it was a pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan, Rationally we could have done other things, like for example negotiated with Taliban until they either gave Bin Ladin to us or let him escape, or invaded after it was clear they wouldn't do either one. If they let him escape, practically anyplace in the world would be easier to catch him in. But what would it be a pretext for? There's the claim that there's some natural gas in Afghanistan. Not enough to fight a war for. There's the claim that somebody wants to build a pipeline through afghanistan to get oil to China. That might be reason for some deep thinker to fight. We could prevent such a pipeline, or enable it and control it, depending. As it is we could embargo china or japan if we wanted to -- oil tanker owners won't send ships to china if we *might* bomb them or impound them. But pipelines don't listen to vague threats, oil rushes through them until they actually get bombed. So that might be enough reason for an easy quick cheap war.

Whether Cheney caused 9/11 or just used it as a pretext after it happened without his prior authorization, may be forever unknown. But it's clear he used it as far as he could.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 11, 2011, 12:34:31 pm
I wonder about the new and improved Reggie, will they rush past the "crown prince" to find the old king?

If we go back too far for the example everything becomes small scale and numerous.  This little Greek city state screwed over this smaller one in 127 BC.

As to early investments in NA, True the king provided some start up capital but the people provided the labor, skills and brains. He and Parliament did it for the prestige as much as anything. Up yours France, look what I got!

Good point about their Civil War in another venue. New to me. I recall a grade school teacher who refused to discuss the war of 1812. No point, he said, our "war" was just one small front in the vast Napoleanic wars. We'll cover it then.

Every day I wonder, are we Americans better off than in 1775?  New management yes, but?

Disregard, what's the point?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 11, 2011, 01:03:27 pm
It could be argued that it was a pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan ... But what would it be a pretext for?
For war.  Nothing else is necessary.  The direct political benefits of war are immense.  The indirect benefits, such as taking even more wealth from the citizenry and giving it to friends, may be even greater.  (If there are benefits to invading a particular country, such as enabling a pipeline to benefit friends, that's just gravy.)
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 11, 2011, 02:24:09 pm
Referring to Ed's statement in the bottom center of Friday's strip # 635.

So let's say there is an incident, the troops take charge and the good guys do the minuteman thing, as they started to do with Harris. The troops are defeated or maybe the smartest have defected, what then. Say they hold the hotel, all the comforts of home, with a perimeter around it.  Stalemate.

The UW can't call it an embassy unless they recognize the World (of) Ceres, do they. If they just hold up and growl to say just leave us alone, the locals will. It's just another odd neighbor, what's one more?

Do reinforcements arrive? Does a warship orbit and make threats forgetting the weapons confiscated from Harris? Note to UW leadership, as far as firepower goes, Ceres is not impressed on any level. Remember Reggie's is that a nuke in your pants or are you just happy to see me stunt?

It is the UW's perspective that matters here, and their perceptions. This is not a rabble throwing rocks at real troops. But do they understand it?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 11, 2011, 02:34:37 pm
Waving metaphorical mechanical arms here.

Danger --  Sandy Sandfort -- Danger.

Twin towers conspiracy theories are a slippery slope Mr. S. We could get lost in them as surely as JFK was killed by a meteor.

Read what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that 911 was a false flag. But one might draw that conclusion with regard to the Paris dirty nuke...

FOR THE RECORD: I have no idea who brought down the Twin Towers... and neither does anyone else, who wasn't involved.

Having said that, I see no convincing evidence that it wasn't a false flag. The official story is clearly a lie, but other than that, I see no compelling evidence for any of the competing theories. What I do find extraordinary, though, is that so many people reject the false flag hypothesis out of hand. Again, I do not know who did what, but I would like to hear why those of you who dismiss the theory, feel justified in doing so. Any takers?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 11, 2011, 02:38:27 pm
And, for an alternative -- they did it.  Egypt, I mean:  Mubarak's out.  So that's two longstanding dictatorships undone by a resistance that would have made Gandhi proud, in -- what is it, less than two whole months?  And how many (not) dead?  Go, ZAP!
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 11, 2011, 02:43:53 pm
Referring to Ed's statement in the bottom center of Friday's strip # 635.

So let's say there is an incident, the troops take charge and the good guys do the minuteman thing, as they started to do with Harris. The troops are defeated or maybe the smartest have defected, what then. Say they hold the hotel, all the comforts of home, with a perimeter around it.  Stalemate.

The UW can't call it an embassy unless they recognize the World (of) Ceres, do they. If they just hold up and growl to say just leave us alone, the locals will. It's just another odd neighbor, what's one more?

Having uniformed UW servicemen being killed is enough to provide justification for a full scale invasion. I have a feeling that that if the fighting cause Cereans casualties and damages there might have many people wanting them to pay for it either in bond or with their lives.

Do reinforcements arrive? Does a warship orbit and make threats forgetting the weapons confiscated from Harris?

You should remember that the UW lost a whole starfleet, including their fearsome ''World Conqueror'', the last time and I have a feeling that the Orbital blackmail is not going to work, just like Napoleon losing his fleet at Trafalgar, Nazi Germany loosing the Bismark, the UW might have a lot more starships, however Ceres is not their unique possession and losing their fleet and empire over it will hurt
Especially since you pointed out that the weapons confiscated from Harris are in Cereans possession.

It is the UW's perspective that matters here, and their perceptions. This is not a rabble throwing rocks at real troops. But do they understand it?

Just like the many people who currently dismiss Libertarian and anarchist ideas, I'm sure the UW high comand think of Ceres has a colony of dope smoking Hippies who took advantage of Harris stupidity. Soldiers are trained to fight their equals.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: GlennWatson on February 11, 2011, 04:38:27 pm
Well if the inspiration is not Hawaii how about the way Hitler moved into the Sudetenland claiming to only be protecting the Germans living there from the Evil Czechs.

This also makes me think of the way Athens manufactured causus belli for the Peloponnesian wars against other Greek city states. 

Or better yet the Athenian aggression in Anatolia was based their supposed need to protect the Greek cities in Persian territory.  This of course led to the failed invasion of Greece by the Persians.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 11, 2011, 05:34:45 pm
As far as we know 9 11 was what we all saw, crazy people did something nuts. Why is open to debate as is the backstory. I have stated my opinion for what it's worth. I admit, I have no data beyond the standard stories.

Silly me, I let a reflex respond with my mechanical arm waving, thought the discussion here would degenerate in that direction. Not this bunch though.

If I heard right, Ed implied that it was siezed upon as a blank check for most any response, just like the other incidents, some or all of which were suspect.
Quote
That is what Prof Ed means, the disconnect between some damned suspicious plane crashes and Saddam's date with the hangman.

Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 11, 2011, 05:55:43 pm

With regard to Crown military spending in the American colonies, suffice it to say that nobody among the colonists "agreed that it was a legitimate debt" Parliament was trying to impose upon the Americans.  They may have made noises in that direction (particularly the loyalists who looked to make a bundle themselves by way of "tax farming" and other collection measures), but the Americans suffering under British mercantilist trade restrictions and other economic strangleholds knew full well that the worldwide war against the French empire was only in very small part their war, and in many ways they were paying plenty more than their share to enable the King to wage that war. 

I'll back up some and say that some Americans thought there was _a_ legitimate debt and they thought they should have full representation in Parliament to debate how much the debt was and how it should be paid.

I don't know a whole lot about the situation and most of what I think I know comes from secondary sources. I find that the attitude of American apologists and British apologists are very different and their facts seem to be rather different too. British apologists say that whatever trade restrictions the Americans had during the war, they had it worse with independence and it took them a long time to recover.

I don't know about the details, but I get the impression a lot of the argument is about moral issues. In that context I say that if the colonists were going to be part of the British Empire then they had an obligation to pay their taxes, and Britain had an obligation to give them a voice in Parliament to explain their positions and to vote. As it turned out they did not on average want to be part of the British Empire under the conditions that Britain allowed.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 11, 2011, 06:25:31 pm
Quote
I don't know about the details, but I get the impression a lot of the argument is about moral issues. In that context I say that if the colonists were going to be part of the British Empire then they had an obligation to pay their taxes, and Britain had an obligation to give them a voice in Parliament to explain their positions and to vote. As it turned out they did not on average want to be part of the British Empire under the conditions that Britain allowed.
Like Jefferson said in the Declaration, it was just time.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 11, 2011, 09:09:34 pm
I'll back up some and say that some Americans thought there was _a_ legitimate debt and they thought they should have full representation in Parliament to debate how much the debt was and how it should be paid.

I don't know a whole lot about the situation and most of what I think I know comes from secondary sources. I find that the attitude of American apologists and British apologists are very different and their facts seem to be rather different too. British apologists say that whatever trade restrictions the Americans had during the war, they had it worse with independence and it took them a long time to recover.

I don't know about the details, but I get the impression a lot of the argument is about moral issues. In that context I say that if the colonists were going to be part of the British Empire then they had an obligation to pay their taxes, and Britain had an obligation to give them a voice in Parliament to explain their positions and to vote. As it turned out they did not on average want to be part of the British Empire under the conditions that Britain allowed.

It wasn't simply that the American colonists didn't think that the Crown's war debt was in any way a legitimate call upon them (you've got to understand how wars were fought and funded in the 18th Century, when professional armies took to the field, supported from stocked arsenals and magazines, with little or no call upon the rest of the nation) but that H.M. government didn't undertake the kinds of military actions the colonists actually wanted, which was principally to drive the French and the recalcitrant Indian tribes out so that the American colonists could push their own settlements further into the continent. 

Parliament and the Crown had the "big picture" in mind, and that included maintaining good trading relations with the tribes along the Great Lakes and in the Ohio River basin.  The colonists' acquisitive aspirations threatened this, so it's not really possible to speak of those colonists as having considered themselves under any kind of moral "obligation" at all.

They weren't, after all, given any voice whatsoever in setting those British Empire "big picture" objectives and policies, and were being very much thwarted in their own ambitions thereby. 

Beyond that, it's wrong to speak of "whatever trade restrictions the Americans had during the war" as if these were merely wartime exigencies.  They weren't.  Those trade and other restrictions were applied against the American colonists under the aegis of mercantilism and require a helluva lot more consideration here.

All Americans know about the time-honored practice of using remote rustic areas to hide whiskey distilleries, and wandering in the woods of Appalachia one can easily come across the remnants of once-flourishing stills that had been discovered decades before by the Revenooers and smashed to uselessness.

Under the Royal government of these American colonies, the manufacture of stonewear was a crime.  The colonists were supposed to purchase such stuff from manufacturers in Great Britain.  Simple porous clay pottery (about what one sees in a flowerpot) could lawfully be made here, but not the hard, durable, watertight stuff preferred as common houseware in that era. 

So in places that were once wilderness in the old colonies can be found today the remains of secret potteries where criminalized ceramics were thrown, glazed, and fired for the American domestic market. 

A number of manufactures and imports were forbidden the American colonists, even when there was no state of war obtaining.  The Americans were supposed to be a captive market, able to purchase only from sources in Great Britain.  To this end, H.M. government did much to prevent the colonists from developing trade within and between their colonies, too, so there was a deliberate policy to keep specie - coins - out of America.  It was understood that without hard currency to facilitate trade, exchange would be more readily funneled through the ports and merchants of the motherland. 

Force the colonists to dicker by way of barter. So much weight of tobacco for this, so much dried cod for that, this man's note-of-hand for such, another guy's I.O.U. for something else.  Keep the colonists' commerce screwed up and inefficient. 

How the hell do you think the Spanish dollar came to be the de facto (and only eventually the de jure) unit of currency for these United States?  The pillar dollar struck in the Spanish governor's mint in Havana came into the American colonies by way of wholly illegal trade to take the place of the shillings and pounds that Parliament did its best to keep out of the colonies they wanted to victimize. 

To speak of any alleged "moral obligation" on the part of the American colonists is to ignore the decades during which Parliament and the Crown put the economic screws to those colonists.  In the musical 1776, the authors put the following through the character of Benjamin Franklin:

"Never was such a valuable possession so stupidly and recklessly managed than this entire continent by the British crown. Our industry discouraged, our resources pillaged...."

Though not drawn from Franklin's own writings. this line rings true because this attitude was indeed prevalent at that time.  Read Paine's Common Sense and other contemporary pamphlets. 

The costs of remaining "part of the British Empire under the conditions that Britain allowed" were simply too damned high for whatever minimal benefit that might accrue, and the colonists understood that. 
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 12, 2011, 07:03:14 am
The official story is clearly a lie, but other than that, I see no compelling evidence for any of the competing theories. What I do find extraordinary, though, is that so many people reject the false flag hypothesis out of hand. Again, I do not know who did what, but I would like to hear why those of you who dismiss the theory, feel justified in doing so. Any takers?
It is certainly true that if the deaths on September 11, 2001 were due to forces within the U.S. government, this would be a very shocking thing, and it would be urgent, and commendable, to bring this to light. And, furthermore, that this is not a priori impossible.

I'm not aware that there are problems with the official story, however. The World Trade Center had an unusual construction, so that it pancaked when the aviation fuel from the fully-fueled jets weakened the metal supports. This has been explained in credible and reputable sources. Arguing from "common sense" that it couldn't be this way, since I'm not an architect myself, would seem like trying to use "common sense" to argue against relativity, or evolution, or the Apollo moon landings.

Of course, anyone who would murder thousands of his own countrymen would be willing to use dishonest tactics to marginalize dissent. Is someone going around intimidating architects, or are architects more likely to suspect the 9/11 official story? How about architects in Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden?

Of course - and, admittedly, this serves the people who commit false flag operations - if the official story is true (and Osama bin Laden did eventually get around to accepting responsibility for 9/11... unless those tapes are fake) then given that the September 11, 2001 attacks claimed many innocent lives, advancing an untenable conspiracy theory seems like an act of disrespect towards these victims, who are perceived as martyrs.

Here in Edmonton, Alberta, at least, from such things as the typefaces used in their posters, and the names of their organizations and supporters, at least one of the "9/11 truth" groups here seems to be made up of people who used to go around telling us that the U.S. was committing genocide in Vietnam, and that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a peaceful and free country that was showing the world the way to a society with justice and equality for the working man. So it seems obvious, at least in their case, that they just can't handle the thought of the U.S. being on the side of sweetness and light, and they're willing to believe, or at least say, anything that would be consistent with their political preconceptions.

Since I'm not an architect myself, I do have to judge technical issues in that field by relying on the apparent credibility of people advancing competing theories. And, so far, I have not had reason to be inclined to be automatically suspicious of the "establishment" so as to accept or discount credibility in an unconventional way.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: GlennWatson on February 12, 2011, 07:41:03 am
Quote
Nobody has ever given a convincing reason for the invasion of Iraq.

I have no idea who brought down the Twin Towers... and neither does anyone else, who wasn't involved.

I know I should let this go but its simply not in my nature.  I have ot at least say something.

The reason for going into Iraq was they were not complying with the terms of the treaty they signed after the first Gulf War.  Iraq's leadership was a threat.  Iraq's army was firing at US warplanes.  Iraq planned an assassination of Bush during the Clinton years.  Iraq was killing Kurds with gas.  We all saw the dead babies on the street.  We had more seasons for the invasion that we needed.  9/11 was the trigger event not the cause.

While Mr. Sanderfort might have no idea who brought down the Twin Towers, a statement I find astounding)  I have a very good idea, Agents of Al Qaeda. 
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 12, 2011, 08:27:46 am
quadibloc, thank you.  That was well-presented and a simple answer to Sandy's question.

I have two critiques, and I'll put the trivial one first: 

Quote
from such things as the typefaces used in their posters

I'm going to credit you with not actually hanging someone (more literally, identifying someone) on the basis of their preferred font.  Even if it's locally relevant, outside Edmonton it looks, well, odd even to mention the typeface, and weakens the force of what you want to say.  "the names of their organizations and supporters" is powerful on its own; I'd leave the typeface out, next time.

More seriously, here's the message I receive from you:

"I saw what I saw [I'm assuming you watched the broadcasts that day; I didn't get to], and I know what I've been told about it and I have no reason to mistrust the tellers, so I haven't actually gone looking into what the 'truthers' claim because at least locally they seem to be the same people who thought the USSR was a great society."

If you can't see why I think that counts as a 'criticism', I would be polite and genuine if you wanted to discuss it privately.  (Also, if you think I've gotten it wrong entirely.)
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 12, 2011, 08:33:22 am
The reason for going into Iraq was they were not complying with the terms of the treaty they signed after the first Gulf War.

I remember Bush and Co said that it was because of violation to UN law

Iraq's leadership was a threat

In what sense were their a threat ? Was Irak seriously able to attack the US ? They could barely handle Iran and wouldn't survive an Israeli strike.

Iraq's army was firing at US warplanes

They were flying over Iraqi airspace.

Iraq planned an assassination of Bush during the Clinton years

Just for planning  ::)

Iraq was killing Kurds with gas

This is classical WW2-Jew argument : We started the war for different reasons, but since it has the unindented effect of saving the Jews, we retroactively make it about saving them.

9/11 was the trigger event not the cause.

Saudi living in Afghanistan inspire a bunch of morons who planned attacks in Germany and you invade Iraq ?

By this logic the US should have invade Thailand in WWII because the rubber of the japanese Zero's came from there.

While Mr. Sanderfort might have no idea who brought down the Twin Towers( a statement I find astounding)  I have a very good idea, Agents of Al Qaeda.

The same terrorists, if the US would have not invaded iraq and Afpak would have ... invaded the US on camel back with rusty AK-47 ?

How smart the Americans are ... I wish they had told Spain to invade Morocco after the terrorist attack there .
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: happycrow on February 12, 2011, 10:50:08 am
Gents, it's called a "tripwire."

Look at US troops in South Korea.

The hotel troops aren't intended to win.  They're there to get stomped on long enough for "honor" at home to justify something massive.  And if troops can be brought in unannounced, it's certainly possible for orbital weapons to be similarly positioned ahead of time.  The troops don't need internal access to critical infrastructure -- just enough intel to know where it all is so that it can be "painted and whacked" via high-velocity dumb munitions.

If Ceres' inhabitants are busy trying to re-establish the infrastructure they need to survive as anything other than detail elements, then they can be picked apart in detail as needed.  Those not in the loop could even wind up helping them, believing Round Two to be a relief operation.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 12, 2011, 12:00:29 pm
It is certainly true that if the deaths on September 11, 2001 were due to forces within the U.S. government, this would be a very shocking thing,
It would be shocking in what way?  It was spectacular, but that's not enough to consider it shocking.  Would it be shocking if government officials had enough competence to bring it off?  All of us admit that there are some competent people in government jobs.  Would it be shocking to think that government officials are willing to have thousands of innocent people killed?  They are obviously willing to have hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed to advance their goals.

By the way, "the official story" being a lie doesn't mean that US government officials were entirely responsible for everything.  It just means that some US government officials don't want the truth to be known.  As Sandy said, most of us don't know what the truth is.

I'm not aware that there are problems with the official story, however.
And this is supposed to be evidence that there aren't problems with the official story?

I am not (and never have been) particularly interested in this.  I wasn't surprised at the attacks--I had been expecting something like that for years (although I guessed that it would involve biological weapons), in response to atrocities committed by US government agents (and by agents of governments supported by the US government), so I was prepared to accept the idea that it was done by a bunch of legitimately angry people lashing out (and illegitimately harming many innocents in the process).  If I had to guess, I'd say that that is a significant part of the truth.  But that doesn't change the fact that the official story (whatever version you choose to believe--there are variants) is an obvious lie.

I've never investigated "the official story", but I have picked up bits when researching other things.

* The most obvious problem to me (immediately after the attacks) was why the hijacked planes weren't intercepted.  It is standard procedure to scramble interceptor jets immediately (they are in the air within minutes) after contact is lost with a commercial plane which deviates more than a small amount from its course.  This is done fairly often.  Yet 4 planes were allowed to wander around the airspace over the NE US for a long time, without any response until it was too late to intercept (for at least 3 of the planes).  Why?  The question was almost always evaded, and the various conflicting and vague answers that were offered had gaping holes.  (For example, some officials lied that approval from superiors had to be received before certain steps could be taken, contradicting clearly written and often-followed standard procedures.)

* In connection with the above, one vague "official" answer for the lack of interception involved failures all along the line, both civilian and military.  Quite a while later, a new vague "official" answer for the lack of interception made it seem (when analyzed) that the failures were all in the military.  The new vague story, which seemed to blame everything on the military, was told to the press by military officials (contradicting the story that they had told the press for quite a while).  That is not how military officials typically behave.  Neither story appeared to be true--both had gaping holes--although it is certainly possible that each story contains a small part of the truth.

* In one of the air traffic control centers, an official took the tapes of the recordings made on that day and cut them up (destroying them) in front of several witnesses.  No explanation was given.  Is there any doubt that this was a warning to everyone there that if they told the truth about what happened then there would be no evidence to support them?  Was the official prosecuted?  Was any plausible explanation given for his actions?  (I don't know the answers to those 2 questions, but I have my suspicions.)

* Several of the 9/11 Commissioners stated that government officials, both civilian and military, lied to them repeatedly.  They stated that the report was the best that they could do but that they were frustrated at being prevented from getting closer to the truth.

That's about all that I can recall clearly.  (There was more, but I didn't try to remember it.)  I have no references--investigate yourself if you are interested.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 12, 2011, 12:25:39 pm

9/11 was the trigger event not the cause.

Saudi living in Afghanistan inspire a bunch of morons who planned attacks in Germany and you invade Iraq ?

I agree with GlennWatson here.  The cause of the Iraq War was that some politically powerful people wanted it (for their own reasons, whatever they may be).  The trigger event was the 9/11 attacks, since it provided the excuse to sell the war to the American people.  You're right that it isn't logical, but logic doesn't enter into it.

I remember reading a few years ago about a poll which reported that about a third of the American people still believed that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks.  Prussian-style government schools have succeeded in America beyond the wildest dreams of the people who introduced them here.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 12, 2011, 12:39:30 pm
The hotel troops aren't intended to win.  They're there to get stomped on long enough for "honor" at home to justify something massive.
Except that the Earth government doesn't need justification--they already have it (in the eyes of most Earthlings).  They had enough to justify the previous attempt to conquer Ceres, and have even more now.

And if troops can be brought in unannounced, it's certainly possible for orbital weapons to be similarly positioned ahead of time.  The troops don't need internal access to critical infrastructure -- just enough intel to know where it all is so that it can be "painted and whacked" via high-velocity dumb munitions.

If Ceres' inhabitants are busy trying to re-establish the infrastructure they need to survive as anything other than detail elements, then they can be picked apart in detail as needed.  Those not in the loop could even wind up helping them, believing Round Two to be a relief operation.
One problem with this scenario is that it would destroy the wealth-generating capacity that the Earth government wants.  Or does the Earth government think that Ceres has huge piles of precious metals just waiting to be seized?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on February 12, 2011, 02:06:47 pm
With this scenario you lay out, you have to ask yourself, is the goal to kill or enslave the Ceres people and destroy their wealth-building infrastructure? Or do they, like the Chinese and the little rock of relative freedom called Hong Kong, wish to merely insert a teat at the spaceport, and siphon off "their share" of the wealth?

While I don't think the UW can live with itself if it didn't force its culture on the Ceres people, I'm pretty sure the mission is closer to the latter than the former. 

The hotel troops aren't intended to win.  They're there to get stomped on long enough for "honor" at home to justify something massive.  And if troops can be brought in unannounced, it's certainly possible for orbital weapons to be similarly positioned ahead of time.  The troops don't need internal access to critical infrastructure -- just enough intel to know where it all is so that it can be "painted and whacked" via high-velocity dumb munitions.

If Ceres' inhabitants are busy trying to re-establish the infrastructure they need to survive as anything other than detail elements, then they can be picked apart in detail as needed.  Those not in the loop could even wind up helping them, believing Round Two to be a relief operation.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 12, 2011, 02:27:59 pm
I'm not aware that there are problems with the official story, however. The World Trade Center had an unusual construction, so that it pancaked when the aviation fuel from the fully-fueled jets weakened the metal supports.

Yes, that's the story. Friends of mine who are engineers and architects assure me that is not possible. Never in the history of the world has any building--much less three--collapsed in its own footprint other than ones brought down by controlled implosions. And of course, jet fuel played no part in Building 7.

This has been explained in credible and reputable sources. Arguing from "common sense" that it couldn't be this way, since I'm not an architect myself, would seem like trying to use "common sense" to argue against relativity, or evolution, or the Apollo moon landings.

Actually credible and reputable sources have come down on both sides of the argument.

Of course, anyone who would murder thousands of his own countrymen would be willing to use dishonest tactics to marginalize dissent. Is someone going around intimidating architects, or are architects more likely to suspect the 9/11 official story? How about architects in Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden?

First, two different issues. You are conflating the official explanation of the cause of the building collapses with a false-flag explanation. In the logic of things, one can be true and the other false, both could be true or neither. I don't think you are intellectually dishonest, but automatically connecting one to the other is sloppy thinking at best.

As to "architects in Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden," well, a quick Google came up with a list of over 1400 world-wide architects and engineers who question the official story:

     http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Even engineers and architects can be loons, but I doubt all 1400+ are. Tell the truth. When you first saw the videos of the buildings collapsing, didn't you say to yourself, "Wow, it looks just like buildings brought down demolition companies!" I know I did.

The rest of your discussion, only discusses your belief in the official story with out any reasons. You make attempts to link 911 conspiracy buffs to the moon landing doubters, USSR apologists, those who claim genocide in Vietnam (geez, 1-2 million Vietnamese killed, what would you call that?), etc. Anyway, that sort of argument by sign is fallacious as it is a type of ad hominem argument. Finally, the "respect" argument*. That is a total non sequitur. First, you claim without any evidence that the various theories are "untenable." Second, out of respect for 3000 innocent lives, I would think you would want the real culprits brought to justice--irrespective of who they were. I know I certainly would.

Since I'm not an architect myself, I do have to judge technical issues in that field by relying on the apparent credibility of people advancing competing theories. And, so far, I have not had reason to be inclined to be automatically suspicious of the "establishment" so as to accept or discount credibility in an unconventional way.

Tuskegee Experiment
Military LSD
Tonkin Bay
Deadly epidemiological studies on public transportation
WMDs in Iraq
Yellow cake sales in Africa
Current unemployment and inflation figures
...
I could go on all day about how governments lie. This is just a sample list of some US government lies. The US government isn't any different than any other government. They all lie in their war against freedom. So the real question is, given history, how can you not have "reason to be inclined to be automatically suspicious of the "establishment"...? Tell you what, since you are in Canada, ask a First Nations person about how far they trust the government.

* I once got that silly response from a US Air Force Colonel when I opined that no US military person has fought and died for his country other than in the Revolutionary War. Amazingly, he did not dispute my claim. He just said it did not "respect" those who fought and died in US wars. (In case this is too subtle, in virtually every case after the Revolutionary War, military people were duped into fighting and dying for the government and its cronies. They only believed they were doing it for their country.)


Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 12, 2011, 04:42:58 pm
I
Every day I wonder, are we Americans better off than in 1775?  New management yes, but?


Perhaps that is the wrong question; it discounts the passage of more than two centuries of change in both America and Great Britain.

Is it better to be an American or a Brit? For all that we Americans object to today's taxes, gun control laws, and other aspects of American socialism run rampant, the Brits seem to have it even worse than we do.

Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: GlennWatson on February 12, 2011, 04:51:39 pm
I wonder if there is a correlation between AnCap believers and anti American conspiracy theorists. 
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 12, 2011, 05:10:33 pm
I wonder if there is a correlation between AnCap believers and anti American conspiracy theorists. 

Is it more likely for Christians to believe in Angels ?

Sure people who espouse AnCan ideology are more susceptible of looking at government in a more critical way. But then I don't understand why you use ''Anti-american conspiracy'' theory.

First of all There is a big difference between being against American people and being against the American government. Secondly why is it kook to see government without all the pomp and understand that public official can work under very personal incentives
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 12, 2011, 05:27:19 pm
As to "architects in Switzerland, Finland, or Sweden," well, a quick Google came up with a list of over 1400 world-wide architects and engineers who question the official story:

     http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Even engineers and architects can be loons, but I doubt all 1400+ are.
I followed that link.

I found a page which listed several engineers and architects who were quoted as criiticizing the official story, and a claim that over 1,400 such people signed a petition calling for a more thorough investigation of 9/11. (It said that 700 signatories were listed on the page; I didn't try counting them, but that seemed odd given the position of the slider when I was at the bottom of the statements and the top of the list - unless long text pages are loading faster than I expect thanks to my high-speed connection these days.)

There was a link to the site with the petition; it had a problem, but the site is

http://ae911truth.org/

which notes that 1,436 people in those categories have signed their petition. The petition was described as including a statement that there was sufficient reason for doubt concerning what has been officially stated so far as to justify an investigation by Congress with subpoena powers.

So far, I haven't found an obvious problem.

It took me some time to find some additional information.

This is a debate in the xkcd comic's forums:

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31574

My impression of it confirmed my views; YMMV.

This is a magazine article supporting the "official story" which was cited in the (locked) Wikipedia page on the issue:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

This is a section of a site that debunks various forms of bad science, and which has lumped the 9/11 doubters in with them:

http://www.skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html

And here is a site specifically dedicated to questioning the site hosting the petition you referenced.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

I haven't reviewed all this material, but from what I have, I have gotten this picture:

The airplanes that hit the Twin Towers were travelling at about 500 MPH each. This means that the impacts themselves were very energetic.

Energy is proportional to velocity squared, but momentum only to velocity. A skyscraper is very large and heavy; there was not enough momentum in the airplanes to knock the towers over, by orders of magnitude.

The structural strength of steel decreases sharply when it is heated, even if it does not melt.

The building was designed to hold itself up under its own weight, and to resist wind loading. The individual floors of the building were designed to hold up the static load created by the occupants of the building, their furniture and office equipment. They weren't designed to resist the floor above crashing down on them.

Thermite is a mixture of aluminum powder and ferrous oxide - since aluminum and rusted iron (created by fire, or in magnetic recording media, if there were no actual previous rust present) would be common enough that it would not have a unique "chemical signature" that anyone could find in the wreckage of the Twin Towers.

First, two different issues. You are conflating the official explanation of the cause of the building collapses with a false-flag explanation. In the logic of things, one can be true and the other false, both could be true or neither. I don't think you are intellectually dishonest, but automatically connecting one to the other is sloppy thinking at best.
In general, I haven't heard the official explanation of the cause of the building collapse questioned except to support the alternate theory of a controlled demolition.

Absent a false-flag operation of some sort, the collapse of the buildings would have had to have come about by the only other thing that happened: the planes hitting them. Wouldn't it?

It is true that there was a previous attack on the WTC by a bomb in an underground parkade - also by al-Qaeda. Could they have done this again, so that both the bomb and the planes caused the buildings' collapse - leading to the controlled demolition theory? This would mean more terrorists at large, but unlike a false-flag operation, it would not have much in the way of larger implications.

However, I do see that this picture you've advanced is true in one respect. Originally, NIST had assumed that the building pancaked, but it seems they then waffled. However, the buildings' collapse was still due to its double-tube construction, just not quite in the precise way originally suggested.

According to debunkers, those who propose alternate theories of 9/11 have changed their story more often; however, I haven't yet used the Wayback Machine to verify this allegation.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Xavin on February 12, 2011, 06:44:17 pm
I
Every day I wonder, are we Americans better off than in 1775?  New management yes, but?


Perhaps that is the wrong question; it discounts the passage of more than two centuries of change in both America and Great Britain.

Is it better to be an American or a Brit? For all that we Americans object to today's taxes, gun control laws, and other aspects of American socialism run rampant, the Brits seem to have it even worse than we do.

I think we'd need to agree a set of criteria on which "better" is determined in order to answer that question.

If "better" is definied as lower taxes and less gun control then I would have to concede that the US beats the UK - but I think it's a pretty narrow definition.
As a Brit with some (albeit limited) knowledge of life in the US I would currently rather still live in the UK - i.e. by my perosanl definition being a Brit is "better", but I would not expect your personal definition to match mine.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 12, 2011, 08:02:04 pm
Or does the Earth government think that Ceres has huge piles of precious metals just waiting to be seized?
I think that their idea is that Ceres has a productive population... waiting to be enslaved. If they can maintain Ceres' productivity, but subject its people to the level of confiscatory taxation that the Earth middle class suffers, the UW's economic collapse will be staved off until its leaders are no longer around to care about it.

Of course, the existence of rejuv puts one hole in this, since the UW's leaders would certainly take advantage of that.

The other problem is how a world-wide dictatorship managed to even have an economic collapse. It's noted that they're printing money as a stopgap measure. Obviously, the government can do that. But I'm not sure if the implications of the ability to print money have been grasped. (Of course, the UW may not have a Baldur von Schirach working for it.)

The UW has the Moon and Mercury under its control, and Mars and the asteroid belt are not under its control, if I understand the story correctly.

Economic collapse means... running out of money. Real money that you can manage to spend - not paper Continentals no one trusts.

A world-wide dictatorship can tell its people to work and produce... whatever they're capable of producing. The "business cycle" is a feature of a free-enterprise economy; there is no need to fear that an internal business cycle will disrupt the fulfillment of the next Five-Year Plan. Instead, the Five-Year Plan will get foiled because of bureaucrats lying to their superiors about what the workers under their control can really do, and so on.

So, basically, the only economic (as opposed to physical) problems a dictatorship faces are problems of external trade. But if the UW is gradually losing the ability to produce things that Ceres and Mars want to buy, which is a problem because they need to import something (Metals? Fertilizers from cometary materials?) from Ceres and Mars... that would not normally be called an "economic collapse".

I suppose I need to draw the conclusion that the UW is not a Stalinist command economy, but instead (because they don't work) it maintains a facade - with a good deal of reality behind it - of free enterprise. Which allows things like economic collapses to happen (first, you have to have an economy before it can collapse). Even North Korea had to repudiate its currency recently.

But they can't usefully steal money from Ceres, they can only steal real wealth from it. What do they need that they can't pay for? And what had they been using to pay for it?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 12, 2011, 09:45:27 pm
I
Every day I wonder, are we Americans better off than in 1775?  New management yes, but?


Perhaps that is the wrong question; it discounts the passage of more than two centuries of change in both America and Great Britain.

Is it better to be an American or a Brit? For all that we Americans object to today's taxes, gun control laws, and other aspects of American socialism run rampant, the Brits seem to have it even worse than we do.

I think we'd need to agree a set of criteria on which "better" is determined in order to answer that question.

If "better" is definied as lower taxes and less gun control then I would have to concede that the US beats the UK - but I think it's a pretty narrow definition.
As a Brit with some (albeit limited) knowledge of life in the US I would currently rather still live in the UK - i.e. by my perosanl definition being a Brit is "better", but I would not expect your personal definition to match mine.

What in particular needs to be "better" for you?
There are lots of diffrences, I am well adapted to the enviornment I grew up in .
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 12, 2011, 09:50:09 pm
During the Mexico City Earthquake several large buildings collapsed into their own footprint, it is not true that this is a rare circumstance to occur accidentally, but only that large building collapses themselves are events  infrequent enough that we are not accustomed to it .

There is nothing impossible in the official story , which is the first hurdle that any alternative story ought to jump.

Then there ought to be a plausable reason to think it more likely.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 12, 2011, 11:12:22 pm

It wasn't simply that the American colonists didn't think that the Crown's war debt was in any way a legitimate call upon them (you've got to understand how wars were fought and funded in the 18th Century, when professional armies took to the field, supported from stocked arsenals and magazines, with little or no call upon the rest of the nation) but that H.M. government didn't undertake the kinds of military actions the colonists actually wanted, which was principally to drive the French and the recalcitrant Indian tribes out so that the American colonists could push their own settlements further into the continent. 

Parliament and the Crown had the "big picture" in mind, and that included maintaining good trading relations with the tribes along the Great Lakes and in the Ohio River basin.  The colonists' acquisitive aspirations threatened this, so it's not really possible to speak of those colonists as having considered themselves under any kind of moral "obligation" at all.

They weren't, after all, given any voice whatsoever in setting those British Empire "big picture" objectives and policies, and were being very much thwarted in their own ambitions thereby.

I agree with all this, and note that some Americans did agree with the British view.

Quote
Beyond that, it's wrong to speak of "whatever trade restrictions the Americans had during the war" as if these were merely wartime exigencies.  They weren't.

Oops. I don't know why I said that. I meant "before the war". I understand that things were worse during the war than afterward. I have seen the claim that things were worse after the war than before. That being thrown out of Britain's trade was even worse for the colonies than being stifled by it had been, for decades.

Quote
Those trade and other restrictions were applied against the American colonists under the aegis of mercantilism and require a helluva lot more consideration here.

All Americans know about the time-honored practice of using remote rustic areas to hide whiskey distilleries, and wandering in the woods of Appalachia one can easily come across the remnants of once-flourishing stills that had been discovered decades before by the Revenooers and smashed to uselessness.

Under the Royal government of these American colonies, the manufacture of stonewear was a crime.  The colonists were supposed to purchase such stuff from manufacturers in Great Britain.  Simple porous clay pottery (about what one sees in a flowerpot) could lawfully be made here, but not the hard, durable, watertight stuff preferred as common houseware in that era. 

So in places that were once wilderness in the old colonies can be found today the remains of secret potteries where criminalized ceramics were thrown, glazed, and fired for the American domestic market. 

A number of manufactures and imports were forbidden the American colonists, even when there was no state of war obtaining.  The Americans were supposed to be a captive market, able to purchase only from sources in Great Britain.  To this end, H.M. government did much to prevent the colonists from developing trade within and between their colonies, too, so there was a deliberate policy to keep specie - coins - out of America.  It was understood that without hard currency to facilitate trade, exchange would be more readily funneled through the ports and merchants of the motherland. 

Force the colonists to dicker by way of barter. So much weight of tobacco for this, so much dried cod for that, this man's note-of-hand for such, another guy's I.O.U. for something else.  Keep the colonists' commerce screwed up and inefficient. 

How the hell do you think the Spanish dollar came to be the de facto (and only eventually the de jure) unit of currency for these United States?  The pillar dollar struck in the Spanish governor's mint in Havana came into the American colonies by way of wholly illegal trade to take the place of the shillings and pounds that Parliament did its best to keep out of the colonies they wanted to victimize. 

To speak of any alleged "moral obligation" on the part of the American colonists is to ignore the decades during which Parliament and the Crown put the economic screws to those colonists.  In the musical 1776, the authors put the following through the character of Benjamin Franklin:

"Never was such a valuable possession so stupidly and recklessly managed than this entire continent by the British crown. Our industry discouraged, our resources pillaged...."

Though not drawn from Franklin's own writings. this line rings true because this attitude was indeed prevalent at that time.  Read Paine's Common Sense and other contemporary pamphlets. 

The costs of remaining "part of the British Empire under the conditions that Britain allowed" were simply too damned high for whatever minimal benefit that might accrue, and the colonists understood that. 

That's certainly a legitimate point of view. I don't know enough about the details to argue with it, and I tend to agree, but I note that proponents of the opposite view point to Canada -- they say that Canada did not rebel and did not suffer terribly under the British heel.

As a separate matter, could the Chinese government be thinking in mercantilist terms? They are still communists, and they have the clear concept that when they trade with capitalists they're living in a wolf-eat-wolf world.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 13, 2011, 08:19:22 am
Quote
During the Mexico City Earthquake several large buildings collapsed into their own footprint

I'd like a citation for that.  For a building to collapse into its own footprint, all the supporting structures on a given floor have to give way at the exact same moment.  Any slight resistance here or unusual weakness there will cause tipping -- which in turn causes the load to arrive unequally on the supports below, which exacerbates the tip.

For "into the footprint" to continue, then, the next lower supports have to coordinate their collapses to compensate perfectly for that imbalance, in order to restore the "straight down" trajectory.

I don't see that happening, especially not in an earthquake which is damaging the structure with complex ground shifting, including lateral.  So, please, send me some info.

Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 13, 2011, 08:37:08 am
I'd like a citation for that.  For a building to collapse into its own footprint, all the supporting structures on a given floor have to give way at the exact same moment.  Any slight resistance here or unusual weakness there will cause tipping -- which in turn causes the load to arrive unequally on the supports below, which exacerbates the tip.
I don't know about the structures in Mexico City, but in the case of the Twin Towers, that statement, reasonable though it may seem, is not correct.

There were basically two supporting structures holding the Twin Towers up: the central core, and the load-bearing walls. The first things to give way as those buildings collapsed were neither of those structures, it was the floors that gave way and fell on each other.

If a hijacked airplane under similar circumstances had crashed into the Empire State Building, a skyscraper of conventional construction, then, indeed, it would not have collapsed largely into its own footprint.

However, it is a proven fact, as one of the skeptic sites reminded me, that a Bush Administration conspiracy cost, or will cost, the lives of thousands of Americans.

In the wake of the attacks of 9/11, much of Lower Manhattan was covered by a cloud of dust.

Some newspaper columnists speculated that if Lower Manhattan were shut down for weeks or months, this would cause severe damage to the American economy.

A country that is under attack by an external enemy can't afford to have ripple effects undermining its strength. And, so, government officials told Americans that the air in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe.

It wasn't - some of the damaged buildings did have asbestos in them.

You don't hear anyone defending the proposition that while some people dying of lung diseases later is sad, risking a large-scale economic collapse in the United States, which would have put it at a disadvantage in defending itself (after all, for all the Administration knew, al-Qaeda could have been put up to it by, say, a Chinese conspiracy, or, in some other way, there could have been other forces waiting to move, to exploit the aftermath of 9/11) would be catastrophic.

No one is willing to stand up and say that the nation can demand sacrifices of its people in order that it can continue to preserve their freedom in a dangerous world. So, even though people were talking about "the wheels falling off" the U.S. military, the draft was just off the table as far as Iraq and Afghanistan were concerned.

So GWB played the "fool me once" card - and we all know that the "fool me twice" card doesn't work nearly as well.

Congratulations: AnCap has won the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. As, I suppose, we should have realized back in the days of Proposition 13.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 13, 2011, 09:14:49 am
Quote
the central core, and the load-bearing walls. The first things to give way as those buildings collapsed were neither of those structures, it was the floors that gave way and fell on each other.

The "floors" gave way?  The horizontal structures?  Dude, something was holding them up off of each other.  And then it wasn't.  If it wasn't the core and/or the load-bearing (hint:  "load bearing") walls, what the dickens was it?  The antigrav machine?

Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 13, 2011, 10:30:48 am
A world-wide dictatorship can tell its people to work and produce... whatever they're capable of producing.
Yes, talk is cheap.

The "business cycle" is a feature of a free-enterprise economy;
Only to a very small degree.  Booms and busts can occur in essentially free markets, but free markets adjust and the economy recovers rapidly from a bust.

The massive, long-lasting bust is a feature of a semi-free economy, with significant government controls.  Central banks make booms and busts worse.  Fiat money makes booms and busts worse.  Many other interventions make booms and busts worse.  And, when a bust occurs, government efforts to prevent markets from adjusting makes busts last longer.

Not only do government economic controls make busts worse and longer-lasting, they increase the harm.  During a bust in a free market, most prices fall considerably, cushioning the impact somewhat.  However, governments typically try to keep prices high during a bust, which harms most people along with slowing the recovery.

there is no need to fear that an internal business cycle will disrupt the fulfillment of the next Five-Year Plan.
"Five-Year Plans" typically fail anyway, often by huge amounts.

Instead, the Five-Year Plan will get foiled because of bureaucrats lying to their superiors about what the workers under their control can really do, and so on.

So, basically, the only economic (as opposed to physical) problems a dictatorship faces are problems of external trade.
No.  Such lying might contribute to the failure of a "Five Year Plan", but they would still fail without it.  Without accurate prices, it is impossible to produce efficiently.  (This isn't just a problem in a command economy, it can occur in a large bureaucracy--the larger, the potentially worse.)  For details, look up "socialist calculation problem".

I suppose I need to draw the conclusion that the UW is not a Stalinist command economy,
Bingo.  The first strip should have given you a clue.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 13, 2011, 11:38:48 am
The "floors" gave way?  The horizontal structures?  Dude, something was holding them up off of each other.  And then it wasn't.  If it wasn't the core and/or the load-bearing (hint:  "load bearing") walls, what the dickens was it?  The antigrav machine?
No, the Twin Towers weren't equipped with a structural integrity field.

Basically, the floors had girders under them to make them rigid.

The core and the outside walls had a lot of metal in them, because they held the building up.

And the floors were attached to those things... as illustrated here (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig5.gif).

Airplane crashes into floor N.

The bottom layer of girders keeping the floor of floor N+1 rigid weakens from the heat. That floor buckles in the middle and comes crashing down - slipping off the angle clips that hold it to the walls and the core.

The sudden impact of that floor on the floor of floor N causes that floor to buckle in the middle, and come crashing down, with the floor of floor N+1 on top of it, on the floor of floor N-1. Repeat.

Eventually, the immense energy released by this process does cause outward pressure on the walls so that they don't remain unscathed.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 13, 2011, 12:22:05 pm
I'm not aware that there are problems with the official story, however. The World Trade Center had an unusual construction, so that it pancaked when the aviation fuel from the fully-fueled jets weakened the metal supports.

Yes, that's the story. Friends of mine who are engineers and architects assure me that is not possible. Never in the history of the world has any building--much less three--collapsed in its own footprint other than ones brought down by controlled implosions. And of course, jet fuel played no part in Building 7.

The official story is that it did. They say that there was a great big emergency response center in Building 7, to coordinate for emergencies in all of NYC. It had emergency generators. And against regulations and all common sense it had something like 35,000 gallons of potentially-explosive fuel, which did catch fire and cause the building to collapse.

Quote
This has been explained in credible and reputable sources. Arguing from "common sense" that it couldn't be this way, since I'm not an architect myself, would seem like trying to use "common sense" to argue against relativity, or evolution, or the Apollo moon landings.

Actually credible and reputable sources have come down on both sides of the argument.

Before the attack, nobody believed that the building would collapse from getting hit with an airplane. A possibly forged interview with Bin Ladin claimed that Al Qaeda didn't believe that -- they believed the engineering reports which said it wouldn't happen.

As you pointed out, this is a side issue. It's quite possible that whoever planned the attack had no expectation that the buildings would fall and was as surprised as everybody else when it happened. Or they could perhaps have decided they wanted the buildings to fall and secretly arranged explosives to make it happen.

I tend toward the first possibility. Flying planes into WTC and leaving big visible holes in the NYC skyline for probably years would have been quite enough to satisfy anybody. Adding explosives would add to the complexity of the plan, leaving more room for failure and more people to get caught etc. It makes sense for whoever did it to settle for just the planes, and then be surprised when the engineering reports were wrong and the towers collapsed. But of course we can't expect terrorists to make sense so the logic is not reliable.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 13, 2011, 02:31:14 pm
Before the attack, nobody believed that the building would collapse from getting hit with an airplane.
The way I remembered hearing it was that the building was designed taking into consideration the possibility of being hit by an airplane accidentally - one smaller than the one that actually hit it, traveling at a lower speed, and not almost fully-fueled.

No one really had thought, one way or the other, about what would happen to the building if hit by an airplane under the circumstances that happened on September 11, 2001, because hardly anyone had thought about the possibility of such an attack. Those who had considered this kind of attack were concerned with preventing it, not with determining its precise consequences.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 13, 2011, 04:12:48 pm
No one really had thought, one way or the other, about what would happen to the building if hit by an airplane under the circumstances that happened on September 11, 2001, because hardly anyone had thought about the possibility of such an attack. Those who had considered this kind of attack were concerned with preventing it, not with determining its precise consequences.

My first information on the World Trade Center attacks had come by way of news radio audited while driving, before the second strike hit the South Tower.

My immediate impression was that an accidental impact - probably by a light twin-engined plane - had occurred, similar to the B-25 collision with the Empire State Building on 28 July 1945.  Knowing what little I did about the tube-frame structural system employed in the towers' engineering, I figured that such an accidental impact wouldn't significantly impair the integrity of the North Tower. 

I remembered having read that the design team had taken the possibility of such collisions into account when the complex had been proposed.  People in the Big Apple are stupid enough to vote consistently National Socialist, but they're not stupid enough to forget that B-25 slamming into the Empire State Building. 

It's that tube-frame structural arrangement which explains the two Towers having effectively imploded within their respective footprints.  A skyscraper with the traditional steel girder skeleton would have to yield to lateral forces when coming down in a catastrophic event.  Some elements of the framework would hang on - if only for an instant - longer than others, acting as fulcra to throw the forces of collapse to one side or another. 

But the tube-frame model gives so much resistance to lateral forces that the "pancake" subsidence seen as the result of the fires' effects on the load-bearing components of each floor at and above the airplanes' impacts (and the fuel-fed fires) was perfectly understandable.

As for thinking about the possibility of such an attack....  I dunno about anybody else reading here, but plenty of people playing Flight Simulator had been crashing every imaginable kind of jet airliner into the United Nations building ever since that computer game came on the market.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 13, 2011, 04:42:50 pm
As for thinking about the possibility of such an attack....  I dunno about anybody else reading here, but plenty of people playing Flight Simulator had been crashing every imaginable kind of jet airliner into the United Nations building ever since that computer game came on the market.

I was flabbergasted when I heard some government flannel-mouth say that no one had ever imagined such a scenario. I guess nobody in DC read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor, published seven years before 911:

   https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Debt_of_Honor

Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 13, 2011, 06:45:14 pm
The Business Cycle is not a "feature of a free economy"; it is a feature of fractional-reserve banking ( which can and does occur in command economies ) and is exacerbated by central banking.

Google Austrian Business Cycle Theory. I'll wait while you educate yourself.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: GlennWatson on February 13, 2011, 09:07:06 pm
The Business Cycle is an Austrian School invention.  The Austrian school is against government intervention.  Of course they would say governments make downturns worse and upturns longer. 

But I don't think the Austrians thought even a totally free market, if one ever existed, would avoid the cycle altogether.

Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 13, 2011, 09:45:06 pm
The first time I ever heard of "pancake collapse" was the Mexico city earthquake.
So many buildings were badly damaged then that the damage took almost every form, one building fell right over and pulled some of its pilings up from the earth, some lost only their upper storys and some fell like a stack of pancakes straight down .

Quote
412 buildings collapsed and another 3,124 were seriously damaged in the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Mexico_City_earthquake

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/video/world/2010/10/05/cnn30.1985.mexico.quake.cnn.576x324.jpg)

(http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/showFullWatermarked.html/E370015-Earthquake_damage_to_building_in_Mexico_City-SPL.jpg?id=693700015)

http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_lo_res.html?id=693700015

http://ocw.kyoto-u.ac.jp/junior-campus/mexico-city-earthquake-and-mexican-architecture



http://www.conservationtech.com/RL's%20resume&%20pub's/RL-publications/Eq-pubs/2006-IDRC-ICCROM/Langenbach(ICCROM)3_0.pdf

Quote
The 1999 earthquakes, however, provided an opportunity to re-visit this issue from a different
perspective, as it was the newest buildings in the damage district that suffered the most damage.
A new term had emerged in recent years to describe the problem – not with old buildings, but
with new reinforced concrete buildings: “pancake collapse.” The pervasive image of floors
piled one on top of another with the walls fallen away completely was heart-wrenching when one
realized that between those floors lay the bodies of the occupants – thousands and sometimes
tens-of-thousands of people. (Figures 2 & 3)
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 13, 2011, 10:02:16 pm

That's certainly a legitimate point of view. I don't know enough about the details to argue with it, and I tend to agree, but I note that proponents of the opposite view point to Canada -- they say that Canada did not rebel and did not suffer terribly under the British heel.



What Canada lost was  the" Manefest Destiny" that kept the US overacheiveing so long.

It was a near thing tho, if the battle of fallen timbers had gone better for Tecumsch , Ohio and most of the territiry west of it would have been Canadian territory , staffed by Native Americans bearing British arms.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 13, 2011, 10:21:24 pm
The Business Cycle is an Austrian School invention.

Well, no. Once there were published economic data, it was the most natural thing in the world to see quasi-periodic changes and assume there was an irregular cycle. This is something that human beings do and I strongly doubt that Austrian School economists were the first to do it with business cycles.

Quote
The Austrian school is against government intervention.  Of course they would say governments make downturns worse and upturns longer.

Of course. Which says nothing about whether they are right in that particular belief.

Quote
But I don't think the Austrians thought even a totally free market, if one ever existed, would avoid the cycle altogether.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity and wishful thinking.

Economics in general cannot produce useful knowledge for the following reason -- if an economic theory produces an insight that can be used either by businessmen to make a profit or by government to adjust policy, it will be used. In the process of using it they will change the economy in ways that make the original insight less useful because their actions will tend to make it less true.

So it is important for valid economic theory to be kept secret from anybody who might find an economic use for it.

The Austrian School made the mistake of publishing, with the result that anything useful they may have produced about actual economies became obsolete long ago.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 13, 2011, 10:42:05 pm
Before the attack, nobody believed that the building would collapse from getting hit with an airplane.

The way I remembered hearing it was that the building was designed taking into consideration the possibility of being hit by an airplane accidentally - one smaller than the one that actually hit it, traveling at a lower speed, and not almost fully-fueled.

The way I remember hearing it was that the engineers thought it should not collapse even from the plane and fuel that did hit it. That led to two plausible conclusions. One that the heat retardant that was supposed to be sprayed on exposed metal surfaces to prevent that, was not applied or was mis-applied. The other was that the various metal fragments of the plane etc polished away the heat retardant. (And the third was that they had just been wrong about the engineering calculations for something that was unprecedented.)

Where this fits into conspiracy theories is that if we believe that the towers would not have fallen by themselves then it's plausible that explosives were set to make them fall. And since a small group of terrorists would have trouble doing that and getting away with it, the actual conspirators must have been somebody with a lot of resources and protection like the US government or the Israeli government. So then it's only natural to collect other fragmentary evidence about bombs (like one of the rescue workers who died there said something about explosives) and put them together into a complex theory.

But if the collapse was not foreseen by anybody then there's still room for a fine conspiracy theory. Towers with big holes in them that are visible to everybody in NYC for months or years would be at least as good an atrocity as what we got.

So it's possible that there was an actual conspiracy among somebody who had tremendous resources and that conspiracy did involve a controlled demolition which made sure the towers fell and fell straight. For all I know there could be compelling evidence for that. But it's also possible that the towers falling was an accident which nobody expected and a lot of conspiracy theorists have gotten involved in a complex theory which does not actually fit the facts.

If it were to  be proven that the towers were rigged with explosives, that would tell me that it was probably the US government and nobody else planning it, and it was planned particularly carefully. The reasoning would be that if the towers fell sideways they could destroy enough of NYC to kill a whole lot of people and severely damage the economy. And since they couldn't be sure it wouldn't happen, safer to make sure they fall flat rather than risk the chance of catastrophe. Nobody but the US government would care that much and plan that carefully to make sure they got precisely the desired result. I very much doubt it happened that way, but if it was a controlled demolition then to my way of thinking that would strongly imply that it was a large well-funded effort by the US government.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 13, 2011, 11:01:30 pm
Google Austrian Business Cycle Theory. I'll wait while you educate yourself.
I was amused by one part of Wikipedia's attempt to refute this shockingly heterodox theory. Apparently, mainstream economists believe that this theory requires bankers to be stupid. Why would low interest rates fool a banker into investing his money in an unprofitable manner?

And here I thought that low interest rates simply encouraged businessmen to borrow money to build factories and stuff... in a way that would be profitable, if only the interest rates had stayed low, so that demand for their products stayed high. People come to banks to get loans; bankers don't go out and choose which businesses to invest in by lending them money. And the banks do demand collateral - lax regulation in boom times is a problem, but when a boom changes to a bust, the value of collateral can suddenly change too, so tight regulation is not a cure-all.

I think they're quite right that it is fractional reserve banking that makes booms and busts possible. Unfortunately, the absence of fractional reserve banking means a perpetual state of bust. Within which countries couldn't build up their armaments. Under AnCap, of course, that constraint wouldn't exist - and, since there wouldn't be taxes, barter wouldn't be suspect as tax evasion, and so some saner method than fractional reserve banking might indeed be found to allow the money supply to grow to match forms of wealth other than gold bullion.

So I can't find too much to criticize here...
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 14, 2011, 02:22:35 am
The Business Cycle is an Austrian School invention.  The Austrian school is against government intervention.  Of course they would say governments make downturns worse and upturns longer. 

As much has every one else invents theories Glenn ... the bussines cycle is a theory the Austrians have found to fit into what happen in the real world.

Nope the Austrian school is not against government intervention, their methodological point of view is the individual and they build the rest upon it.

But I don't think the Austrians thought even a totally free market, if one ever existed, would avoid the cycle altogether.

Read serious Austrians and you will learn that no serious one believe in perfection.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 14, 2011, 07:11:47 am
Apparently, mainstream economists believe that this theory requires bankers to be stupid. Why would low interest rates fool a banker into investing his money in an unprofitable manner?

And here I thought that low interest rates simply encouraged businessmen to borrow money to build factories and stuff... in a way that would be profitable, if only the interest rates had stayed low, so that demand for their products stayed high. People come to banks to get loans; bankers don't go out and choose which businesses to invest in by lending them money. And the banks do demand collateral - lax regulation in boom times is a problem, but when a boom changes to a bust, the value of collateral can suddenly change too, so tight regulation is not a cure-all.

I think they're quite right that it is fractional reserve banking that makes booms and busts possible. Unfortunately, the absence of fractional reserve banking means a perpetual state of bust. Within which countries couldn't build up their armaments. Under AnCap, of course, that constraint wouldn't exist - and, since there wouldn't be taxes, barter wouldn't be suspect as tax evasion, and so some saner method than fractional reserve banking might indeed be found to allow the money supply to grow to match forms of wealth other than gold bullion.


Nothing that serves as an intermediary commodity - as money - can be defined in itself as "wealth."  The whole idea of wealth revolves around goods and services of either proximal or distal utility.  Someone able to diagnose and treat your appendicitis when you're so afflicted is "wealth."  All the gold you can carry is worthless if such skill is not available to you.

Of currency inflation, Libertarian writer L. Neil Smith once wrote:

"Money, first and foremost, is a medium of communication, conveying the information we call 'price'. Government control of the money supply is censorship, a violation of the First Amendment. Inflation is a lie."

With this in mind, the question "Why would low interest rates fool a banker into investing his money in an unprofitable manner?" is fatuous.  The reasons why a banker might invest funds entrusted to him in a risky business enterprise promising high returns are easy to discern. 

First, "low interest rates" can only result from great increases in the currency supply.  The way in which the Open Market Committee of the U.S. Federal Reserve System "holds down interest rates" is by way of "quantitative easing."  That latter expression means nothing, more or less, than the issue of counterfeit in one way or another. 

Increased availability of real money (as opposed to Federal Reserve instruments labeled "dollars") is a signal to business people that there is unmet consumer demand in the marketplace.  When savings rates in an economy increase the funds available for borrowing, interest rates fall.  This "pent up" deferred spending power signals economic conditions in which ventures previously too marginal to be viable are now potentially profitable. 

What looked stupid two or three years ago now comes forward under a business plan that plausibly argues good return on investment.

Second, bankers have to seek returns on investments which provide both profit to bank stockholders and good rates of interest to depositors.  Accordingly, the banker must make a certain amount of risky loans if he can get high rates of return.   

The banker cannot hold onto the bank's money, or put it only into low-interest loans which are very secure.  The government's counterfeiting is eating away at the dollars in the bank's vaults with every ticking minute.  What would be really "stupid" would be for the banker to do nothing but preside over the steady and inevitable destruction of his bank's assets. 

I'm not sure what "mainstream economists believe."  Their behavior clearly seems to indicate that they're simply confidence artists who rely upon the extremely high birth rate of suckers.  The Austrian School economists are remarkable in this discipline for no reason other than that they're not liars.  Indeed, they seem to be the only real economists on the planet.  What they observe in factual reality is what they report, together with their best estimations of how these conditions in reality come into existence. 

Any argument to the effect that "lax regulation in boom times is a problem" misses the real issue altogether.  Government "regulation" in the financial sector is designed and implemented with no purpose other than to disguise as long as possible the adverse effects of government counterfeiting. 

All "boom times" are the result of such counterfeiting.  All currency inflation (which must be distinguished from monetary inflation) is caused by the officers of civil government issuing fiat in one form or other, which through its effects upon interest rates stimulates malinvestment in enterprises and other economic activities which are not sustainable, will not return real profits, and can only destroy value in the society so afflicted. 

No amount of "regulation in boom times" can evade or even mitigate the consequences of government counterfeiting.  As the Austrian School economists point out - implacably - the "boom times" simply wouldn't happen without government counterfeiting inflating the currency supply. 

Think of government "regulation in boom times" as the equivalent of applying a nice, comforting warm compress to your cramping abdomen while your appendix cooks its way to the rupture that will kill you with peritonitis. 
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 14, 2011, 07:29:51 am
The first time I ever heard of "pancake collapse" was the Mexico city earthquake.
So many buildings were badly damaged then that the damage took almost every form, one building fell right over and pulled some of its pilings up from the earth, some lost only their upper storys and some fell like a stack of pancakes straight down .

That is quite correct, which leads me to be more specific in my claim. No skyscraper has ever collapsed into its own footprint other than in the case of controlled implosions. There have been a number of pancake collapses of low-rise, re-enforced concrete buildings, such as those in Mexico City and the Sampoong Department Store in Korea:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse

911 still remains unprecedented.

Now if you like "crazy" conspiracy theories, check this out:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/mini-nukes_237.html

I am dubious, but admire the theorists' audacity. And it does explain those pesky hot spots...
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 14, 2011, 07:48:46 am
Quote
The bottom layer of girders keeping the floor of floor N+1 rigid weakens from the heat. That floor buckles in the middle and comes crashing down - slipping off the angle clips that hold it to the walls and the core.

OK, then all of those angle clips had to fail at the same instant, all the way around.  Any variance, and floor N+1 hits floor N unequally.

Also, the failure of the angle clips (if real; I've seen newspaper photos from 1973 showing the towers under construction and they sure don't look that flimsy) does not explain why the core pulverized.  I can see your scenario leaving the core standing like a spindle, which it didn't.

Moreover, how is it that 70+ floors collapse through a space containing steel and concrete at essentially the same speed as it would fall through empty air?  Energy was needed to disintegrate that concrete core.  You can either have that energy in speed (acceleration due to gravity, losing none to any other process), or in breakage, or in some combination -- but if you spend any in breakage, you must lose it in speed.  One floor falling on another has only gravity for an energy source.  If nothing else is going on, i.e. no additional energy inputs, the thing cannot 'collapse' at the same speed as an upper floor would 'fall' unimpeded. 

Plane, thanks for the links; interesting, though I still have to note the asymmetric initial damage to the Towers.  I was thinking of lateral shaking in an earthquake, the arrival of the p wave; but the following s wave could "bounce" a building in place, providing a more symmetric force.  What do you suppose provided the symmetry in NYC?

As for the planning -- given
a) the previous skyscraper/plane incident and
b) two quarter-mile-high buildings near two major airports and
c) much higher probability of fog (the cause of the precedent incident, no hostile intent need be imagined!) at higher floor levels, then
if the architects did not consider worst-case scenario -- large plane full of fuel -- in their design, why are they not being tried for criminal negligence, in this litigation-happy society?  Why are the civil engineers who approved the design not being sued likewise?  There is a deafening silence here, where people sue over the temperature of a cup of coffee and a little scalding, never mind death.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." (emphasis added)  -- Frank A. DeMartini, on-site construction manager for the WTC, speaking in January of 2001, for a History Channel show, "Modern Marvels", shown in June of 2001. (http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/2012699201)  Maybe that's why there are no lawsuits?

And why did WTC 7 collapse at all?  It wasn't hit, and the fires were small -- and no one alleges anything unusual in its construction.  And yet it too collapsed at free-fall speed.

And the collapse of three/3 tall buildings due to two/2 plane impacts (and two of them designed to withstand such impacts, perhaps even multiple impacts) is only the tip of the problematic iceberg.  But I'd rather stop now, in this forum.

Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 14, 2011, 09:00:45 am
Ignorance is curable, Watson, but you have to want the cure.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 14, 2011, 09:28:59 am
OK, then all of those angle clips had to fail at the same instant, all the way around.  Any variance, and floor N+1 hits floor N unequally.

Also, the failure of the angle clips (if real; I've seen newspaper photos from 1973 showing the towers under construction and they sure don't look that flimsy) does not explain why the core pulverized.  I can see your scenario leaving the core standing like a spindle, which it didn't.

Moreover, how is it that 70+ floors collapse through a space containing steel and concrete at essentially the same speed as it would fall through empty air?  Energy was needed to disintegrate that concrete core.  You can either have that energy in speed (acceleration due to gravity, losing none to any other process), or in breakage, or in some combination -- but if you spend any in breakage, you must lose it in speed.  One floor falling on another has only gravity for an energy source.  If nothing else is going on, i.e. no additional energy inputs, the thing cannot 'collapse' at the same speed as an upper floor would 'fall' unimpeded. 

Plane, thanks for the links; interesting, though I still have to note the asymmetric initial damage to the Towers.  I was thinking of lateral shaking in an earthquake, the arrival of the p wave; but the following s wave could "bounce" a building in place, providing a more symmetric force.  What do you suppose provided the symmetry in NYC?

As for the planning -- given
a) the previous skyscraper/plane incident and
b) two quarter-mile-high buildings near two major airports and
c) much higher probability of fog (the cause of the precedent incident, no hostile intent need be imagined!) at higher floor levels, then
if the architects did not consider worst-case scenario -- large plane full of fuel -- in their design, why are they not being tried for criminal negligence, in this litigation-happy society?  Why are the civil engineers who approved the design not being sued likewise?  There is a deafening silence here, where people sue over the temperature of a cup of coffee and a little scalding, never mind death.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." (emphasis added)  -- Frank A. DeMartini, on-site construction manager for the WTC, speaking in January of 2001, for a History Channel show, "Modern Marvels", shown in June of 2001.  Maybe that's why there are no lawsuits?

And why did WTC 7 collapse at all?  It wasn't hit, and the fires were small -- and no one alleges anything unusual in its construction.  And yet it too collapsed at free-fall speed.

And the collapse of three/3 tall buildings due to two/2 plane impacts (and two of them designed to withstand such impacts, perhaps even multiple impacts) is only the tip of the problematic iceberg.  But I'd rather stop now, in this forum.
There's always that urge to have the last word, isn't there? 

The real enemy of structural integrity in any steel-framed construction (whether tube-frame or girder box construction) is always fire.  Engineering can design for load-bearing and even compensate for lateral stresses to great extents, but once fires heat the structural elements to the point that the metal can no longer bear the stresses - vertical or lateral - the building comes down. 

The planned engineering for the World Trade Center buildings called for heat-resistant concrete applied to the steel structural elements so as to provide optimal survivability when hit by fire.  True, the designers planned for the buildings to survive the impact of a loaded Boeing 707 jet aircraft.  The lateral stability of the tube-frame construction method seemed in fact to have delivered this quality.  The designers even planned to make the buildings capable of sustaining the kinds of fires that come with kerosene-based jet fuels splashing about inside.

But the environmentalists stepped in during construction.  There was not yet sufficient proof of a causal link between asbestos in construction and mesothelioma when these buildings started going up.  The heat-resistant concrete aggregate to be sprayed upon the structural members of the buildings got a great deal of its fire protection character from the incorporation of asbestos, and an asbestos-containing mixture was employed in the erection of the lower floors of each tower.

When the builders were required in media res to change their construction to eliminate the heat-resistant asbestos aggregate, they had to go with a non-asbestos coating of the same weight. 

And that stuff did not have the same heat-resistant properties as the asbestos-containing material. Much thicker applications would have been needed to provide the same protection.

To get that equal fire protection, the WTC construction would have required greater vertical strength than the designers had planned.  The foundations were already set, the structural components at the base of the building were already in place.  Higher mass of fireproofing?  Way to hellangone above the planned weight levels?  No friggin' way.

So the WTC buildings were finished in the upper stories (where the airplanes impacted) with fire protection less than the architects had originally specified. 

7 WTC - the lower building - had 24,000 gallons of Diesel fuel stored within, and while in construction had been built with fire protection using a gypsum-based coating rated to provide the steel elements with two hours of lateral structural integrity and three hours of protection for the steel vertical supports.  The lateral fall of debris from the North Tower caused damage and started fires in building 7, and when the fires couldn't be extinguished because of a succession of failures in suppression systems, 7 WTC came down, too. 

As for the velocity of collapse as the floors of the North and South Towers came down, I do not credit any assertion of the speed of descent as telling anything about this characteristic without some hellacious observational data measuring the rate of collapse.  An eyeball estimate, especially on such a scale, is not to be relied upon. 

In the assertion that "Energy was needed to disintegrate that concrete core," with wonderment as to "why the core pulverized" and we did not see "the core [of each tower] standing like a spindle," there is a profound misunderstanding of the nature of tube-frame structural design as well as either deliberate or inadvertent ignorance of the effects of torque within each of the towers as the floors collapsed, at first because of fire-induced structural integrity loss on the levels immediately affected by the conflagrations, later because of the "pancaking" accumulations of weight beyond any possibility of lower levels supporting these loads. 

There wouldn't have had to be that much twisting - torque - with the successive floor by floor falls for the structure of the core to become fatally compromised.  Recall that each of these buildings was designed to stand on the basis of its integrity as a system.  The core was not devised to handle lateral or rotational stress to any significant extent at all.  That was the "job" of the structural elements on the outside.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 14, 2011, 09:48:40 am
Quote
The bottom layer of girders keeping the floor of floor N+1 rigid weakens from the heat. That floor buckles in the middle and comes crashing down - slipping off the angle clips that hold it to the walls and the core.

OK, then all of those angle clips had to fail at the same instant, all the way around.  Any variance, and floor N+1 hits floor N unequally.
Some of the later points in your post are valid. Counterarguments exist, and another poster has addressed those points, but a significant amount of explanation would be required.

But this point is simply wrong. Yes, floor N+1 does hit floor N unequally. Since the structural strength of the building isn't in the floors, but in the core and the surrounding shell, so what?

The inequality would not have caused either the core or the outside load-bearing wall to tip over; rather, the outside tube would basically have restrained the effects and accumulation of the inequality.

But then why didn't the core stand like a spindle?

Fire weakened the core, and after enough floors fell on top of each other, a pressure would have been created sufficient to burst the outer tube and crush the core.

Also, I'm sure that the angle clips were definitely anything but flimsy. The failure point could even have been the two girders going to the angle clips. I'm thinking in terms of a collapsing floor being ripped off of the angle clips, while the clips themselves stay on the core and the tube.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 10:04:14 am
I told you guys 9 11 was a slippery slope, I done told ya.

By better than in 1775 I meant here. To clarify, pick some town in Pennsylvania, compare government intrusions and the abliity to live unmolested in 1775 and 2010. Today we are freer of the Churches and less mainstream sorts, gays, religous and ethnic minorities live unnoticed and unmolested. However City Hall, the County, State and Feds are more intrusive, we are taxed way more, The clergy have less power but other do gooders have far more. 

I dunno, really don't.

Xavin, life in America is EXACTLY as seen on TV. All our cops are Dirty Harry, our cars are all far too big and all our women are beautiful. It is our burden in life.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 14, 2011, 10:21:39 am
Quote
There's always that urge to have the last word, isn't there?

Yes.  I take your reply to be an invitation to continue.

Quote
The real enemy of structural integrity in any steel-framed construction (whether tube-frame or girder box construction) is always fire.

And WTCs 1, 2, and 7 remain the only skyscrapers ever to collapse due to fire.  One Meridien Plaza burned for 18 hours, so fiercely that firefighters stopped trying to put it out and just tried to keep it from spreading to other buildings.  Aluminum window frames melted.  Areas inside, away from windows, thus away from access to more oxygen . . . merely charred.  And it didn't collapse.  Its structural integrity was (maybe still is) debated -- but it didn't collapse.  The Madrid hotel fire, the weirdly-kinked building (that must be some unconventional construction!) in Beijing a couple years ago -- no collapse.  Never before, and never since, has fire damage collapsed a skyscraper.  So, "fire is the real enemy"?  Huh.

Quote
As for the velocity of collapse as the floors of the North and South Towers came down, I do not credit any assertion of the speed of descent as telling anything about this characteristic without some hellacious observational data measuring the rate of collapse.  An eyeball estimate, especially on such a scale, is not to be relied upon.

Not if you want engineering precision, no -- but the eyeball is good enough to notice that a) there's a helluva lot of destruction going on and b) the speed of the fall is at worst ~10% slower than freefall.

Torque is a nice way to try to achieve the required symmetry.  A pity there is no sign of rotation in either the clouds of smoke or the clouds of dust.  And it doesn't work for WTC7, which also collapsed symmetrically.

Quote
as well as either deliberate or inadvertent ignorance of [...]
Quote
Counterarguments exist [...] but a significant amount of explanation would be required.

You do realize, do you not, that I can make these exact same implications or claims, so they don't exactly help either of you?

Quote
Fire weakened the core

It was a piddling little bit of a fire, and not very hot, not even out at the edges where it could get maximum oxygen.  You did see the smoke, the very dark smoke that is the marker of an oxygen-starved fire?  And it didn't burn very long -- in fact, burned less long in the tower that collapsed first.  And "fire weakened the [unique construction]" still doesn't explain WTC7 -- and neither does the alleged fuel, since not only was the WTC7 fire limited to a few floors and a few hours, there still hasn't been a building like it collapse due even to a much fiercer fire, before or since, and certainly not collapse exactly like a controlled demolition.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 10:23:11 am
Meanwhile, back on Ceres.

Ever see the Seven Samurai or The Magnificent Seven? To the UW leadership, the Cerians are nothing but the farmers just sitting there ripe for plunder and it serves them right too for not having an army.

Little do they realize the horrible truth, seven, hell maybe seventy thousand.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Xavin on February 14, 2011, 10:33:43 am
Xavin, life in America is EXACTLY as seen on TV. All our cops are Dirty Harry, our cars are all far too big and all our women are beautiful. It is our burden in life.

 :D

I was trying to avoid being overly wordy (I know Sandy hates that), but maybe I should have expanded on my "some (albeit limited) knowledge of life in the US" to make clear that I am not basing my knowledge on the portrayal of the US in film and TV (or, rather - since the influence of such portrayals is probably unavoidable - I am at least aware of the biases imposed).
Some of my knowledge is personal experience. Some is sourced from friends and colleagues. Some is from reading. In all cases with due regard for the likely veracity of the source.

Plane said it better than me:
I am well adapted to the enviornment I grew up in .

I am adapted to being British. There would be a cost associated with becoing adapted to being American. I am aware that my information is incomplete, and my assessment might change with additional data. However, currently for me the (perceived) costs outweigh the (perveived) benefits - i.e. for me it is better to be British. I expect that to be true for most Brits. I would expect the opposite to be true in most cases for someone adapted to being an American. I am aware of exceptions (in both directions).

The point was that "better" is subjective, and I've now used far more words than I intended in order to make it (sorry Sandy).
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 10:36:36 am
The only way to be sure about 9 11 is to test it, let's build a couple duplicates, burn one and blow up the other. Otherwise, we can not know. This is angels on the head of a pin stuff and it leads nowhere but back to itself. Like a soccer ball, it has no end and no point.

The above statement is not going to do a damned bit of good, is it?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 14, 2011, 10:36:43 am
And WTCs 1, 2, and 7 remain the only skyscrapers ever to collapse due to fire.  One Meridien Plaza burned for 18 hours, so fiercely that firefighters stopped trying to put it out and just tried to keep it from spreading to other buildings.  Aluminum window frames melted.  Areas inside, away from windows, thus away from access to more oxygen . . . merely charred.  And it didn't collapse.  Its structural integrity was (maybe still is) debated -- but it didn't collapse.  The Madrid hotel fire, the weirdly-kinked building (that must be some unconventional construction!) in Beijing a couple years ago -- no collapse.  Never before, and never since, has fire damage collapsed a skyscraper.  So, "fire is the real enemy"?  Huh.

I don't like 911 crap ... but lets go :

Before the fire the building was impacted by 115,680 kg airliner flying at at least 400 km/h, which delivered a great deal of energy to the steal structure.

Whatever termal insulation there was at the zone hit was likely mostly destroyed ... then the fire could weaken the steel which has already taken a great deal of mechanical deformation.

Once the hit floor ceded the weigh of all the upper portion of the building collapsed on the rest.

There is no conspiracy here, the aircraft impact and the fire did it.

Back on Ceres :

Faggot showing Ass to people is a violation of NAP/ZAP ?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 10:51:43 am
Xavin,

I was not adapted to the place of my birth, a working class neighborhood near Midway Airport in Chicago. I bailed years and years ago. I went looking for what does suit me, came close a few times but the human world is fluid and things change. What suited me once changed and then does not, funky neighborhoods gentrified to death, that sort of thing. As soon as I finish building this boat, maybe Alaska. Unless I can find that elusive Interplanetary Time Bus stop.

That seems to be my burden in life and I love it.

I have family who never left that hive, they are very adapted to that life and we confuse each other greatly.

Bottom line I guess, it's all subjective. Enjoy Britain, at least we have the damned weather in common.

Spudit, building an ark in a small town on Puget Sound, Washington

Added what every kid from the South Side wants for Valentines Day,

 Tradition!

http://www.auto-ordnance.com/PA-1TH_ta.html
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 14, 2011, 11:02:22 am
The Business Cycle is an Austrian School invention.
I'm pretty sure that the term "business cycle" existed long before there was an identifiable Austrian school of economics.

The Austrian school is against government intervention.
Wrong.  The Austrian school of economics tries to be "value-free" (as all economics should be).  Ideally, an economist would analyze the effects of a particular action, without regard to whether the action or its effects are considered good or bad.  Of course, the economist's personal values may cause unconscious biases, but that's true of any field of inquiry.

Austrian economics does show that free markets lead to prosperity and stability and peace.  Since most people prefer those things, most Austrian economists (in fact, all of them that I know about) favor free markets.  But a hypothetical Austrian economist who preferred other things, such as national conquest or national self-sufficiency or national glory, would favor government controls.

People who favor free markets for non-economic reasons (such as morality) would be more likely to learn about Austrian economics than people who favor government controls for non-economic reasons.  That's another reason why people who know Austrian economics favor free markets.  But if Austrian economics was learned by most people who studied economics, then there would be many people who know Austrian economics who favor government controls.

But I don't think the Austrians thought even a totally free market, if one ever existed, would avoid the cycle altogether.
That is true, with the understanding that "cycle" is a misnomer.  A free market would have naturally have ups and downs, with the worst of them affecting a large fraction of economic activity.  But they wouldn't be anything like the ups and downs that are caused or greatly exacerbated by central banks, fiat money, and other government controls.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 11:19:20 am
Taunting, no.

Showing of buttocks, insults and rude questions of sexual orientation are not violations of ZAP, though they sure aren't very nice.

Terrible thought, a drunken fool like this starting a war.

The Canadians and Americans here will get this analogy. It's like in baseball, and what isn't, touch the umpire and you're out of the game. Stand nose to nose with your hands in your pockets screaming at him at top of your lungs and you are not.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: macsnafu on February 14, 2011, 11:52:05 am
Business cycles existed before Austrian economics--what the Austrians came up with was the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.  Interestingly, Keynesians seem to have no theory for business cycles, unless "animal spirits" counts as a theory.

Any economy is going to have ups and downs, but the business cycle has certain features that could only occur with a central bank and/or fractional reserve banking.

ABCT does not require businessmen to be stupid.  Far from it.  But if your competitors are going to get low-interest money for their expanding operations, are you going to sit back and do nothing?  Even if you know the boom cannot last?
Coming up with a sustainable expansion plan is more difficult if the interest rates are not reliable indicators of available savings.

And good economics does not require ignorance on the part of economic actors.  The economic factors are too complex and diffuse for knowledge to have that kind of selection bias affect.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 14, 2011, 12:03:38 pm
Faggot showing Ass to people is a violation of NAP/ZAP ?

More like "drunk" than "Faggot," don'tcha think? 

As pertains to aggression, just how aggressive is it to display portions of the human external anatomy from some meters away?  I mean, even if the intention were "Hello, sailor!" instead of "I think you're a buncha poopy-heads!" there couldn't be any connotation of aggression conveyed by such gesticulations, right? 

Doesn't seem to come under the heading of "fighting words," and there's not even any sort of breach of the peace along the lines of wrongfully shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Unless, of course, those UW troops are in such a severe state of lackanookie that the sight of a drunken abusive Belter's butt constitutes undue incitement.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 14, 2011, 12:16:26 pm
Apparently, mainstream economists believe that this theory requires bankers to be stupid.
There are some mainstream economists (I'd guess not very many) who have some understanding of Austrian economics and disagree with what it actually says.  But, from what you said, most mainstream economists are shockingly ignorant, and it's hard to see why.  Austrian economists haven't been reticent.  Their work is available (much of it online these days) for anyone--including mainstream economists--to read.  I suppose that for many of them (giving them the benefit of the doubt), it's simply easier to follow the herd than to try to understand.

But for some well-known economists, such as Paul Krugman, it can't be ignorance.  His misunderstanding of Austrian economics has been clearly corrected many times.  Since he repeats the same untruths, the only conclusion (other than some weird mental disorder) is that he is lying.


Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 14, 2011, 12:20:58 pm
A free market would have naturally have ups and downs, with the worst of them affecting a large fraction of economic activity.  But they wouldn't be anything like the ups and downs that are caused or greatly exacerbated by central banks, fiat money, and other government controls.


In a market free of both dirigiste regulations (politicians and bureaucrats "picking winners" and striving to "spread the wealth around") and the theft of value by way of currency debauchment, the operations of the market tend to provide critically important negative feedback

The "ups and downs" that occur in a market not subjected to meddling by government thugs tend to be limited in scope, small in effect, and transient in duration.  People looking out for their own self-interest, without any expectation of civil government coming in to rescue them from folly or predation, have incentives to be cautious in the marketplace.

Failing caution, they're not in the marketplace very long.  They get clobbered, plucked, and chucked, in the process serving as bad examples for other market entrants. 

A fair analogy is the way in which an inadequately wired building experiences electrical overloads on a particular circuit or two, causing fuses to burn out.

Rather than address the faults in the circuit that's been overloading, the person tired of replacing fuses simply shoves a copper penny into the fusebox.

And the building burns down.

When anyone says "central banks" and wants to discuss the roles of such institutions in the economic life of a nation, all I have to do is think of that copper penny.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 14, 2011, 01:59:20 pm
The question was, would it have been better for Americans to remain British subjects?

I responded that Americans are better off than Brits, 200+ years after the fact.

Consider that the reasons for the Secession were - as listed in the Declaration - taxes and vexatious bureaucrats - then it makes sense to use those same criteria. I don't know what our Brits consider important - maybe they like a government which fears citizens so much that it has CCTVs all over the place, and knife-control laws, and so forth. Maybe Brits prefer to pull their own teeth. Maybe Brits like high taxes and a moribund economy which survives only by dint of copious faith-based money creation.

Americans don't. That's why we're complaining before this country becomes as bad as the UK.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 14, 2011, 02:17:19 pm
Quote
Before the fire the building was impacted by 115,680 kg airliner flying at at least 400 km/h, which delivered a great deal of energy to the steal structure.

Whatever termal insulation there was at the zone hit was likely mostly destroyed ... then the fire could weaken the steel which has already taken a great deal of mechanical deformation.

Once the hit floor ceded the weigh of all the upper portion of the building collapsed on the rest.

The buildings were designed to take the impact of at least one "fully loaded" aircraft very similar in size and mass.  So we can discount the physical damage as causing the free-fall collapse.

That leaves fire.  No fire, before or since, has ever collapsed a high-rise building -- and the 9/11 fires were brief, small, and oxygen-starved.  Compare the Mandarin Hotel fire:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg  which is engulfed in flame.  Or One Meridien Plaza (http://www.wtc7.net/cache/sgh_meridian.htm), which burned intensely for 18 hours.  Both buildings were still standing at the end -- weakened, certainly.  But they did not collapse.  Do you see the difference?

If it was the fire, the THREE buildings in NY were criminally shoddy.  It's amazing a high wind didn't shatter them.  But there are no lawsuits.

Quote
The above statement is not going to do a damned bit of good, is it?

Not really.  "I can't know" is only a half-truth.  I maybe can't know positively what did happen (on 9/11 or my last birthday or whenever) -- but there are things I most certainly can know positively did NOT happen.

A crime was committed.  It would be a scary thing if, in the face of a crime, we all said, "We can't recreate the situation, so it's 'angels on a pin' who did it."
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 03:10:30 pm
Clarification of a clarification.

Are "we", let's say the people in a Pennsylvania town founded in 1740 and there are plenty, better off than in 1775?

It means 2 states, 2 sets of conditions. Are today's townsfolk better off as in more freedoms, more protected from authority, taxed less, in general screwed with less, than their ancestors in 1775?  Not should we have stayed British or split the difference and ended up Canadian.

We have at least 3 Brits and a Canadian here, Their governments are far better than most and if they like it that way, swell. Chicago, NY, LA and the rest are closer to their ideal than mine, which is why I don't live in any of those places. But for those who do, enjoy!

Nope.

Pretend there was an apothecary shop in that town in 1775 and now the very same family owns a pharmacy in the very same building. Compare the quality of life regarding those parameters, not the existence of antibiotics or TV. Is the pharmacist taxed and screwed with more than the apothecary?

This regards City Hall and points upwards in government. The churches' morality police were vastly more powerful in 1775 than today. At least until President Palin.

I say yes on both screwing with and taxes, I doubt the olde timer paid a quarter of his earnings in Crown taxes even with customs and excises.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 03:32:28 pm
Clarification of a clarification of a clarification.

Enough already, get it right the first time, damnit!

Ahem, Terry is right, the list given in the Declaration was long and ugly.

The Southern States sent similar lists to Mr. Lincoln and we could send much the same to Mr. Obama today. The more things change...

For one example, my Ex is addicted to those damned Law and Order shows. They creep me out. Cops cleverly lying to suspects, intruding on private spaces, kicking in doors without warrants, endless repitition of the concept of probable cause as a replacement for a search warrant, not the grounds for one. Yet the shows are popular and the sheeple sit and stare and learn "how it is".

Geez, TV, and don't even get me started on Sesame Street.

Spudit, 2 and a half years without a TV.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 14, 2011, 04:57:09 pm
If we could have frozen the state of affairs of 1775 , then we'd be better - lower taxes, fewer regulations, and so forth. No doubt of it.

But, would that require freezing everything else - the level of technology, for example?

I'd rather ask "What kind of revolution can make things better for our children? Are we doomed to watch the government ratchet up ever more and more control over our lives?"

History suggests a few instances where governments did back off, to one degree or another.

I remain convinced that people need to build - or at least imagine - replacements for government institutions, before a revolution can truly succeed. This is why I encourage people to engage directly in home-schooling, self-defense, and building their financial safety nets now, rather than waiting for the revolution. These three items supplant most of what government claims to do for us.



Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 05:16:42 pm

I remain convinced that people need to build - or at least imagine - replacements for government institutions, before a revolution can truly succeed. This is why I encourage people to engage directly in home-schooling, self-defense, and building their financial safety nets now, rather than waiting for the revolution. These three items supplant most of what government claims to do for us.

Absolutely right and very well put.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 14, 2011, 05:27:04 pm

The planned engineering for the World Trade Center buildings called for heat-resistant concrete applied to the steel structural elements so as to provide optimal survivability when hit by fire.  True, the designers planned for the buildings to survive the impact of a loaded Boeing 707 jet aircraft.  The lateral stability of the tube-frame construction method seemed in fact to have delivered this quality.  The designers even planned to make the buildings capable of sustaining the kinds of fires that come with kerosene-based jet fuels splashing about inside.

But the environmentalists stepped in during construction.  There was not yet sufficient proof of a causal link between asbestos in construction and mesothelioma when these buildings started going up.  The heat-resistant concrete aggregate to be sprayed upon the structural members of the buildings got a great deal of its fire protection character from the incorporation of asbestos, and an asbestos-containing mixture was employed in the erection of the lower floors of each tower.

The conspiracy theorists here tend to come up with things they say are hard to explain, and they don't claim much certainty in their explanations. They are mostly claiming that the official story cannot be true.

You however are presenting a version of the official story and talking like you do know it's true.

If any of the conspiracy theorists are right, the US government would be creating cover stories that sound superficially plausible. And they would be adjusting various records to be consistent with the cover stories, although they would not go to absurd lengths to do that.

So it is not enough to repeat cover stories that sound superficially reasonable. The one you give above sounds particularly like a cover story because they blame environmentalists for the fall of the towers. People who invent cover stories like to include details that lots of people want to believe. Lots of people would be happy to believe that environmentalists tried to interfere with the free market and caused a disaster by doing so.

So the fact that there are cover stories that sound kind of plausible doesn't really tell us much. Ideally we would look at the data and decide for ourselves. But in reality each special discipline really does have special knowledge, and we can't expect to understand all that well just from a general knowledge of math and physics and chemistry plus some undergrad engineering courses. We can make a good stab at it, but there's a strong chance we'll be wrong because of special knowledge we don't have.

You might be much more convincing if you provide links. But sometimes links tend to persuade people against, instead. Like, what would you think if somebody claimed to have a special understanding of anthropology which is different from the mainstream anthropologists, and his special knowledge shows him that some races are inferior to other races. And then when he presents his evidence -- genetic evidence or bones or whatever -- his links are always to racist websites which present selected data which has the same slant he does? Wouldn't that make you doubt? It could be true, but it could be that the blogger he quotes made things up, or carefully misinterpreted the data, or chose just the data which tended to back up his ideas and ignored the rest. You wouldn't know whether it was wrong without actually looking at the data that regular anthropologists present, but wouldn't the source raise doubts?

Similarly, if you find climate change deniers present their data, and their links are to explanations on climate change denial websites and not to scientific results, wouldn't that be a warning sign? It's likely that they are copying the arguments that somebody else has created, maybe without actually understanding the situation.

So, are you an engineer who does this kind of work? If so I'd be particularly interested in your opinions. Various of us might have technical questions that you could answer, which would both help to educate us and prove your expertise. It's hard for anybody to prove they are who they say they are on the internet, but if it's plain you know your stuff technically then your opinions will hold a lot of weight.

On the other hand if you are just somebody who quotes the usual lines that are supposed to shut up the conspiracy theorists, that isn't nearly as interesting.

Quote
7 WTC - the lower building - had 24,000 gallons of Diesel fuel stored within,

I think I heard conflicting stories about the amount, but maybe what I heard was the maximum amount, when the storage was full. Do you have a link?

Quote
and while in construction had been built with fire protection using a gypsum-based coating rated to provide the steel elements with two hours of lateral structural integrity and three hours of protection for the steel vertical supports.  The lateral fall of debris from the North Tower caused damage and started fires in building 7, and when the fires couldn't be extinguished because of a succession of failures in suppression systems, 7 WTC came down, too.

That tends to be the way big accidents happen. One unforeseen event, followed by a series of mistakes, miscalculations, and further accidents. No one of them would have done it but put together they do.

And for 9/11 we had a collection of independent series of mistakes. There was the one about putting the data together to notice the plan was on. There was the one about the interceptors. There was the one about the buildings collapsing. There was the one about the "training exercise" scheduled that day where they would pretend that hijacked airliners were in the air, so when hijacked airliners really did get reported they thought it was the exercise. It took a complicated set of interlocking mistakes to let 9/11 happen.

I'd like be figure that's unbelievable. But, well, it could happen. "Whatever is not inspected, is neglected." The fireproofing on all three buildings may have been neglected -- for example by building subcontractors cutting corners. And when the immediate concern is to finish on time and within budget, likely the inspections were skimped. Get expensive delays for problems that will only show up years later if there's a serious fire?

The interceptors probably got stood down repeatedly over the previous years. Very rare that they're needed.

Why not have a drill with a fake emergency? That's part of inspecting the system. If you don't do it, how will you find out what's being neglected?

It could have been sheer accident that the hijackings happened on the one single day that they could succeed. It's possible.

Quote
As for the velocity of collapse as the floors of the North and South Towers came down, I do not credit any assertion of the speed of descent as telling anything about this characteristic without some hellacious observational data measuring the rate of collapse.  An eyeball estimate, especially on such a scale, is not to be relied upon.

Weren't there videos? And the video frame rate is probably known. Maybe it was a little slow or a little fast, but not a lot. It should be possible to measure the distance fallen per frame, and do something with that. Particularly if there's some object in the picture which can detect the video wobbling. Without that you could get some noise in the signal from camera movement. It would likely tend to average out, though.

You could ask for links to the best studies the people here know about. Maybe they know something pretty good. Or maybe not.

Quote
In the assertion that "Energy was needed to disintegrate that concrete core," with wonderment as to "why the core pulverized" and we did not see "the core [of each tower] standing like a spindle," there is a profound misunderstanding of the nature of tube-frame structural design as well as either deliberate or inadvertent ignorance of the effects of torque within each of the towers as the floors collapsed, at first because of fire-induced structural integrity loss on the levels immediately affected by the conflagrations, later because of the "pancaking" accumulations of weight beyond any possibility of lower levels supporting these loads. 

There wouldn't have had to be that much twisting - torque - with the successive floor by floor falls for the structure of the core to become fatally compromised.  Recall that each of these buildings was designed to stand on the basis of its integrity as a system.  The core was not devised to handle lateral or rotational stress to any significant extent at all.  That was the "job" of the structural elements on the outside.

This is exactly the sort of assertion that benefits from evidence that you know what you're talking about. What you say sounds kind of plausible to me, but I don't really understand. I learned this stuff once to my satisfaction, but I never designed anything bigger than 8x8x8 feet. When I haven't done my homework I can't claim I understand it, maybe I just think I understand.

So my image here is three concentric rings. The core, the outside frame, and the middle ring between them. The middle ring on the floors on fire fails, breaks free of the rest and falls. that makes the layer below that fall too, and the layer below that etc. Meanwhile the core and the outside layer stand, and then they crumble. When they do, all the floors above come down at once, perfectly straight down. The center core might crumble because once the middle layer is gone there's nothing to keep it from twisting enough to break it -- it depends on the middle to maintain contact with the outer rim which is the strong part that keeps the center from turning. Can we see anything twist in the videos? I don't recall that but I wasn't looking for it, and the core could twist without the outside twisting. It's solidly connected above and below, but it isn't connected in the few floors that already have the middle layer gone.

Is that what you're saying happened?

Do you understand this yourself? Have you done your homework? Or do you trust somebody else who makes these claims? There's no dishonor in trusting somebody. Just, others might not trust the same authority.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 06:09:47 pm
Towers fall down go boom. Meanwhile, back on Ceres,

Is this drunk anyone we care about?

How much time has passed since the troops arrived?

Does the hotel buy food, power, services with gold from Terra?

Where are the first four?

Does everyone know Ed?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 14, 2011, 06:24:23 pm
Is this drunk anyone we care about?
It depends on whether you care for performance art.

How much time has passed since the troops arrived?
A few days max, based on page 626.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on February 14, 2011, 07:19:39 pm
Quote
Nobody has ever given a convincing reason for the invasion of Iraq.

I have no idea who brought down the Twin Towers... and neither does anyone else, who wasn't involved.

I know I should let this go but its simply not in my nature.  I have ot at least say something.

The reason for going into Iraq was they were not complying with the terms of the treaty they signed after the first Gulf War.  Iraq's leadership was a threat.  Iraq's army was firing at US warplanes.  Iraq planned an assassination of Bush during the Clinton years.  Iraq was killing Kurds with gas.  We all saw the dead babies on the street.  We had more seasons for the invasion that we needed.  9/11 was the trigger event not the cause.

This, however, leaves out some important information.

First, the treaty Iraq signed after the first Gulf War was signed under duress.  Generally, contracts (which is what a treaty is) are not considered binding if one or more parties is coerced into it.

Second, the first Gulf War was started by the US government with the reasoning that it was doing so at the request of the Kuwaiti government.  This was after  representatives of the US government were informed of the Iraqi intent to do so (the reason given being that some Kuwaitis were "slant drilling" oil wells which terminated underneath Iraqi territory), and that those US government representatives responded that it had no objections.   As a result, Saddam had reason to believe that the US government was not trustworthy and could not be trusted to abide by any contracts.

That the Iraqi government used chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians (and that much of this weaponry was provided by, or with the approval of, the US government) is somewhat beside the point.   We have two governments here, neither of which -- as is the nature of governments -- was either ethical or honorable.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: GlennWatson on February 14, 2011, 07:30:05 pm
All treaties are signed under duress.  We won, they lost.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on February 14, 2011, 07:46:46 pm
All treaties are signed under duress.  We won, they lost.

Not all treaties are signed under duress; in fact, most are not.  Further, just because some thug "wins" using coercion, the loser (which may also qualify as a thug) has every right to respond to aggressor.  Might does not make right.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 14, 2011, 07:53:21 pm
Towers fall down go boom. Meanwhile, back on Ceres,

Is this drunk anyone we care about?

How much time has passed since the troops arrived?

Does the hotel buy food, power, services with gold from Terra?

Where are the first four?

Does everyone know Ed?

<shake, shake, shake>

Magic 8-Ball says, "Concentrate and ask again"

<shake, shake, shake>

Magic 8-Ball says, "Better not tell you now"

Sorry, I only shake it twice...
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: UncleRice on February 14, 2011, 09:08:36 pm
There are nickel iron asteroids out there with cubic miles of damned near tool steel diluted with impurities like gold. How many mining ships could that silly war fleet have bought anyway?

Yeah, this has bugged me about this conflict between the UW and the Belters since the beginning of the strip.  The asteroid belt is an environment where it's just about raining soup.  Why would the UW not be doing much to establish its captive corporate entities out there extracting all that wealth (including the monetary metals which are obviously being horded in both the private sector and by politicians and bureaucrats to sequester their corruption-gained goodies)? 
Your trains of thought smack of honesty and hard work. The UW's action make much more sense if you operate under the Idea that the government people are 1 part lazy, 1 part school yard bully, 1 part armed robber, and 1 part con artist. They are too lazy to go collect resources and make stuff them selves, they thrive on the power to order people around and smack them when they are to slow, they get their wealth from taking it from others at gun point, and try to convince everyone they are doing all of this to the public for their own good.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 09:44:21 pm
Shake it three times and you know...  :D

Pretty close and it certainly describes them.

I stick to my statement about the UW being the bandits from the Magnificent 7/ 7 Samurai. Little do they know they face Yul Brenner with a sword, so to speak.

And welcome, Uncle Rice, It's a good group but watch out for the guy with the robot.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 14, 2011, 09:44:55 pm
I've about had it with the WTC "planned implosion" crap.  I'm not a structural engineer, I'm a primary care physician.  I go with Sutton's Law (or as we liked to say when I was young and trying to figure out how to get bloodstains out of my white trousers, "When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras").  When they were under construction, the structural peculiarities of the two tallest buildings in the WTC complex caught my attention for a number of reasons, not least of which was a natural regard for their potential vulnerabilities to lateral and rotational forces. 

The tube-frame scheme was new to my understanding.  Doctors tend reliably to be the kind of people with minds that gather trivia, and I'm no exception.  But I do like this particular shovelful of adventitious bullshit:

Similarly, if you find climate change deniers present their data, and their links are to explanations on climate change denial websites and not to scientific results, wouldn't that be a warning sign? It's likely that they are copying the arguments that somebody else has created, maybe without actually understanding the situation.

Having been properly skeptical of the preposterous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis since it was first floated more than thirty years ago, I'm absolutely delighted to learn that this WTC conspiracy supporter is also a malignant idiot warmista who is still pushing the scientific fraud of all time in spite of the material that's come to light in the wake of that wonderful FOIA2009.zip information dump on 17 November 2009. 

Though I'm not going to do this guy's homework for him, I'm happy to  recommend Anthony Watts' Web log - Watts Up With That? - for honest access to valid information on the subject.  You sure as hell aren't going to get anything but suppressio veri, suggestio falsi out of RealClimate and the rest of those "Hockey Team" hosers online.

The principal reason why the decades prior to Climategate saw very little publication in the peer-reviewed journals covering climatology and associated disciplines is that among their other violations of professional ethical standards, the C.R.U. correspondents and their allies had been perverting peer review and either co-opting or pressuring editorial authority to prevent their honest colleagues from publishing in scientific conferences and periodicals the results of research which served to refute or even call into question the AGW hypothesis. 

We must bear in mind that especially since Hansen's appearance before Algore's U.S. Senate committee circus in 1988, the preponderance of federal grant funding in climatology and related fields has been allocated to applicants who take as given the ability of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide to induce tropospheric temperature forcing such that the global temperature must be significantly and adversely increased thereby. 

The running joke in almost all scientific disciplines over the past couple of decades has been that unless you work the "global warming is coming" and "CO2 is evil" notions into your grant application somewhere, you can forget about getting funded.  The government thugs like man-made climate catastrophe.   Remember Mencken's classic observation?

"...the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."

The methodologies of the AGW fraudsters have been subjected to reasoned and scrupulous criticism from the beginning.  Before the scientific literature began to be effectively closed by the warmists to dispute, there were plenty of established theoreticians and experimentalists who condemned the premise as extraordinarily far-fetched, and who drew the methods of the AGW proponents into exacting scrutiny which revealed fatal flaws from conception through execution to conclusion. 

Despite this political support for the "Cargo Cult Science" of the AGW cabal (and the suppression, both active and passive, of sound scientific inquiry into atmospheric physics, meteorology, and other areas of research), the accumulation of information leading to the debunking of the AGW fraud was progressing long before the FOIA2009.zip archive hit the 'Net. 

For example, the U.S. Navy has to have accurate information on levels of temperature and salinity at various depths in oceans and seas all over the world.  Such information is of vital importance in both submarine and antisubmarine warfare, and the sorts of deliberate data corruption undertaken by the warmists who had slimed into control of surface temperature datasets over the past three decades could not be permitted. 

Thus we've got multiple-depth temperature data - courtesy of sensor suites like the enormous Argo system - which show that the oceans are consistently cooling despite the fact that the AGW hypothesis requires that the heat supposedly trapped by man-made atmospheric CO2 must be causing those water masses to increase in temperature. 

Don't rely on "Wiki-bloody-pedia" for accurate reflection on the Argo system's reports.  Every grope and greasy grab imaginable is being exerted there to handwave this inconvenient truth away.

Unfortunately for the warmistas, both the Submarine Service and the ASW people have got to have accurate ideas of where oceanic thermoclines can be found, and how they're likely to affect passive and active sound ranging.  The environmentalist "Watermelon" clowns don't seem to have any idea about how the fields of meteorology and oceanography and especially climatology began as efforts to support military operations. 

Similarly - and perhaps most damningly - there's the analysis of ten-plus years of information collected by NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) satellite system, which has revealed that the much-touted (and as we learned in the Climategate programming code dump, utterly hacked and duplicitous) climate models bear no relationship to reality.   

And that did get published, in Geophysical Research Letters, "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data."

See: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

More and more information is getting into publication, largely because the editorial officers of scientific periodicals have had the proverbial blowtorch put to their butts by Climategate, and I expect that the professional misconduct of the past several decades will find remediation as more and more of the AGW gangsters get dragged down and destroyed, political whitewashes like the Muir Russell hokum in the U.K. notwithstanding. 

So let's see.... We've got us a WTC conspiracy peddler who likes to snerk about "climate change deniers," meaning that he's an AGW True Believer. 

Well, falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus, right?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 10:10:45 pm
Passion, Tucci78, I like that.

I wonder what would happen if someone reasonable, sober and with his trousers up went over to chat with the invaders. I expect Ed will.

Another guy usually wears the devils advocate hat here but I'll wear it for a minute.

Could be invaders is the wrong word for those guys. They just showed up, after all, and went to their rooms. They have not done anything hostile. Forgetting their haircuts and funny suits, they might as well be manufacturers reps looking to set up an office.

Of course they are not, but what have they done other than show up and fizz off a drunk?  They don't fit in. They are "of that sort" and we don't want 'their kind" here because 'those people are like that".

It doesn't take an MD :) to recognize a knee jerk reflex. In the Cerians or in us.

There, I took the damned hat off, now what are these stormtroopers the hell up to?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 14, 2011, 10:23:52 pm
I gotta ask a warming question Tucci78 but I have hopes of leaving the events of 10 years ago in NY behind us and don't want to start a new off subject conversation. Still I have to ask.

No baiting, no beligerance and I hope no button pushing but why is the ice melting up north? The Gulf Stream somehow? Soviet damming and diversion of Siberian rivers changing the Arctic Ocean's salinity? Are we just reaching that stage in the interglacial?

Just asking.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 14, 2011, 10:47:18 pm
http://www.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/~isobe/WTC_genko_e.htm


WTC theroy with excessive math.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Tucci78 on February 15, 2011, 01:38:45 am
I gotta ask a warming question ... why is the ice melting up north? The Gulf Stream somehow? Soviet damming and diversion of Siberian rivers changing the Arctic Ocean's salinity? Are we just reaching that stage in the interglacial?

Such melting is nothing new.  Again referring to Anthony Watts' Web log (at http://wattsupwiththat.com/ ), I can suggest using the "search" feature and entering the terms "north pole ice" to pull up a number of entries aggregated on that site in recent years.

There is a common MSM misperception of the persistence of Arctic sea ice throughout the summer months which puzzles the hell out of me.  I'm old enough to remember when American nuclear submarines in the late 1950s were not merely transiting the North Pole but surfacing there. 

From time to time in the recent historical records (over the past two hundred years, with particular emphasis on the decades since the waning of the Little Ice Age) Arctic ice thicknesses and distributions have been noted to diminish in the summer months and to disappear in big patches not infrequently.  Because this is nothing new, the more recent "damming and diversion of Siberian rivers" or other human-induced geophysical changes don't seem to play much of a role, if any. 

In a comment on summer Arctic ice abatement several years ago, dated 3 October 2007,* Anthony Watts had written:
Quote
In simpler terms, polar wind patterns changed and blew sea ice further south to warmer waters than it normally would. Sea ice can easily be wind driven.

I wonder if that’s the same mechanism that caused loss of Arctic sea ice in the 1920-30′s?

The Arctic is almost as warm now as it was seventy years ago. Unsurprisingly, Arctic ice has diminished. But, as Polyakov et al.show, the long-term changes are “generally statistically insignificant”. But there’s more ice in Antarctica now. It seems that points more to a natural, cyclical variation on a global scale when one pole diminishes while another gains.

The tendency of the malignant idiot warmistas to hyperventilate about variations in global conditions which are anything but unprecedented - even within living memory - is one of the traits by which my personal attention was drawn sharply to their methodological gormlessness when first they began to seek prominence in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

Yes, there's episodic summer ice melt in the Arctic Ocean.  Is it of any significance with regard to the global climate?  In other words, is it evidence supporting the contention that significant adverse atmospheric or oceanic warming is taking place?

No indication of such has yet been demonstrated.  Yeah, there's "global warming," but only in the sense that the same very slow, irregular but continuing rebound from the end of the Little Ice Age has been going on for better than a century and a half without significant acceleration, and it doesn't look as if we're going to see the temperatures restored to those prevailing in the Medieval Climate Optimum (also known as the "Medieval Warm Period") anytime in the next century or so. 

===
* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/03/nh-sea-ice-loss-its-the-wind-says-nasa/
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: macsnafu on February 15, 2011, 08:53:12 am

Of course they are not, but what have they done other than show up and fizz off a drunk?  They don't fit in. They are "of that sort" and we don't want 'their kind" here because 'those people are like that".

If somebody really wanted to go to Ceres and be left alone, I don't think there'd be a problem.  But when you have a gross or more of people in UW uniforms, especially given the recent interactions with UW, then you have reasons to believe that they are not there just to be left alone.  If they were, they would have already communicated their intentions.

Naturally, it doesn't justify taking action against them until they've actually done something, but it does justify keeping a close eye on them and being prepared to act.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 15, 2011, 09:11:01 am
Regarding that "wonderful" British experience:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-police-order-protect-garden-sheds.html#ixzz1DvJg7E1U

Villagers have been ordered by the British police to not use glass with wire mesh because it might injure burglars; must not provide an "unsafe working environment" for the poor dears, eh?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 15, 2011, 10:01:35 am
Quote
Presumably they believe that there would be a lot of Belters who would welcome police protection

Thats the heart of it I think.  Earth leadership must be a strange mixture of ingnorance and hatefullness.

In ETF, the UW govt is the EFT equivalent of todays Fox News, Ignorant and hateful.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 15, 2011, 11:21:19 am
I have not had a TV in over 2 years and may never again. I don't miss the subliminal negativity, you'll be a pariah unless you use Selsun Blue and buy a Ford and get a pretty girl. Bleech.
But while house sitting for friends, I found myself locked into the documentary block, if you get my drift. I'm still a sucker for a Modern Marvels on Molybdenum.

However when I was plugged in I liked Foxnews just fine. O'Rielly got real old real fast, then Cavuto, but the rest same old stuff. If they have a bias and they do, a bit, it makes for a good balance. CNBC lists to port, Fox to starboard, it balances just fine. If not, lots of buttons on the remote my friend.

There, a guy with no tube speaks out on TV he don't watch.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 15, 2011, 11:28:55 am
Great link Terry, thanks. I passed it on.

But what about all the cameras?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: macsnafu on February 15, 2011, 11:36:06 am
I have not had a TV in over 2 years and may never again.

I have a TV, but I mainly use it for watching videocassettes and dvd's.  Especially dvd's of old TV shows--they're much more enjoyable without commercial interruptions.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 15, 2011, 11:48:14 am
I've about had it with the WTC "planned implosion" crap.  I'm not a structural engineer, I'm a primary care physician.

OK, you could just ignore all that. When you see something about WTC just page down and forget it. No need to parade your need to grasp at certainty.

Quote
I go with Sutton's Law (or as we liked to say when I was young and trying to figure out how to get bloodstains out of my white trousers, "When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras").

Good one! So, when the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened you figured it was just the North Vietnamese attacking US ships, right? And the USA went after Noriega because he was smuggling drugs? It's usually simplest and easiest to just believe the top cover story.

Quote
When they were under construction, the structural peculiarities of the two tallest buildings in the WTC complex caught my attention for a number of reasons, not least of which was a natural regard for their potential vulnerabilities to lateral and rotational forces. 

The tube-frame scheme was new to my understanding.  Doctors tend reliably to be the kind of people with minds that gather trivia, and I'm no exception.
 

So you predicted the problem when WTC was first built? And you have a theory for why it fell straight? Here's mine -- all the structural supports got damaged when the planes hit, but not enough for the towers to fall then. Later when each tower fell there were essentially no lateral forces, and everything from the damage up fell together -- a tremendous weight. So the little things that could have slowed one side or another as each lower floor collapsed were small forces (compared to the falling mass) that on average cancelled each other out.

I don't know whether that can be true but it seems somewhat plausible to me. Provided the core and the outer layer collapse along with everything else when the first collapse happens, then there's no big problem.

Of course, if it could fall straight still it could also have been mined to fall straight. More examination of the wreckage might have provided evidence about that, but the examination was not done and apparently not permitted? And if it did fall straight by accident, still there could have been a conspiracy that involved just airplanes, that did not even plan for the towers to fall. In fact we know there was a conspiracy, the question is only whether the officially-chosen conspirators were the ones (or the only ones) involved. So I consider this entirely a side issue. If there was definitive evidence of controlled demolition then I'd consider that proof that it wasn't just a few arabs hijacking planes. But I haven't seen definitive evidence. But if it could be shown that there was in fact no controlled demolition that would not be evidence that there was no still-secret conspiracy.

Quote
Similarly, if you find climate change deniers present their data, and their links are to explanations on climate change denial websites and not to scientific results, wouldn't that be a warning sign? It's likely that they are copying the arguments that somebody else has created, maybe without actually understanding the situation.

Having been properly skeptical of the preposterous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis since it was first floated more than thirty years ago,

As far as I know it was first proposed in 1896 by Arrhenius. He was a smart guy but he had limited data about an extremely complex system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Quote
I'm absolutely delighted to learn that this WTC conspiracy supporter is also a malignant idiot warmista who is still pushing the scientific fraud of all time in spite of the material that's come to light in the wake of that wonderful FOIA2009.zip information dump on 17 November 2009.

You are making a pair of incorrect assumptions, They fit your general methodology.

Quote
For example, the U.S. Navy has to have accurate information on levels of temperature and salinity at various depths in oceans and seas all over the world.  Such information is of vital importance in both submarine and antisubmarine warfare, and the sorts of deliberate data corruption undertaken by the warmists who had slimed into control of surface temperature datasets over the past three decades could not be permitted.

That sounds important. Has that data been declassified? It used to be it had to be kept secret so we wouldn't help the Russians use it for the same things we used it for. If they knew what we believed, they could both find flaws in it that they could exploit, and use it to correct possible flaws in their own work.

But now there's no reason not to publish it, right? So it's readily available for climate science?

Quote
And that did get published, in Geophysical Research Letters, "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data."

See: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

I looked at that. Lindzen. He's old-school. Throughout his career he has gotten into disputes where there are two alternate theories, and he demonstrates that there are problems with the other theory and then claims that his is correct. This is not scientific method but it is very human.

In this one, he uses "corrected" ERBE data to claim that tropical latitudes radiate more at higher temperatures. This would affect climate models which do not take it into account and so he argues that current climate models must be wrong. But of course all climate models have important things they don't take into account, and assuming his claim is verified then it will be useful to build models which do include the effect he describes.

Quote
So let's see.... We've got us a WTC conspiracy peddler who likes to snerk about "climate change deniers," meaning that he's an AGW True Believer.

You true believers tend to assume that anybody who doubts you must be the opposite kind of true believer. Try to get over that.

Quote
Well, falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus, right?

Wow! I would have thought as an MD you would know better than misapply that legal principle.

If a witness is known to lie under oath, then it makes sense to doubt the rest of his testimony too. You caught him lying under oath so anything else he says might be a lie.

But outside the law court -- have you ever made a misdiagnosis? If so, should we assume your diagnostic skills are entirely worthless and we would do better to diagnose by opening the book at random?

Have you ever held an opinion that you later decided was wrong? If so, should we assume that all of your opinions must be wrong and your judgement is worthless about everything?

Have you ever confidently quoted an authority who turned out later to be wrong or himself a liar? Does that mean everybody should completely discount anybody you quote?

I say, judge each idea on its own. You may come up with interesting and useful things here even though you have accepted the official line on WTC without sufficient evidence, and you have chosen to be a climate change denier without sufficient evidence, and you have assumed I am a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and a global warming hoaxer on utterly insufficient evidence. Even though you jump to a lot of conclusions, you still may be worth paying attention to.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 15, 2011, 01:31:25 pm
Quote
I remain convinced that people need to build - or at least imagine - replacements for government institutions, before a revolution can truly succeed.

http://saladin-avoiceinthewilderness.blogspot.com/2011/02/alternative-market-project-sneak.html
seeks to set up an alternative market system in advance of need.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Corydon on February 15, 2011, 01:44:05 pm
Regarding that "wonderful" British experience:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-police-order-protect-garden-sheds.html#ixzz1DvJg7E1U

Villagers have been ordered by the British police to not use glass with wire mesh because it might injure burglars; must not provide an "unsafe working environment" for the poor dears, eh?

Haha, have you ever read the Daily Mail?  It's not exactly a go-to source for great journalism.  But it gives me the excuse to post a link to the Daily Mail Headline Generator: (http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/)

Quote
ARE WORKING MOTHERS INFECTING THE CHURCH WITH AIDS?

Quote
COULD THE EURO MAKE DRIVERS OBESE?

Quote
COULD THE HOUSE PRICE CRASH GIVE YOUR CHILDREN SWINE FLU?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 15, 2011, 03:14:03 pm
Could we please go back to CERES ?

This whole 911 is not worth discussing for 4 reason :

1- The Towers was hit by an aircraft THEN subject to fire ... which more than enough to bring it down. The whole design doesn't seem to have been designed to support it. The whole ''the flames didn't reach melting point'' is ignorance of the laws of Phisics, steel loose at least 40 % of its strength at 400 celsius and taking into account the aircraft account, the increase of load due to the loss of the outer collunms and you have a critical faillure.

Simple gravity did the rest.

2- The whole conspiracy is lunatic, how the charge could even survive the aircraft impact or explode RIGHT at impact time is beyond me.

3- To invade Iraq the US had no need to to stage another attack ... Why taking down 2 tower in NY with airplanes and killing 3000 if you can have an US ship/aircraft put into danger and stage an incident.

4- It is the GOVERNMENT ... I don't think they can pull off such level of efficient cover up.

Back to Ceres :

The UW command is obviously underestimating the belters and think that they can go away with a low foot printing operations, after all these villagers don't have an army to speak off.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 15, 2011, 03:22:53 pm
Quote
4- It is the GOVERNMENT ... I don't think they can pull off such level of efficient cover up.

Manhattan Project.  100,000+ people involved and kept from the public for 25 years.

But if you really want to stick to Ceres, I ain't stopping ya.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 15, 2011, 03:32:25 pm
Absolutely right Sams

To quote me, Towers fall down go boom.

Next.

Could be they mistake the efficacy of long range weapons on a planet designed in good old  shopping mall modern. They would be fighting in decent pistol range. But then they are probably highly trained urban fighters, the sort of War I'd bet UW knows well.

Hey, part of gun accuracy is ballistic drop from gravity. But with damned little gravity the bullet could, in theory, still be moving and airborne at say 5 mph. Kinda cool.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 15, 2011, 04:25:37 pm
Regarding Belters and long-range planning, if I were a Belter, I'd borrow a page from Switzerland, and sponsor lots of shooting clubs. People would go shooting for competitive reasons; there'd be small prizes. As in Switzerland, a very high level of shooting skills would become the norm.

There is a story of a German General who was visiting his peer in Switzerland, and observed a shooting match where all of the competitors were trained to shoot at 300 meters. He said, "General, what would your 100,000 man army do if Germany lined up 200,000 soldiers at the borders?"

The Swiss General replied "Shoot twice, and go home."

Make a discount for bravado, the point still remains; the Swiss were trained at distances much longer than the Germans. Swiss snipers were not a small elite band; everyone was trained to these high levels of accuracy.

Expect the same of Belters. There'd be no compulsory attendance, but pride and social norms and enlightened self-interest would encourage a lot of people to stop at the range on a weekly basis, and to compete in the monthly matches.

They'd have a considerable advantage in knowing how to deal with low gravity and other weird conditions which affect all sorts of martial arts, including shooting.

There'd also be creative types who would brood about possible invasions and would think of ways to counter them. I'd expect a fair-sized war game crowd on Ceres and in the Beltway. After the attack by the UW, I'd expect that group to attract more volunteers.

Think about how the revolution in Egypt used internet, phones, faxes, and word of mouth to topple Mubarak. In Ceres, there would be the tanglenet.

I am curious: how robust is the tanglenet?


Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 15, 2011, 04:39:27 pm
I am curious: how robust is the tanglenet?

As defined, it cannot be tapped and it cannot be blocked. Of course, there are always other means, but not something that a government could defeat at anything less than astronomical costs.

Originally, the technology was pure hand-waving about about quantum entanglement. Recently, I came up with a cosmologically interesting explanation for how it could work. That supposition would also offer highly limited possibilities of instantaneous transportation across a million kilometers or a million light-years. No difference at all. I am working out how I can use it as a plot element in the future.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 15, 2011, 04:50:43 pm
I gotta ask a warming question ... why is the ice melting up north? The Gulf Stream somehow? Soviet damming and diversion of Siberian rivers changing the Arctic Ocean's salinity? Are we just reaching that stage in the interglacial?

There is a common MSM misperception of the persistence of Arctic sea ice throughout the summer months which puzzles the hell out of me.  I'm old enough to remember when American nuclear submarines in the late 1950s were not merely transiting the North Pole but surfacing there.

Sure, but so what? The "solid" part of the arctic ocean basicly has a bunch of ice mountains in it. They get affected by wind and water currents, and sometimes they move. They crush the ice ahead of them, which can add to their bulk, and they leave open water behind them which freezes at first in a thin layer. The submarines could break through up to around 3 feet of ice. They popped up into a little lake or an ice-covered lake, and that lake could get closed shut in 2 hours if the ice mountan changed direction.

Quote
From time to time in the recent historical records (over the past two hundred years, with particular emphasis on the decades since the waning of the Little Ice Age) Arctic ice thicknesses and distributions have been noted to diminish in the summer months and to disappear in big patches not infrequently.  Because this is nothing new, the more recent "damming and diversion of Siberian rivers" or other human-induced geophysical changes don't seem to play much of a role, if any.

We'd need to look at the numbers, right? This isn't a law court where you try to twist the wording to influence the jury's emotions.

Here's a link that looks pretty good to  me that's agreeably light on the numbers, but they hedge and hedge that they're just doing the best they can and their results are kind of tentative.
http://www.planetwater.ca/research/sea-ice.htm
 
Quote
In a comment on summer Arctic ice abatement several years ago, dated 3 October 2007,* Anthony Watts had written:
Quote
In simpler terms, polar wind patterns changed and blew sea ice further south to warmer waters than it normally would. Sea ice can easily be wind driven.

I keep wondering why denialists harp so much on that. "The patient's jaundice has nothing to do with the poison he was given. The jaundice is merely a function of changes in his liver." Sure, the changes in arctic ice come partly because of changes in wind patterns. Nothing to do with climate change, it's just normal everyday changes in wind patterns, nothing to see, move along.

Quote
Yes, there's episodic summer ice melt in the Arctic Ocean.  Is it of any significance with regard to the global climate?  In other words, is it evidence supporting the contention that significant adverse atmospheric or oceanic warming is taking place?

Yes, but not utterly definitive evidence. There's a lot of room to argue whether the result will be significantly adverse.

Quote
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/03/nh-sea-ice-loss-its-the-wind-says-nasa/

Figures. You don't quote the research but instead you quote a denialist website that got it from a press release. Would it have been so much trouble to dig out the original source? Then you wouldn't look like you were just another denialist getting your talking points only from denialist sources.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 15, 2011, 05:09:55 pm
Meanwhile,

back
on
Ceres
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on February 15, 2011, 06:35:07 pm

As defined, it cannot be tapped and it cannot be blocked. Of course, there are always other means, but not something that a government could defeat at anything less than astronomical costs.

Not directly addressing robustness, but significant to anti-government forces:

page=224  "Tanglenet cannot be eavesdropped on, traced, or jammed." "Any dissident group, rebels, smugglers, or even terrorists can communicate, share info and make plans in complete secrecy. "

page=486 Shows that tanglenet "ethernet cards" (interface between electronic equipment and the tanglenet) would be small enough and low power enough to implant in a human skull, so they could go into whatever is used for "smart phones" "PDAs" or desktop computers and hand-held cameras

Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 15, 2011, 06:36:39 pm
Could we please go back to CERES ?

This whole 911 is not worth discussing for 4 reason :

1- The Towers was hit by an aircraft THEN subject to fire ... which more than enough to bring it down.

If you're right, that would be reason to stop discussing why the Towers fell. A very different thing from the whole 911 conspiracy.

Quote
2- The whole conspiracy is lunatic, how the charge could even survive the aircraft impact or explode RIGHT at impact time is beyond me.

If explosive charges did survive on the floor below the impact, that would be enough. But again this is just the "controlled demolition" argument that is a small hypothetical part of the whole conspiracy.

Quote
3- To invade Iraq the US had no need to to stage another attack ... Why taking down 2 tower in NY with airplanes and killing 3000 if you can have an US ship/aircraft put into danger and stage an incident.

You're arguing about the motives of crazy conspirators. Al Qaeda could have made their point by another attack on a US embassy or warship or something, they didn't need to do 9/11. Same argument.

One somewhat-plausible idea is that a lot of US citizens were getting fed up with Israel and getting somewhat sympathetic to the various arabs the Israelis kept bombing. Once we had our own big terrorist attack we got more racist about arabs and a lot friendlier to Israel.

And we sort of went crazy for some years there. We put up with a lot of things that Americans in say 1980 would not have thought that US citizens would ever agree to. We wouldn't have done that over say an attack on a US warplane over Iraq.

Quote
4- It is the GOVERNMENT ... I don't think they can pull off such level of efficient cover up.

Unfortunately, only the US government can effectively investigate the US government. How efficiently can the US government investigate itself? I think that one is a wash.

But it leaves us without resolution. The official government claims about what happened are obviously flawed. The various conspiracy theorists have a large collection of weird theories and no more than a few of them could be right at the same time.

There's a saying that you're entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. But most facts about 9/11 are in dispute. For example, there is the claim that Cheney ordered the interceptors to stand down and so prevented them from shooting down the airliners.

But we know that really Cheney did order the interceptors to shoot down the planes. We have his own word for that, though not under oath.
http://www.911reality.com/interceptingjets.html

This site claims that in the entire decade before 9/11 there was only one intercept by military aircraft over the continental USA. That military planes were in general not allowed to intercept aircraft that overfly anything in the USA, and that there are no reports of it ever happening. And so Cheney did not have to tell them not to do it, because they would never have done it anyway.
http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html

They point out that it would take only one report of an aircraft being intercepted by US warplanes over the continental USA to prove them wrong, and that conspiracy theorists have never been able to find a single one.

The claim is that before 9/11 if a plane wandered into a restricted zone it was ordered away by radio, and then when the plane landed on its own wherever it chose to land, the pilot lost his license.

I tried to imagine that procedure at Groom Lake, where the USA had various secret things we wouldn't want spies to look at. A quick look turned up numerous claims of planes being intercepted there. Unfortunately it was all from sites run by UFO enthusiasts, without links to reputable sources. There was a repeated claim about a british video where a plane headed toward Groom Lake and continued after being warned and did get intercepted by four warplanes and forced to land. They didn't have a link to the video, though. People who wouldn't accept personal testimony from truthers sure aren't going to take it from UFO theorists.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread282337/pg1

I remember reading when I was young that Washington DC was generally a restricted area for civilian aircraft, and pilots could get into a lot of trouble flying into there. But now I pick up internet sites that claim this was simply not true, that it was OK to fly over pretty much anything except a small area, and the White House depended on radar at National Airport to tell them about overflights and there was nothing whatsoever to stop it from happening. Sixty planes overflew the White House in 2 years and nobody did anything about it except argue afterward.
http://www.911myths.com/html/overfly_white_house.html

Things I thought I knew, things I remember, stop being true on the Internet. It's like they're down the memory hole. But of course I may have misunderstood all along, or I may be misrembering now. I don't right off have a paper trail.

And if I did people could probably look at the typescript and decide it was forged.

Maybe these days you are entitled to your own facts. Or you should give in and accept whatever the official sources say today.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 15, 2011, 10:05:40 pm
Hmmm...


How could one ensure that the aircraft would strike the correct floor?

That is , the floor directly above the explosive charges?

I think this would be very difficult , and undependable ,if not impossible.

If charges were ever so carefully laid , the impact of an aircraft would make it likely that some ignition lines would be cut and unexploded charges would be discovered in the wreckage.

Trying to plan this as if it were an event in the future one runs into many things that make it likely to fail.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 15, 2011, 10:34:31 pm
How could one ensure that the aircraft would strike the correct floor?

That is , the floor directly above the explosive charges?
I don't think that's one of the flaws in the controlled demolition theory - which is the 9/11 "conspiracy theory" that has gotten the most attention. My understanding is that the things alleged to be anomalies in the Towers' collapse from the airplane impact alone would be dealt with by explosive charges planted in the core of the tower - perhaps from top to bottom, but most especially in the lower floors.

And since it is mainly the core that would need the charges, there's also no surprise that the people in the Towers don't remember anyone asking them to move office furniture out of the way in the months before September, 2001. Like other office buildings in one respect, the floorplan of the building is:

windows on the outside,
then offices,
then a hallway,
then the core, with the elevators in it

in concentric squares.

And the wall of the core was probably reinforced concrete behind the plaster.

So if someone was planting bombs for a surreptitious controlled demolition, they would get up on the roof of the WTC one fine day, go into where people go to service the elevators... and lower the bombs through ropes.

While I don't think highly of the heterodox theories, some people pointing out flaws have made mistakes too.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 16, 2011, 05:15:56 am

How could one ensure that the aircraft would strike the correct floor?

That is , the floor directly above the explosive charges?

In my imagination, there would be explosive charges on every floor and they would be rigged to go off at the right times in sequence. If they get cut at the right floor that's better than starting at the top, and making sure they get cut at the right floor is the next thing that's hard to make sure of.

But I don't know much about controlled demolition.

I don't particularly care for the controlled demolition theory because it seems to me like too contrived a plot. Too much that can go wrong. Too much work. And all it really gets the conspirators is to make sure the building doesn't fall sideways and make too much collateral damage, when as far as anybody knew it would probably not fall down at all.

On the other hand my argument that it should not be done that way has the fundamental flaw that it depends on the 9/11 conspirators (whoever they were) to be as sensible as I am. And if they thought like me, they wouldn't have done it at all.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 16, 2011, 07:55:27 am
Quote
I don't particularly care for the controlled demolition theory because it seems to me like too contrived a plot. Too much that can go wrong. Too much work.

But a lot less work, and a lot less expense, than remediating the Towers for asbestos.  (Someone earlier suggested that asbestos insulation was not completed, but even they didn't suggest there was no asbestos to be removed.)   And, given the insurance payout, on a new purchase (i.e., few payments had yet been made, so a small investment), probably a net income

And there still needs to be an energy source beyond sheer gravity to drop a weight through steel and concrete at nearly (you OK with 'nearly'?) the same speed as through empty air.  If the upper stories pulverized the lower ones, it cost energy to do so.  Therefore that energy was not available for acceleration. 

Quote
How could one ensure that the aircraft would strike the correct floor?  That is , the floor directly above the explosive charges?

?  I don't imagine a need for any such thing.  Afaik, demolition places charges on multiple floors in a tall building (especially lower ones), in order to, say, cut the I-beams into manageable pieces.  Place your charges (Q:  what was the security agency responsible for the towers and/or the complex?  If I was Kate Beckett, I'd want to know who they were and if they might have seen anything -- and who they had any financial or other relationships with) and arrange for a flashy event to captivate attention.

If the Towers were a human murder victim, the beneficiary of the victim's life insurance policy would at least warrant some suspicion.  If someone, prior to the murder, repeatedly said, "I very much want to do X and the only thing standing in my way is [victim],"  that someone would also be worthy of at least some suspicion.  Merely having incentive is, of course, proof of nothing, and I -- almost uniquely, as far as I can tell -- do not equate "suspicion" with "guilt".  And even so, I do want to at least investigate all possible suspects.  When the wrong person is convicted, the right person -- by definition -- is still at large and the threat to the community remains unabated. 

Those who rush to conviction are, it seems to me, accessories after the fact.

The FBI admits that "some" of the alleged hijackers "may have used" stolen identities; considering that some of the alleged hijackers are alive and well and some of them had passports stolen, we have to change "some may have used" to "some definitely used" stolen identities.  And if some were stolen, it's possible they all were (identified by DNA?  Where'd they get the original DNA to do the comparison?)  Thus we positively know that we do not know who the hijackers were.

Personal memory:  in the first few weeks after the event, when I still unquestioningly accepted the Arab-hijackers claim, I saw the original ObL video in which he praised the action -- and said he wished he had been responsible for it.  And for whatever reason,
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten (click on Osama's image) does not list 9/11 on his rap sheet.

Fair warning:  I will reply to any further mention of 9/11.  I won't make another one on my own and I won't ever start in on it -- but I will reply.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: macsnafu on February 16, 2011, 09:17:23 am
As for Ceres, it looks like they're just going to monitor everything, so that when the action explodes, they will have a recording of the true events to counter whatever justification the UW intends to use.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 16, 2011, 09:39:06 am
Quote
they will have a recording of the true events

Heck, broadcast it live.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: UncleRice on February 16, 2011, 09:47:04 am
Shake it three times and you know...  :D

Pretty close and it certainly describes them.

I stick to my statement about the UW being the bandits from the Magnificent 7/ 7 Samurai. Little do they know they face Yul Brenner with a sword, so to speak.

And welcome, Uncle Rice, It's a good group but watch out for the guy with the robot.
I keep hearing about those movies, I guess I'll have to watch them one of these days.

I only really have two questions:

1: Who's this guy with the robot?

2: Even if the UW does get the justification they want, what makes them think they will fair any better than they did last time? It's like they have been listening to their own propaganda so long they believe it themselves.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 16, 2011, 10:13:06 am
2: Even if the UW does get the justification they want, what makes them think they will fair any better than they did last time? It's like they have been listening to their own propaganda so long they believe it themselves.

From the first Arcs of EFT we know that the UW is low on funds, which is why they sent Guy there in the first place to have Ceres has a new source of revenue.

To press the UW Admiral Harris starfleet was sent to Ceres, which was soundly defeated and all ships lost. So the UW is not only low on funds, but they were humiliated and defeated by Cereans.

Being that the reason the UW high command want a pretext, is to compensate their low funds and low moral by rallying Earth populaces against Ceres.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: macsnafu on February 16, 2011, 10:23:53 am


And welcome, Uncle Rice, It's a good group but watch out for the guy with the robot.
I only really have two questions:

1: Who's this guy with the robot?
Is that really a robot?  The guy whose icon shows his head next to a shiny thing is Sandy Sandfort, the writer of EFT.  He occasionally pitches in with comments and responses in the forum.
Quote
2: Even if the UW does get the justification they want, what makes them think they will fair any better than they did last time? It's like they have been listening to their own propaganda so long they believe it themselves.

That's the $64 question.  We know pretty much why they're trying it, but not why they think they'll do better.  They are trying something different, though, so they're not into that kind of stupidity.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 16, 2011, 11:21:49 am
Quote
I don't particularly care for the controlled demolition theory because it seems to me like too contrived a plot. Too much that can go wrong. Too much work.

But a lot less work, and a lot less expense, than remediating the Towers for asbestos.  (Someone earlier suggested that asbestos insulation was not completed, but even they didn't suggest there was no asbestos to be removed.)   And, given the insurance payout, on a new purchase (i.e., few payments had yet been made, so a small investment), probably a net income.

You have a deliciously evil mind! I never thought of that.

i vaguely remember seeing something about WTC not being profitable. I simply never imagined your idea. So here are the WTC owners faced with an umprofitable building that might need a lot more money sunk into it, and they arrange to hijack four airplanes and send one of them off to a decoy site. They intend to slam two or three of them into their building. They definitely mine the building first because they can't be sure it will fall down otherwise and they sure don't need even more expensive repairs. They blame the whole thing on arab terrorists and collect the insurance.

Breathtaking scale. They might have killed 30,000 or so people if the building evacuation didn't go well. If one of the towers had toppled anyway, more than that. 100,000? 300,000? They avoid the expense of removing asbestos by putting the asbestos into the air of NYC for everybody to breathe until it goes away by itself.

Audacious! And I never heard that anybody even suspected them until you did. Why didn't I think of that? I guess I'm just too innocent. That plan is so evil it never occurred to me. I can imagine killing a few thousand americans for the national interest, when there's no other way to get the country fired up. Pearl Harbor might have been that way. And it's no stretch for Israel -- they think if they ever lose a war they'll all be killed, and without US support they will lose. Killing a few foreigners to save the whole country is no issue at all. But to do 9/11 just for money? If it was me doing that I'd have nightmares the rest of my life.

Maybe that's why I'm not that rich.

Usually when people argue nobody ever changes their mind. You have shown me a gap in my thinking that's worth fixing. Thank you. If someday it turns out that on everything we've ever disagreed I was right and you were wrong, this more than makes up for it.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 16, 2011, 11:29:22 am
It is good to be back on Ceres and topic.

Yep, it's a robot, I done blowed up the icon one rainy day and looked. Apparently, someone put him in charge of herding this bunch of cats.

Haven't seen The Magnificent 7, a top flight western, or Akira Kurasawa's first masterpiece the 7 Sams? Easy to cure in a mere 4 or 5 hours. How about A Bug's Life, same story but you guessed it, with bugs. The Locusts are the UW.

Broadcast it, does TN bandwith costs much? Here's another classic, Stranger in a Strange Land by some guy from Missouri. In it Jubal has cameras set up to send their government badguys in action to all the news services, but there is a technical glitch.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 16, 2011, 01:46:43 pm
Quote
You have a deliciously evil mind!

The reason I know, positively know, that there really are Illuminati-esque Emperor-Ming take-over-the-world wannabes in the world is that I see one every time I wash my hands at the bathroom sink.  The only thing saving the world from this specific one is, when it comes right down to it, I'm too busy reading online comics.

As to the size of 9/11 carnage, the timing was perfect to get more than just the overnight janitorial staff, which would have been sad but hardly outrage-producing, and yet the minimum of cubie dwellers.  Two hours later, when the late sleepers have arrived and no one's left for lunch yet?  Well, if I was wanting to do some real damage to the Great Satan, that's when I would have hit, to maximize the probable deaths in exchange for my own.  The way it actually went down, you'd think the perps merely wanted to "count coup".

Three of the alleged flights allegedly passed either directly over or within a minute or two of the Indian Point nuclear station.  I know (good and well) that nuke plants are designed to take hits like that but I don't know that they're designed to take three; still, I'd prefer that as a target -- if I really was a US enemy intent on harm.  I'd take explosives in my luggage, too -- which would at least give me a reason to take luggage on a suicide trip.  The plumes coming off the nuke plant would have made an adequate visual -- and the contamination spreading over New England would have really messed up and freaked out the most densely populated region my supposed enemy had, for a long time to come.

Quote
Maybe that's why I'm not that rich.

It's certainly why you're not a writer.  And if I ever need to attack a real enemy, I won't include you on the planning committee.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 16, 2011, 02:08:05 pm
And there still needs to be an energy source beyond sheer gravity to drop a weight through steel and concrete at nearly (you OK with 'nearly'?) the same speed as through empty air.
Not necessarily. It depends on how heavy the weight is.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 16, 2011, 03:01:34 pm
Quote
Not necessarily. It depends on how heavy the weight is.

Welcome back.  It's like eating peanuts, ain't it?

You've got a point.  An object heavier, or denser, than what it's falling through will be slowed less than one more comparable in weight/density to the medium it's falling through.  It still needs to expend energy (taken from acceleration, absent any other energy inputs) to dispel or disperse what it's falling through.  Floor 75 hitting floor 74 might well simply stop there, all its acceleration energy given up to deformation and yet still not enough to break through.  Floors 75 on up hitting floor 74 at the same time will certainly do a lot of breakage.  What shattered the concrete core between floors 74 and 75 (or whichever) so that the whole weight of the upper portion could hit floor 74 all at once?  'Cos I still can't see your floor-slipping-off-supports scenario as being capable of damaging the central core at all.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6742311
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/6742311.jpg
looks to me like a pretty hefty core-to-surrounding-floor proportion.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 16, 2011, 03:24:27 pm
AWK!  I'm really sorry, quadibloc -- I was replying to you as if you were spudit.  I sincerely apologize.  My bad, my very bad.   :-[
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 16, 2011, 03:30:24 pm
Huh?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 16, 2011, 03:31:58 pm

As to the size of 9/11 carnage, the timing was perfect to get more than just the overnight janitorial staff, which would have been sad but hardly outrage-producing, and yet the minimum of cubie dwellers.  Two hours later, when the late sleepers have arrived and no one's left for lunch yet?  Well, if I was wanting to do some real damage to the Great Satan, that's when I would have hit, to maximize the probable deaths in exchange for my own.  The way it actually went down, you'd think the perps merely wanted to "count coup".

That's the claim. If you believed the (likely forged) interview with Bin Ladin in which he accepted responsibility, he wanted primarily a symbolic attack on US economic imperialism. The WTC had symbolic value that way, and WTC stockbrokers were supposed to be the people who planned economic domination. Of course there's no particular reason to thinks stockbrokers plan anything much, if he wanted to get economic planners he might have done better to go after the World Bank or something, but it was a symbol. The supposed intention was to get just the stockbrokers and a minimum of collateral damage. It was a surprise to them when the buildings fell down; they had studied the engineering reports which claimed that would not happen.

This idea makes sense to me but it might not be at all true.

Quote
Three of the alleged flights allegedly passed either directly over or within a minute or two of the Indian Point nuclear station.  I know (good and well) that nuke plants are designed to take hits like that but I don't know that they're designed to take three; still, I'd prefer that as a target -- if I really was a US enemy intent on harm.

I see two obvious ways for Al Qaeda to think about it. First, they might have been thinking mainly about the effect on local public opinion. A strike at the real enemy in the USA would get them a lot of good publicity, without much thought about what the USA would do.

The second deeper thought is that they might have intended the USA to go crazy and do the same sort of invasion of Afghanistan that the USSR did. That invasion hurt the USSR badly -- some people think it was what made the USSR collapse. If the USA did the same thing maybe the USA would collapse too. By that theory the idea would be to do something bad enough to get the USA to invade, but not bad enough to get a whole lot of world sympathy for the USA. Get us into something like another Vietnam. Whenever we were about to pull out they could sting us again to keep us enraged, but otherwise they'd let us alone.

If they hit us hard enough we got all united and got a lot of other countries behind us, that would be bad. Better if we were mad enough to invade but not at all united, so we could tear ourselves apart at home over what was the right thing to do. Ideally they would have sent a plane into the IRS headquarters, so Americans would have some begrudging sympathy for them.

But then the buildings fell down and killed more people than they wanted, and the USA got crazier and more united than they wanted, and we got more foreign support for awhile until the rest of the world saw how crazy we were.

And if Al Qaeda actually did it, the decision was made by a committee which probably included members with both viewpoints plus others.

It's plausible to me that they might want something other than a nuclear attack on the most ferocious nuclear nation in the world. That could get every arab nation and most of the people seriously trying to catch them.

If you wanted to maximize damage, why settle for 4 planes? You'd only get one chance. Better to get enough teams together for 80 planes. Then you could devote 5 to the Pentagon instead of just one -- one that hit the side of the Pentagon that was partly closed down because they were strengthening the defenses against that kind of thing. Put at least one into every military school -- West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs, etc. Nuclear plants are good, and maybe a few to disrupt the oil terminals at Long Beach, Houston, etc. Three or five planes assigned to a nuclear power plant, sure.

And in the statement where you say why you did it, you point out that you didn't target any politicians because US politicians are a liability to the USA and you didn't want to do the USA any favors. Though if you're doing as much damage as possible maybe you don't want a statement. If you're doing a symbolic attack on lawyers or stockbrokers then you do.



Quote
I'd take explosives in my luggage, too -- which would at least give me a reason to take luggage on a suicide trip.

If it's a suicide trip, what else should you do with your luggage? Give it to charity? And even before 9/11 people without luggage looked more suspicious.

Quote
Maybe that's why I'm not that rich.

It's certainly why you're not a writer.  And if I ever need to attack a real enemy, I won't include you on the planning committee.
[/quote]

I might be useful, if there's agreement about the goals.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 16, 2011, 04:14:15 pm
To press the UW Admiral Harris starfleet was sent to Ceres, which was soundly defeated and all ships lost. So the UW is not only low on funds, but they were humiliated and defeated by Cereans.

Actually sams, only the Gamma class flag ship was taken as spoils of war. The six Bata class ships were sent back to Terra, minus about 20% (if memory serves) of the fleet's crew members and all directed energy weapons. There was some sarcastic discussions about whether these weapons could shoot up as well as down. Ceres' ad hoc "Naval Militia" now controls seven massive directed energy weapons. One each are at the poles, four equidistant around the equator the the 7th... somewhere else.

BTW, the correct term is "Cerereans." Of course, Cerereans would know what you mean, but so do San Franciscans, when you say "Frisco" (ugh!).  >:(
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 16, 2011, 04:22:11 pm
To press the UW Admiral Harris starfleet was sent to Ceres, which was soundly defeated and all ships lost. So the UW is not only low on funds, but they were humiliated and defeated by Cereans.

Actually sams, only the Gamma class flag ship was taken as spoils of war. The six Bata class ships were sent back to Terra, minus about 20% (if memory serves) of the fleet's crew members and all directed energy weapons. There was some sarcastic discussions about whether these weapons could shoot up as well as down. Ceres' ad hoc "Naval Militia" now controls seven massive directed energy weapons. One each are at the poles, four equidistant around the equator the the 7th... somewhere else.

BTW, the correct term is "Cerereans." Of course, Cerereans would know what you mean, but so do San Franciscans, when you say "Frisco" (ugh!).  >:(

Thanks I stand corrected :-)
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 16, 2011, 04:25:16 pm
i vaguely remember seeing something about WTC not being profitable. I simply never imagined your idea. So here are the WTC owners faced with an umprofitable building that might need a lot more money sunk into it, and they arrange to hijack four airplanes and send one of them off to a decoy site. They intend to slam two or three of them into their building. They definitely mine the building first because they can't be sure it will fall down otherwise and they sure don't need even more expensive repairs. They blame the whole thing on arab terrorists and collect the insurance.

I am surprised you were not aware of the insurance angle. It was in the news and still is. Apparently the developer of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, massively over-insured the buildings before 911. He has been fighting with the insurance companies ever since. Google:

     insurance silverstein wtc 911
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 16, 2011, 06:40:45 pm
Floor 75 hitting floor 74 might well simply stop there, all its acceleration energy given up to deformation and yet still not enough to break through.
Based on the diagram of how the angle clips work, it appears that floor 75 hitting floor 74, weakened by the fire from the jet fuel, is enough to break through.

But, yes, the central core just sits there - and so does the outer skin of the building. In the scenario that I'm assuming approximates the official explanation, and which also makes sense to me, it isn't until floors 75 to 41 or so hit floor 40 or so that the giant mass of floors hurtling down also deforms under its own weight, and some of it starts pushing outward to do damage to the core and the outer walls.

Meanwhile, the original fire has weakened floor 76, and it started falling, so there's been a little damage upwards as well. But once the core and outer wall are weakened enough near the base, then the whole building collapses.

However, the fire was also weakening the core on the floor where the plane entered, and then that fire would have entered the core. This is what let the top of the building fall as a unit - after the lower floors, largely hidden from view behind the outer walls, had collapsed, weakening the core critically at a lower level.

If it was just the lower floors pancaking, the result would have been that the top of the building would have been sitting on top of the core until the collapse of the lower floors broke the core. Then the top of the tower would have come crashing down like a hammer, well outside the foodprint of the tower.

Meanwhile, back to the comic:

Just as I've found it hard to understand why the UW is afraid of an economic collapse (you're a world-wide dictatorship: just switch to being a Stalinist command economy) I also think that one crucial element is missing in their apparent plot against Ceres.

Either the UW can send an invasion fleet towards Ceres or it can't. There is no United Planets with a Security Council that is going to give the UW permission first.

Thus, the only factor that would be affected by a trumped-up incident on Ceres... will be public opinion on Earth and the areas it controls. (The Tanglenet will make even that difficult if the incident is faked, but presumably even if 90% of the Earth's population knows the truth from the Tanglenet, a climate could exist such that everyone is afraid to do anything in public but enthusiastically support the official story.)

This is useful for two basic reasons:

The UW depends, for its rule, on maintaining a facade of democracy on Earth, and

The UW will need conscripts to man the invasion fleet it requires for the conquest of Ceres.

These reasons seem to me not to be quite enough to allow a manufactured incident - or the foiling of one - to play a decisive role. It would be different if the UW weren't the only power of its kind in the Solar System.

We haven't seen how powerful Mars is, but it seems from what we've seen so far that Mars' support of the Belters is not something easily shaken. It's if the incident could critically alienate Mars from Ceres that it would be valuable enough to the UW.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 16, 2011, 07:25:01 pm
I've found it hard to understand why the UW is afraid of an economic collapse (you're a world-wide dictatorship: just switch to being a Stalinist command economy)
Because having an opponent that incompetent doesn't make for a good story.

Some people in the UW must know either a little economics or a little history.  Switching to a command economy would mean almost immediate shortages and falling quality in all sorts of consumer (and other) goods, growing rapidly worse.  Public unrest would threaten their rule.

The UW depends, for its rule, on maintaining a facade of democracy on Earth
No facade necessary.  They'd have government schools and subservient mass media.

The UW will need conscripts to man the invasion fleet it requires for the conquest of Ceres.
Is that stated in the story?  If not, there is no reason to assume it.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 16, 2011, 08:07:52 pm
Floor 75 hitting floor 74 might well simply stop there, all its acceleration energy given up to deformation and yet still not enough to break through.
Based on the diagram of how the angle clips work, it appears that floor 75 hitting floor 74, weakened by the fire from the jet fuel, is enough to break through.

But, yes, the central core just sits there - and so does the outer skin of the building. In the scenario that I'm assuming approximates the official explanation, and which also makes sense to me, it isn't until floors 75 to 41 or so hit floor 40 or so that the giant mass of floors hurtling down also deforms under its own weight, and some of it starts pushing outward to do damage to the core and the outer walls.

Meanwhile, the original fire has weakened floor 76, and it started falling, so there's been a little damage upwards as well. But once the core and outer wall are weakened enough near the base, then the whole building collapses.

However, the fire was also weakening the core on the floor where the plane entered, and then that fire would have entered the core. This is what let the top of the building fall as a unit - after the lower floors, largely hidden from view behind the outer walls, had collapsed, weakening the core critically at a lower level.

If it was just the lower floors pancaking, the result would have been that the top of the building would have been sitting on top of the core until the collapse of the lower floors broke the core. Then the top of the tower would have come crashing down like a hammer, well outside the foodprint of the tower.

I think I understood that.

Perhaps that could be tested by looking at the last transmissions from rescue workers. If somebody is on floor 50 and they are in communication until shortly before the outer wall of floor 50 breaks, that would imply that the floors hadn't crashed up to that time.

It sounds like this inner core is an issue, and I don't understand it well enough to find a solution. It needs to crumble with the building or else it will give some bad result. Maybe the upper unbroken section could fall through the building right beside the unbroken lower section? Not likely, the fall probably wouldn't look so straight then.

Anything but a core that collapses pretty much as fast as the rest of the building looks like it would give us bad results.

The easy obvious way to get that result is with explosives on every floor. But maybe there's a way it could just happen naturally. Or maybe I misunderstood and it just isn't necessary.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 16, 2011, 11:51:05 pm

Just as I've found it hard to understand why the UW is afraid of an economic collapse (you're a world-wide dictatorship: just switch to being a Stalinist command economy)


Evidently, you still refuse to understand the Economic Calculation Problem.

A Stalinist command "economy" can issue commands, just as King Knut could command the tides to cease. However, the task of coordinating an economy is a subtle one, and is too great for even an army of computers. The problem isn't merely the vast intelligence required - it is the capture of the vast myriads of information contained within the prices set by a functioning market, and within the millions of entrepreneurial minds which coordinate things, and the incentives which drive them.

Even socialist economists, if they are worthy of the title, admit this.

The UW is collapsing because it is a command economy, not a free economy.

Today, the United Socialist States of America are suffering a severe crisis because far too much of the economy - in particular, the financial sector - is driven by actors who are divorced from ordinary economic consequences. "Helicopter" Ben is doing his darndest to command the economy to grow and to create jobs, and it isn't happening - not because he isn't clever enough, but because he suffers from the most gawdawful case of hubris on the planet, or within spittin' distance of that mark. He is driven to do precisely the wrong things because of his confusion about money and markets and economies.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 16, 2011, 11:54:12 pm
The UW will need conscripts to man the invasion fleet it requires for the conquest of Ceres.
Is that stated in the story?  If not, there is no reason to assume it.
I'm not so much assuming it as stating that this would be one reason for an incident on Ceres to make a difference.

The UW government can announce, "Hey! We've lowered your taxes because we've brought those greedy Cerereans to heel!", after all. Why do they need an excuse? Why would getting the true story out sabotage their plans? How would having an incident make a difference?

Somebody who is needed for a large-scale operation against Ceres, or who could get in the way of such an operation, needs to be convinced of something.

It could be public opinion on Mars. Or public opinion on Earth - if something, like advance cooperation, were needed from the general population.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 17, 2011, 12:18:26 am
Even dictatorships rely upon "false flag" events because it makes their lives easier.

The fundamental problem with any form of government is that the elites are greatly outnumbered by the governed; if the governed are not continually fed plausible stories, they will revolt, as folks in Egypt and other Middle East countries recently did. Mubarak had a subservient press, a powerful police force, and a military which ran many parts of the economy of Egypt. If a "command economy" could work, Egypt would have been prosperous. Instead, they were dependent upon aid from the USSA, and many people were living in genuine poverty, not the palatial conditions which we in the USSA call "poverty level."

The UW, being a global - nay, extra-global - dictatorship would have serious economic troubles, akin to those of Egypt.

Now, if it is worthwhile to plunder Ceres - with a much smaller population - then we must assume that Cerereans are astonishingly wealthy compared to Terrans.

Assume UW outnumbers Ceres by 100,000 to one. If the levels of wealth were 1:1, then grabbing the entire net worth of Ceres would be a drop in the bucket; of no practical consequence. To make just 1% of the budget, the ratio would have to be 1000:1.

A tempting prize - but a porcupine, given AnCap traditions.

Not USSA versus Afghanistan, but Romania vs Switzerland.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 17, 2011, 07:40:56 am
Quote
Meanwhile, the original fire has weakened floor 76, and it started falling  [...] 
However, the fire was also weakening the core on the floor where the plane entered [...]

The original fire was small, brief, and not very hot (oxygen-starved; evidence:  black smoke).  Do, please, look at photos or videos of the Mandarin Hotel fire -- which remained standing; do, please, read about the 19-hour inferno that was One Meridian Plaza.

Notice any difference between this: 
http://tinyurl.com/b33dmw  -- Mandarin Hotel
and this:
http://tinyurl.com/642o7lo -- scroll down to near the bottom for photo of person standing at the edge of the airplane hole, where the fire would have had maximum available oxygen? 

One Meridian Plaza:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza  --  "The fire lasted over nineteen hours, destroyed eight [consecutive] floors .... [...] By February 26 city officials had determined One Meridian Plaza was not in danger of collapse.[11] There was structural damage to horizontal steel beams and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under extreme fire exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and cracks appeared in the concrete floors. However, the overall structure was stable and able to support the weight of the building."

Otoh, WTC2 was punctured, in and out, by its plane and most of the jet fuel went up in that spectacular fireball outside the building, and it burned for just under one hour before disintegrating, completely disintegrating.

Even if the original fire were fierce enough, steel weakens slowly -- it doesn't instantaneously liquefy.  And you need a symmetrical inferno to weaken the steel symmetrically.  Otherwise, the steel will soften sooner in one place than another, and the weight will shift.

If you can get your fire hot enough for long enough, and if you can get it symmetrical, I still need an energy source to pulverize the concrete, so it all can fall as fast as it did.  Oh, and it has to be hot enough for long enough and symmetrical twice over.  And take into account that the structural damage is asymmetric. 

And WTC7 still remains unaccounted-for.

These three are the only high-rises to have their collapses attributed to fire (and appallingly trivial fires at that, compared to others that did not result even in collapse, let alone all-out disintegration).  Therefore architects really, really needed the most thorough forensics study ever -- for the safety of all future high-rises.  Please consider the possibility that the group calling itself Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) might include some dead-serious professionals.

Quote
Perhaps that could be tested by looking at the last transmissions from rescue workers. If somebody is on floor 50 and they are in communication until shortly before the outer wall of floor 50 breaks, that would imply that the floors hadn't crashed up to that time.

You might dismiss the site hosting this page (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_firefighters.html),
or this one which merely references the audio tape and includes only a brief quote from it (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=new_york_city_fire_department).  But I thank you for the opportunity to post them for lurkers who might at least consider it.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.

Ladder 15: "Fifteen."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: macsnafu on February 17, 2011, 08:15:55 am


Just as I've found it hard to understand why the UW is afraid of an economic collapse (you're a world-wide dictatorship: just switch to being a Stalinist command economy) I also think that one crucial element is missing in their apparent plot against Ceres.

....

The UW depends, for its rule, on maintaining a facade of democracy on Earth, and


As I already suggested in one thread or another, the UW needs to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the public, or they will have a harder time controlling things.

And they can't control the economy, anyway.  They're apparently rapidly inflating their money supply, but that does nothing to increase actual wealth: goods and services.  It does cause misallocation of the existing goods and services, though, so they may well be facing economic collapse if consumers' needs and desires are not being met. Which would be another step towards losing legitimacy with the public, increasing the chances of revolt.  The UW is indeed on precarious ground.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 17, 2011, 09:51:43 am
Quote
he wanted primarily a symbolic attack
[...]
This idea makes sense to me

To let even one of yours die in order to stage a symbolic attack on the enemy makes sense to you?  Um, you don't count me as one of yours, do you?

Quote
The second deeper thought is that they might have intended the USA to go crazy and do the same sort of invasion of Afghanistan that the USSR did.

Why would equipping your sacrificial people with identities primarily stolen from Saudis cause an involvement in Afghanistan?

Quote
If you wanted to maximize damage, why settle for 4 planes?

'Cos the only terrorists who have essentially unlimited bank accounts (and spend their people's lives cheaply) are called "governments".

Quote
And in the statement where you say why you did it, you point out that you didn't target any politicians because US politicians are a liability to the USA and you didn't want to do the USA any favors.

 ;D !!

Title: almost had a second guess
Post by: Brugle on February 17, 2011, 10:40:29 am
Please, everyone, let's hear your guesses about the origin of this arc.

Today's page (639) with "The Christmas War"  suggested the Christmas Truce of 1914, but ...

FYI, it wasn't the illegal annexation of Hawaii, either. The inspirational incident happened further back in history.

>:( it was too recent.  Maybe something similar?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 11:41:05 am
Honestly? I doubt the UW is going to bother invading Ceres. Wouldn't surprise me if those people sent earlier were actually there to make sure the Anarchists could be counted on to behave themselves. There's probably something else in the belt they're interested in or they're looking beyond the belt which requires them to have manpower in place to handle anything that comes up which means they need security in the form of troops.

Ceres makes a good garrison point. If you don't have to worry about controlling the locals then all the better. The "scouting for centres of infrastructure" thing was probably just them getting the lay of the land. After all when you're living in a communal habitat that relies on some central piece of tech to keep you all from suffocating, you want to know where that piece of tech is.

Although what is the situation beyond the belt? I would imagine that it's the sort of place people who wanted to get far away from the rest of humanity would go. Jupiter always seems to attract technocrats in fictional works.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 17, 2011, 12:50:05 pm
Honestly? I doubt the UW is going to bother invading Ceres. Wouldn't surprise me if those people sent earlier were actually there to make sure the Anarchists could be counted on to behave themselves.
You forget that the Ceres of which we read is in a Universe reigned over by a God who looks upon its people with favor, and upon the rulers of the UW with disfavor.

So it will simply not be the case in this storyline that the Belters are the misbehaving kind, and that which the UW expects of them is reasonable.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 12:55:59 pm
You forget that the Ceres of which we read is in a Universe reigned over by a God who looks upon its people with favor, and upon the rulers of the UW with disfavor.

So it will simply not be the case in this storyline that the Belters are the misbehaving kind, and that which the UW expects of them is reasonable.

Good point. I predict the UW military guys being incapable of wiping their own arses and doing something stupid. The guy in charge no doubt has cue cards that he gets his good manners from, the cue cards of course being audio because he can't read.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 17, 2011, 01:05:55 pm
Quote
Meanwhile, the original fire has weakened floor 76, and it started falling  [...] 
However, the fire was also weakening the core on the floor where the plane entered [...]

The original fire was small, brief, and not very hot (oxygen-starved; evidence:  black smoke).  Do, please, look at photos or videos of the Mandarin Hotel fire -- which remained standing; do, please, read about the 19-hour inferno that was One Meridian Plaza.

Clearly the Meridian Plaza fire was different. A 38-floor building designed in a different way. We already know that WTC was unprecedented, and now we're trying to see whether it could possibly have happened without explosive demolition. If there was a way it could have happened without that, then it says nothing about who did it. But if there was no way it could happen then it's definitive proof of an elaborate conspiracy, and there's the question why the US government prevented the investigation which would have shown the demolition.

Shorter -- on this topic the Truthers are on the offensive while the conspiracy deniers are on the defensive. If the building fell down by itself that does nothing to say there was no conspiracy. But if it was mined then there had to be a conspiracy.

Quote
Otoh, WTC2 was punctured, in and out, by its plane and most of the jet fuel went up in that spectacular fireball outside the building, and it burned for just under one hour before disintegrating, completely disintegrating.

Even if the original fire were fierce enough, steel weakens slowly -- it doesn't instantaneously liquefy.  And you need a symmetrical inferno to weaken the steel symmetrically.  Otherwise, the steel will soften sooner in one place than another, and the weight will shift.

If it weakens over a wide enough area that the part that's least weakened snaps when it gets all the load, that would still work out.

Quote
If you can get your fire hot enough for long enough, and if you can get it symmetrical, I still need an energy source to pulverize the concrete, so it all can fall as fast as it did.  Oh, and it has to be hot enough for long enough and symmetrical twice over.  And take into account that the structural damage is asymmetric.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Here is a report that looks plausible to me, but this sort of thing is not my specialty. I figure that if part of the steel weakens and stretches slowly while the rest holds strong, the building will tip over. But if the stuff that's most weakened gives way fast enough that the rest snaps quick too, then there isn't time for much tipping.

The claim is that the whole thing fell in 10 seconds, reaching the ground at about 200 km/hour, and at free fall it would have been 8 seconds and 300 km/hour. That doesn't give much time for falling any direction but straight down.

So the issues are whether the asymmetry in strength would last long enough to allow much tilting, and whether the lower floors would be strong enough to slow the fallingl mass by more than 2 seconds.

Quote
And WTC7 still remains unaccounted-for.

To me that looks like the best place to look. Lower than the other buildings, less massive, less unprecedented. No airplane damage, just a little damage from falling building material. (Perhaps the fourth plane was really intended to hit WTC7? But nobody seems to think so.) Lots of burning fuel, and with the flameproofing still on the metal it lasted a lot longer but it still fell down. But it burned for a long time on multiple floors before it fell straight. If it was mined the mines had to withstand the fires and then all go off at the right times.

Quote
These three are the only high-rises to have their collapses attributed to fire (and appallingly trivial fires at that, compared to others that did not result even in collapse, let alone all-out disintegration).  Therefore architects really, really needed the most thorough forensics study ever -- for the safety of all future high-rises.  Please consider the possibility that the group calling itself Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) might include some dead-serious professionals.

Yes. The safety issue that ought to be more important than lawsuits or government secrecy.

http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html
Here's a claim that the WTC cores were not built the way that FEMA said they were. It has some pictures of a tower collapsing with part of the core sticking up above the rest. For that to happen the tower must not have fallen completely straight and the bottom part of the core maintained some strength.

They claim that the core was made with 40' steel lengths welded together, and with concrete that had lots of gravel in it.

Quote
Quote
Perhaps that could be tested by looking at the last transmissions from rescue workers. If somebody is on floor 50 and they are in communication until shortly before the outer wall of floor 50 breaks, that would imply that the floors hadn't crashed up to that time.

You might dismiss the site hosting this page (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_firefighters.html),
or this one which merely references the audio tape and includes only a brief quote from it (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=new_york_city_fire_department).  But I thank you for the opportunity to post them for lurkers who might at least consider it.

I'm not sure I see the significance. Originally I had thought that if there's a question whether part of the inside of the building was collapsing faster than the outer skin, we might get communications with people inside that indicated when they were still alive. But the inside could collapse some seconds before the outside without showing anything that way -- it's too crude a measure.

The plane hit the south tower across floors 77 through 85. So it may be no big deal if people on 78 saw a few small fires shortly before, say, 81 collapsed. The plane hit the south side and parts of it crashed through the north side. That could allow a degree of cross-draft which would make the fire burn faster at those spots. So what does it mean that there were people on floor 78 who didn't see much fire?

I haven't seen anything yet that makes it real implausible that the buildings could have collapsed from the fires. The things that look most suspicious to me are Building 7 (which was shorter and should have been stronger and which shouldn't have had big holes to let air in) and the building falling so fast. The latter might look quite reasonable with the numbers which I haven't done. The outer walls tended to sheer outward which would take less force than crumpling them completely, and the center core was no stronger than the welds on its rebars and the gravel in its concrete. There could be a big problem there but it depends on the numbers.

If it were to turn out that the buildings collapsed without intentional demolition, there could still be a conspiracy that didn't bother to mine the towers just as it clearly didn't mine the Pentagon. If this particular detail of this particular conspiracy theory is wrong, it should not at all discredit any of the other conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 17, 2011, 01:49:55 pm
Quote
Clearly the Meridian Plaza fire was different. A 38-floor building designed in a different way.

Different than the towers; a whole lot like 7.

Quote
If it weakens over a wide enough area that the part that's least weakened snaps when it gets all the load, that would still work out.

If that happened, that would even it out.  No argument there, even if I think the actual attainment of the necessary balance all around is improbable -- sort of like flipping a coin and having it land, not "heads" or "tails" but on its edge is not impossible, but in normal figuring, we don't really need to factor it in.  For the actual towers, show me the "wide enough area".  The fire has to spread around the core and, in the case of WTC2, has all of 55 minutes in which to spread, weaken supports to the point of failure (despite being a low energy fire), and fail.  Why was WTC 2 so fragile that less than an hour of a fire, in which most of the starter fuel blew out the side and burned out there, was sufficient to start its disintegration?

Quote
But it [WTC7] burned for a long time

A "long" time compared to what?  Not to One Meridian.  Nor was there much fire.  Seen photos of 7 before it disintegrated?  There is a bit of fire visible along a couple of floors, but nothing compared to the Mandarin Hotel.

Quote
If it was mined the mines had to withstand the fires

You here seem to be imagining a fire that completely pervades the building.  I find no photo that shows more than a couple of floors on fire.  Mines on all the nonburning floors would "withstand" just fine.

Quote
Yes. The safety issue that ought to be more important than lawsuits or government secrecy.

The official silence here is deafening.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 17, 2011, 01:53:51 pm
Quote
he wanted primarily a symbolic attack
[...]
This idea makes sense to me

To let even one of yours die in order to stage a symbolic attack on the enemy makes sense to you?  Um, you don't count me as one of yours, do you?

One weakness of suicide troops is they demand to be used. And some people are eager to die for symbols. It can mean far more to die creating the rallying point that pulls your society together, than to just kill 50 of the enemy as a statistic of the war.

Quote
Quote
The second deeper thought is that they might have intended the USA to go crazy and do the same sort of invasion of Afghanistan that the USSR did.

Why would equipping your sacrificial people with identities primarily stolen from Saudis cause an involvement in Afghanistan?

Because Al Qaeda made a big point about being in Afghanistan. Wait, you're asking specifically about the passports. I don't know.

I'm working under a big disadvantage here. Even if it was entirely done by AQ, there's no reason to expect the US government to tell the truth about what they know. The story is likely not to fit the published data because big chunks of the published data is probably wrong.

So I'll make up the most plausible story I can, and if it doesn't fit some of the facts then we could argue how likely those facts are if you want to.

I imagine a well-funded terrorist group that wants publicity and many more volunteers, and they aren't sure what to do. They want to take over Saudi Arabia and all arab nations but they aren't sure how. They know they have to get a lot bigger and more popular before they can do something like that. They aren't sure whether to target the USA or not. A good hit on the USA would make them more popular, particularly if they do it at a time the USA is especially unpopular. But it needs to be something that most arabs agreed was justified. Not much collateral damage, they're supposed to attack the guilty and not the innocent. They have a few spies in the USA and they send more, and they start looking at potential attacks. The ideal thing would be when the USA does something that every arab thinks is utterly revoltingly disgusting, then they hit back hard. Kind of like, say, Doolittle's raid. So they send enough suicide volunteers to take over 100 airplanes. With that many a lot of them could hit their targets before they could be shot down. And they wait for a US atrocity.

We like to say that arabs are a lot different from us, and suicide bombers are fundamentally different from us. I think the differences are not so big. We have sent soldiers on suicide missions, but we usually at least pretend there's a chance to pick them up afterward, and they have some chance to surrender to the enemy without being killed. But grasping at those straws is not so very different really. Heroes who agree to almost-certain death or to certain death to achieve great things.

So the suiciders learn various spy skills, and they learn their mission, and they come to the USA. They wait. Not this week. Not the next week. Not the week after that. You're waiting for the chance to go out in a blaze of glory, but the orders don't come. Not this week. You get involved with an american girl. She breaks up with you. Not this week. Not this week. And then the orders come through for just four teams. They get to carry out the mission. You find out about it from the TV. But your orders never come, and then the FBI catches you and it's the end.

I could imagine AQ doing that. They put the agents in place because they can. They think up lots of strange missions and they actually prepare for some of them, and they argue about which ones if any to carry out this week. Sooner or later they get antsy enough to try one of the strange ones.

I could just as easily imagine somebody else -- Mossad perhaps -- infiltrating their communications and learning how to send the Go message. Anybody who can crack their communications can send arab terrorists off to do 9/11, if they want to. 4 missions or 100. And most people will think it's arab terrorists doing it. It would have been arab terrorists doing it if they'd made up their mind to do it before somebody else sent the signal.

Why use saudi passports? I dunno. Why did Mossad use Irish passports in Dubai? Maybe it was easy. Maybe they thought it didn't matter much.

Quote
Quote
If you wanted to maximize damage, why settle for 4 planes?

'Cos the only terrorists who have essentially unlimited bank accounts (and spend their people's lives cheaply) are called "governments".

Maybe. AQ had a lot of money, and the US government claimed they rolled up hundreds of AQ agents in the USA after 9/11. They may have had enough money and enough suiciders to do lots of planes. But it didn't happen that way, for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Holt on February 17, 2011, 02:04:34 pm
Ok people talking about 9/11

I am about to blow your minds so pay attention.





It doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. Even you don't actually care you simply think you do.
A small number of people died in a fairly uninteresting manner. If you take it at face value then it is simply the USA getting the first helping of its come uppance. If you take it at more than that then it's just business as usual for the USA.

Either way it doesn't matter. Nothing of value was lost. Just a bunch of people who had long ago lost their humanity.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: macsnafu on February 17, 2011, 03:38:01 pm

Either way it doesn't matter. Nothing of value was lost. Just a bunch of people who had long ago lost their humanity.

I know someone else who's lost their humanity, or else has a very weird set of values...
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 17, 2011, 03:48:24 pm

Either way it doesn't matter. Nothing of value was lost. Just a bunch of people who had long ago lost their humanity.

I know someone else who's lost their humanity, or else has a very weird set of values...
Seconded. I fear to say more, as it is difficult to reply politely to such a statement.

If nothing else, it wasn't just stockbrokers and managers who died; it was typists and cleaning ladies as well. Unless just being an American drains one's humanity...
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 17, 2011, 04:05:01 pm
Quote
Clearly the Meridian Plaza fire was different. A 38-floor building designed in a different way.

Different than the towers; a whole lot like 7.

Do you have a link that describes how #7 was built? I looked a little bit for that but got lost in other interesting results.

If #7 was built a lot like the towers, then it's no big surprise if it fell similarly. It fell pretty much story by story into the basement, so if the basement collapsed like floor #79 may have collapsed in the South tower, then it's reasonable to expect it would behave about the same. On the other hand if it was built like Meridian Plaza then it's an entirely different ball game, an unprecedented collapse that has some similar buildings that didn't collapse with worse fires, to go along with two buildings with an untested design that fell in brand new circumstances.

Quote
Quote
If it weakens over a wide enough area that the part that's least weakened snaps when it gets all the load, that would still work out.

If that happened, that would even it out.  No argument there, even if I think the actual attainment of the necessary balance all around is improbable -- sort of like flipping a coin and having it land, not "heads" or "tails" but on its edge is not impossible, but in normal figuring, we don't really need to factor it in.  For the actual towers, show me the "wide enough area".  The fire has to spread around the core and, in the case of WTC2, has all of 55 minutes in which to spread, weaken supports to the point of failure (despite being a low energy fire), and fail.  Why was WTC 2 so fragile that less than an hour of a fire, in which most of the starter fuel blew out the side and burned out there, was sufficient to start its disintegration?

How do you estimate how much of the fuel blew away?

You do have a point. It could have been the special construction, which was particularly designed to keep the building from swaying too much in the wind.

Quote
All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.

Some of the interior core columns would be damaged. A very few of the perimeter wall sections damaged. And maybe the core. We're depending on the fire to weaken enough of the rest. It doesn't have to be really high temperature, but it has to burn enough to transfer a lot of heat. Maybe damage to the inside was enough that the perimeter bent or twisted? It wouldn't have to move much to weaken it a lot. Then it falls.

Ten floors of a WTC tower weighed about 45,000 tons. How much stronger would one wall of a broken floor have to be, before it made much difference resisting that weight? If it made a little bit of difference then that would shift the force against it by, say, one degree which would be enough to buckle it and tear it loose.

Quote
Quote
But it [WTC7] burned for a long time

A "long" time compared to what?  Not to One Meridian.

A long time compared to the towers.

Quote
Nor was there much fire.  Seen photos of 7 before it disintegrated?  There is a bit of fire visible along a couple of floors, but nothing compared to the Mandarin Hotel.

I looked at a video. Building 7 dropped right into its basement. Fires on a couple of floors couldn't have mattered for that. If they did matter then higher floors would have dropped into those first.

If a fire mattered, it had to be a basement fire or a fire on some low floor that the video didn't show. I had thought that demolition would involve explosives on each level that each must go off at the right time. But there was no sign of that here. Explosives at the basement or first floor could have let everything else drop, and there was no sign of any other explosives and no obvious need for any others. I was wrong about that.

Quote
Quote
If it was mined the mines had to withstand the fires

You here seem to be imagining a fire that completely pervades the building.  I find no photo that shows more than a couple of floors on fire.  Mines on all the nonburning floors would "withstand" just fine.

If there was a big basement fire then mines would have to withstand that. If there was no basement fire then the mines would have caused the collapse. I was wrong.

Quote
Quote
Yes. The safety issue that ought to be more important than lawsuits or government secrecy.

The official silence here is deafening.

Yes. The US government's behavior makes me think there was a US government conspiracy. But they aren't behaving that much different than they did after the JFK assassination, and there wasn't a government conspiracy then, was there? I guess I don't know about that one either.

And it was the Bush administration which tried to be secret about pretty much everything. If they had conspiracies about everything they tried to keep secret.... Well maybe they did.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 17, 2011, 08:16:28 pm
Quote
Do you have a link that describes how #7 was built? [...] If #7 was built a lot like the towers, then it's no big surprise if it fell similarly.

No link, no comment anywhere -- which absence is itself information.  There is no mention anywhere that 7 had anything at all unusual in its construction.

Quote
How do you estimate how much of the fuel blew away?

By trying to imagine how much of the fuel could possibly have remained inside -- given, you know, inertia and big massive plane parts busting the way through ahead of the fuel as well as pushing from behind.

Quote
It wouldn't have to move much to weaken it a lot. Then it falls.

"Falls"?  It disintegrates.  Straight down.  And it must be perfectly natural because it did it twice (in the similar buildings).  Controlled-demo companies are surely out of work now.

Quote
Quote
Quote
But it [WTC7] burned for a long time

A "long" time compared to what?  Not to One Meridian.

A long time compared to the towers.

And a short time compared to much larger, fiercer fires in similar buildings, none of which fell down, much less disintegrated.  And the time of burn of the starved fires in the towers is just ridiculously short -- hardly enough time to warm the steel, which is conducting some heat away up & down its lengths all the while.

Quote
I imagine a well-funded terrorist group that wants publicity and many more volunteers, and they aren't sure what to do. They want to take over Saudi Arabia and all arab nations but they aren't sure how. They know they have to get a lot bigger and more popular before they can do something like that.

Which is why they use as their group's name a term which, to the Arab people they want to impress, is a euphemism for where you go to evacuate your bladder and bowels.  Yes, 'Al Qaeda' means 'the base' -- and the connotation is 'base' as in English 'morally low, dishonorable, inferior'.

I could tell a different story, but I'm not inclined to go there, not here.  But the folks that wanted a pretext for war musta been just the luckiest sons of bitches in history.

Oh, and I thought this was pretty good:
http://tinyurl.com/4v48mpq
Especially liked the "nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims [who] enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah" . . . .  Yeah, the guys who nearly botched the whole thing by coming within a RCH of getting arrested for "drunk and disorderly" the night before.  Those religious fanatics.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 17, 2011, 08:41:28 pm
Yeah, the guys who nearly botched the whole thing by coming within a RCH of getting arrested...

What does the "R" stand for?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 17, 2011, 08:43:51 pm
R stands for Red; it is believed that red hairs are thinner than black or blonde, on average.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 17, 2011, 10:04:51 pm
Some beleive that a martyer has so much credit in Heaven that he can redeem a few relations of their sins.

If you were certain that tomorrow you would be getting a million bucks , you might not feel bad about writeing a bouncing check for $200 today.

The partying behavior of the 9-11 hyjackers isn't hard to understand, they were letting their hair down in a big way because they were going to earn their rightiousness back with plenty to boot in short order.


Too bad tho that these guys were not caught on film getting depraved, a "Martyers Gone Wild" movie would be all kinds of special.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 17, 2011, 10:51:57 pm
Quote
Do you have a link that describes how #7 was built? [...] If #7 was built a lot like the towers, then it's no big surprise if it fell similarly.

No link, no comment anywhere -- which absence is itself information.  There is no mention anywhere that 7 had anything at all unusual in its construction.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
This is a site intended to debunk conspiracy theories, so it might contain outright lies. But I notice photos of the building 7 wreckage that look to me just like the wreckage of the towers. It looks like it was the same sort of construction. If they have two giant towers built one way, why not use the same methods for a third that's a bit less than half as tall?

And there are photos here that show a fair amount of debris lying on top of nearby buildings. It didn't exactly fall straight.

Quote
Quote
How do you estimate how much of the fuel blew away?

By trying to imagine how much of the fuel could possibly have remained inside -- given, you know, inertia and big massive plane parts busting the way through ahead of the fuel as well as pushing from behind.

OK. That is not convincing to me because the fuel was in weak parts of the plane and the parts that punched through were the big heavy things. But then, those fuel tanks in the wings could have ripped apart on the way in and a lot of the fuel never get into the building in the first place. I don't see how to make a well-informed guess on this. You could be mostly right or you could be mostly wrong.

Quote
Quote
It wouldn't have to move much to weaken it a lot. Then it falls.

"Falls"?  It disintegrates.  Straight down.  And it must be perfectly natural because it did it twice (in the similar buildings).  Controlled-demo companies are surely out of work now.

Well, no. These guys claim it wasn't straight down. It's like the core was mostly straight down and the outer walls delaminated and somewhat fell outward. They have a photo of a nearby building ripped open by big stuff falling outward from one of the towers.

They claim building 7 was ripped open that way, on the south side. They claim great big fires on the south side. They don't have many good photos or videos of the south side of building 7. There was a shorter building in the way unless you got close, and to record that side of building 7 you had to be between it and the wreckage of the towers, facing away from them. I get the impression there weren't a lot of people doing that. There might be good visuals somewhere, though.

The penthouses fell first, and presumably they were mostly straight down. That implies the core of the building collapsed and then the visible parts fell later -- and those didn't fall straight.

Quote
Quote
But it [WTC7] burned for a long time

And a short time compared to much larger, fiercer fires in similar buildings, none of which fell down, much less disintegrated.  And the time of burn of the starved fires in the towers is just ridiculously short -- hardly enough time to warm the steel, which is conducting some heat away up & down its lengths all the while.

I dunno. They weren't a tremendous temperature, but they could have been very big. Scale matters. I'm not clear how big the holes from the planes were, how far the wings went before they sheared off. There's data about that from the Pentagon, which was a very different construction.


Quote
Quote
I imagine a well-funded terrorist group that wants publicity and many more volunteers, and they aren't sure what to do. They want to take over Saudi Arabia and all arab nations but they aren't sure how. They know they have to get a lot bigger and more popular before they can do something like that.

Which is why they use as their group's name a term which, to the Arab people they want to impress, is a euphemism for where you go to evacuate your bladder and bowels.  Yes, 'Al Qaeda' means 'the base' -- and the connotation is 'base' as in English 'morally low, dishonorable, inferior'.

More than one connotation, like "base" here in the USA.

Quote
Oh, and I thought this was pretty good:
http://tinyurl.com/4v48mpq
Especially liked the "nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims [who] enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah" . . . .  Yeah, the guys who nearly botched the whole thing by coming within a RCH of getting arrested for "drunk and disorderly" the night before.  Those religious fanatics.

I don't have reports about a lot of US suicide missions, but I vividly remember one where some of the men were pretty hungover on their way in.

And of course, the records may be falsified -- the US government took the propaganda war seriously.

Not that I care about the reputations of arab terrorists, assuming that's who they were. But when I make conspiracies I try to keep the lies as close as I can to the real thing, because it's easier that way. The story is that arab terrorists hijacked planes and killed themselves. You could use hypnotized americans who look like arabs. You could put radio controllers in the planes and hire thugs who don't know they're on a suicide mission. You could send the real planes to a secret location and use fakes for the attacks. But the simplest approach is to find some honest-to-god arab suicide bombers and give them the mission and the backup. But maybe your arab terrorists are not reliable. Particularly if they have had a long time waiting, thinking it over. What if you have 10 teams and only 4 of them show up? Well, 4 is enough.

If you find arab terrorists who already have the plan and everything, and you just modify the plan a little and send them off on your own schedule, that's even better. Who would know, unless you have to jigger the defenses so that a plan that would normally fail gets to succeed instead.

Of course, they still might fail. Any plan that has human beings in it has a high chance of failure. That leaves me wanting to write the human beings out of the plot and use GPS-controlled planes. But that isn't reliable either. Who will program the programmers?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: stsparky on February 17, 2011, 11:13:35 pm
I had two cousins in the towers on 9/11. One got out, the other didn't.

We know the plot was modified off of a similar one to kill the Pope in the Philippines. So we can link both desire and motive to AQ.  I'm inclined to believe they did it.

We got lucky more were not killed.

As to "False Flag Ops" - whose word are we taking that the Mossad did the hit in Dubai? The target was also wanted dead by the former regime in Egypt.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 18, 2011, 12:12:19 am
Which is why they use as their group's name a term which, to the Arab people they want to impress, is a euphemism for where you go to evacuate your bladder and bowels.  Yes, 'Al Qaeda' means 'the base' -- and the connotation is 'base' as in English 'morally low, dishonorable, inferior'.
News to me.

My understanding is that al-Qaeda is cognate with the word "alcaide", and, thus, it means "the fortress" or "the garrison".
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 18, 2011, 04:17:16 am

As to "False Flag Ops" - whose word are we taking that the Mossad did the hit in Dubai? The target was also wanted dead by the former regime in Egypt.

The passports make it reasonably clear. I suppose that Egypt could possibly have gone to a lot of trouble and expense to get it blamed on Israel, but why would they bother?

The various governments involved didn't seem to have any doubt, and they presumably have secret information. They aren't particularly antisemitic governments.

Israel makes no bones that they do this sort of thing regularly, so the issue would only be whether they did it this particular time.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 18, 2011, 08:23:33 am
Quote
They claim great big fires on the south side.

They can claim whatever they like.  They obviously agree that they need much bigger fires than appear in any extant photos or videos!

Oh, and as for your possibility of "huge" fires in the basement of 7 -- Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, the "hazards consulting" firm that looked at One Meridien Plaza, found: 

"The windows [...] experienced the most intense fire and heat; consequently, they experienced the most widespread damage. At the fire floors, nearly all of the glass was broken from the windows. [....] Some of the aluminum framing and glass melted, indicating temperatures in the range of 1,000 degrees F to 1,300 degrees F."

And yet also:

"Temperatures were substantially lower in areas away from the window openings. The exterior granite-to-granite joint sealant, which melts at less than 500oF in our laboratory testing, was not severely charred or melted in most areas away from the window openings. [....] During the fire, temperatures within the building along the interior of the facade varied widely. [....] In some areas on the fire floors, we found uncharred cardboard, plastic shims, and rubber pipe insulation ...." (emphasis added)

And:

"During the fire, flames lapped up the side of the building from window openings spreading the fire through to the window above. [....]" 

So the window areas burned hot enough to melt aluminum and glass, while between the windows, carboard might be left not only unburnt but uncharred.

Does this suggest anything to you about the importance of the availability of oxygen to the severity of a fire?

Do you think your basement, or your windows on upper floors, would have had more available oxygen?

Towards their "lessons learned" conclusion, the Hazards Consultants noted, "the circumstances of the fire at One Meridian Plaza were extraordinary in their ferocity and intensity" (emphasis added).  The firemen "called off the attack and allowed the fire to 'free burn,' concentrating their efforts on containing the fire to this building."  And it didn't fall down, or over, much less disintegrate.  So the towers had unusual construction -- could it honestly have been so damned fragile that it couldn't stand even an hour of a small, cold fire?  Forget planes -- office fires can start for all kinds of reasons:

"On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#February_13.2C_1975_fire)" (emphasis added)

A "few hours" instead of 55 minutes; on a lower floor (i.e., with ALL that upper weight to support!); and yet it survived.  Could that be because architects always take fire into consideration?  They don't always need to be imagining "terrorists" in order to imagine the possibility of fire?

Quote
News to me.

Of course.  I think you'd have mentioned it yourself, if you'd known.

Quote
More than one connotation, like "base" here in the USA.

I've got a cousin, been living in Tunisia for the last twenty years, fluent in Arabic.  The term makes her cringe with embarrassment, that her countrymen (us) actually buy the name.

Quote
we can link both desire and motive to AQ.  I'm inclined to believe they did it.

Fair enough -- provided you're also willing to at least consider the guilt of others with both desire and motive.  And how about if those others have waaay more opportunity, and access to the means?  And have been proven to have lied about other things, some of them related to this event?  And what if those others won something more than a mere symbolic or theologic prize, but real, material wealth?

Quote
You could put radio controllers in the planes

They're already there.  Been there for decades, afaik.

Quote
Some beleive that a martyer has so much credit in Heaven that he can redeem a few relations of their sins.

If you were certain that tomorrow you would be getting a million bucks , you might not feel bad about writeing a bouncing check for $200 today.

The partying behavior of the 9-11 hyjackers isn't hard to understand, they were letting their hair down in a big way because they were going to earn their rightiousness back with plenty to boot in short order

Ah, the 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die' argument.  This is so easy for my fellow citizens to buy that I could just about see it (the ready acceptance of this thought) as evidence for the very decadence with which we are so often charged.  "Hey, I'd party it up!"  I daresay you would.  I'm not sure a real religious fanatic would -- and I know one who wouldn't:

Friend of mine, K, a serious Christian Fundie, went through the nastiest divorce I've ever seen.  But his religion allows divorce only for infidelity, so he continued to wear his wedding ring and consider himself married, living like a perfect monk, for about 7 years -- till another mutual friend confessed to having boinked the ex-wife before the divorce.  Only then did K take off the ring and start dating again.  To this day I am not sure if Mutual Friend really did do the ex-wife, or was only saying that to give K an out.

Otoh, on a more practical level -- if you were willing to run a probable suicide mission, you'd probably need to think it was for an important reason, yes?  So, would you be willing to risk failing in this important mission by being too hung over to make your appointment with destiny next day?  Even if yes, would you do your partying out in public, where the local gendarmerie might object and lock you up for the night (thus causing you to miss your appointment with destiny), or would you bring your drinks & party girls in?

For anyone still reading, run a little experiment, will you?  Goes like this:

Find a friend who is mildly occupied -- say, watching tv or netsurfing but not terribly engrossed.  Approach from behind or one side, out of direct line-of-sight.  Lean in to whisper to them, making sure they know you're there.  Then tell them something appalling:  "Hey, I just got a call -- there's been a car accident.  [Your girlfriend]'s really hurt." 

Try it on more than one.  Substitute "your dog's been killed" or "I have cancer" or whatever you think will be deeply shocking to your victim.

Then let me know if any of them fail to snap around to look back at you and make eye contact, as if to see if you're joking, but instead only pause for a moment, considering, and then go on with their mildly-interesting occupation.

I'm curious about the distribution.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 18, 2011, 09:00:27 am
Quote
we can link both desire and motive to AQ.  I'm inclined to believe they did it.

Quote
Some beleive that a martyer has so much credit in Heaven that he can redeem a few relations of their sins.

If you were certain that tomorrow you would be getting a million bucks , you might not feel bad about writeing a bouncing check for $200 today.

The partying behavior of the 9-11 hyjackers isn't hard to understand, they were letting their hair down in a big way because they were going to earn their rightiousness back with plenty to boot in short order

Ah, the 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die' argument.  This is so easy for my fellow citizens to buy that I could just about see it (the ready acceptance of this thought) as evidence for the very decadence with which we are so often charged.  "Hey, I'd party it up!"  I daresay you would.  I'm not sure a real religious fanatic would -- and I know one who wouldn't:

Friend of mine, K, a serious Christian Fundie,.....
]...... who had an experience totally unrelatable to this topic.[/quote]


Whereas the beliefs of Muslim fundamentalists are opposite to those of Christian fundamentalists I am perplexed at how often they are juxtaposed as if the behavior of one would be the guide for the behavior of the other.

Not all muslims belive this way , but the hijackers were told that their way into heaven would be assured by their martyerdom and that they would probly get to two or three reprobate relations in on their leftover credits. This is opposite to Christian beliefs, your knoledge of Christian behaviors is not usefull in understanding Muslim behaviors.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 18, 2011, 11:54:13 am
Quote
They claim great big fires on the south side.

They can claim whatever they like.  They obviously agree that they need much bigger fires than appear in any extant photos or videos!

Did you look at their evidence?

I looked at it quickly. Their photos and videos looked plausible but usually there were lower buildings in the way. When they had photos with lots of smoke, possibly the smoke came from somewhere else.

But they quoted firemen just like you did. The firemen pulled out because they thought the building would collapse from the big fires. They measured the walls and found they were tilting. There was a statement from the fireman who made the decision to pull out. He said the fires were so bad he thought the building would collapse.

So I see three possibilities.

1. The anti-Truther website faked the reports, and those firemen never said what was reported.

2. The US Government faked the reports and the anti-Truther website picked up the government fakes.

3. The firemen were telling the truth and Building 7 really was about to collapse from fire damage.

Quote
Oh, and as for your possibility of "huge" fires in the basement of 7 -- Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, the "hazards consulting" firm that looked at One Meridien Plaza, found:  

"The windows [...] experienced the most intense fire and heat; consequently, they experienced the most widespread damage. At the fire floors, nearly all of the glass was broken from the windows. [....] Some of the aluminum framing and glass melted, indicating temperatures in the range of 1,000 degrees F to 1,300 degrees F."

And yet also:

"Temperatures were substantially lower in areas away from the window openings. The exterior granite-to-granite joint sealant, which melts at less than 500oF in our laboratory testing, was not severely charred or melted in most areas away from the window openings. [....] During the fire, temperatures within the building along the interior of the facade varied widely. [....] In some areas on the fire floors, we found uncharred cardboard, plastic shims, and rubber pipe insulation ...." (emphasis added)

And:

"During the fire, flames lapped up the side of the building from window openings spreading the fire through to the window above. [....]"  

So the window areas burned hot enough to melt aluminum and glass, while between the windows, carboard might be left not only unburnt but uncharred.

Does this suggest anything to you about the importance of the availability of oxygen to the severity of a fire?

Sure.

Quote
Do you think your basement, or your windows on upper floors, would have had more available oxygen?

I think I was wrong about Building 7. From the video I thought it collapsed at the bottom, and the whole thing together fell (with a pause each time a new floor hit the wreckage below). For that to happen from a fire, the fire needed to be in the basement or a floor so low it didn't show on the video -- probably basement or first floor.

But a closer look, following the anti-Truther explanation, showed that first part of the penthouse (full of heavy machinery) fell into the building, and then the rest of the penthouse, and around 8 seconds later the outside walls started to fall. So the whole collapse was more like 16 seconds than 8 seconds.

Presumably when the penthouse fell, that was the whole center of the building getting gutted. And then the outer walls fell with some of them toppling. A fire at any level that weakened things enough for the inside of the building to fall would remove the insides from bottom to top.

The firemen claimed that the south side of Building 7 had been split open for about a third of its height, similar to the Bankers Trust building which the site does have a good photo of. The site's claim is that parts of the outer skin of the towers fell outward and struck these buildings. That looks obviously true in the photo.

A great big ten-story-high hole in the building might let in plenty of air, as well as perhaps interfere with water pressure, and possibly even break the diesel lines or gas lines. The firemen said it was there but I haven't seen a good photo of it.

Quote
So the towers had unusual construction -- could it honestly have been so damned fragile that it couldn't stand even an hour of a small, cold fire?  Forget planes -- office fires can start for all kinds of reasons:

They were good for office fires. These avgas fires were relatively "cold", not high temperature because they were fuel-rich. But if they got big enough they could have put out a whole lot of heat. It might be possible to estimate the amount of heat the bent steel had been subjected to, given surviving samples. Of course a lot of the bent samples would have come from sheer pressure, it would take samples close to the fires. It might be possible to guess how much burning happened inside the building, from the black smoke and flames that came out. The visible outside flames could measure how much fuel had failed to burn, while the black smoke would indicate how much did burn. Then we'd have something better than your guess that it was small cold fires.

Quote
"On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#February_13.2C_1975_fire)" (emphasis added)

A "few hours" instead of 55 minutes; on a lower floor (i.e., with ALL that upper weight to support!); and yet it survived.  Could that be because architects always take fire into consideration?  They don't always need to be imagining "terrorists" in order to imagine the possibility of fire?

Yes, of course they planned for an office fire. They did not and probably could not plan for 20,000 gallons of avgas.

At this point I can believe that Building 7 was not mined but fell by accident. If what the firemen were reported to say is true, then that works out.

What I find absurd is that Building 7 was the catastrophe prevention headquarters, and as a result they had a whole lot of illegal flammables stored in the basement, and that through a ridiculous sequence of mistakes and accidents it burned. The generators automatically came on when the power was shut off. The fuel started to be pumped upstairs. The water supply failed. There was nobody in the emergency center to track what was going on. Some emergency personnel thought they belonged there but when they saw it was deserted they left.

If that had somehow happened without 9/11 going on at the same time, I hope it would have gotten Giuliani tossed out. It's inexcusible. If it happened because of great big damage to the building from the collapse of tower 1 that couldn't have happened otherwise, that's somewhat better.

WTC7 falling down when it wasn't hit by a plane, because of Giuliani's fire hazard of an emergency control center, looks like the sort of government bungling that leads to conspiracy theories. "They couldn't have been that stupid, they must have done it on purpose."

This sort of thing ought to give government a bad name.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 18, 2011, 07:26:07 pm
Quote
Did you look at their evidence?

Yes.  They don't have pictures of lots of flame and they admit they have no pictures of lots of flame:

"What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side [...]"

They also say, of a video, "Anyone seeing this and suggesting no one knew the building was going to come down is lying."  I watched their video.  The Mandarin Hotel was much, much worse -- the whole building was engulfed.  The description of One Meridian Plaza (these are my two favorites; I'll keep using them till I get some clue that you've looked at them) -- a 19-hour flame that they gave up trying to put out and settled for containment -- was much worse.  Anyone who looks at the video on this "debunking" site and thinks the building should collapse is unacquainted with serious fires.

Would you like me to debunk that whole page?  Or just something in particular?

Quote
Then we'd have something better than your guess that it was small cold fires.

So, you didn't bother looking at photos of the Mandarin.  My "guess" comes from comparing a building engulfed in bright flame (and failing to collapse, let alone disintegrate) with three that show only bits of flame here and there -- one even has a person standing at the edge of the hole (where the oxygen is), a person visible against a very dark background further in.  I think my "guess" of small cold fires is better than your invocation of invisible fire that doesn't need oxygen.

Quote
They did not and probably could not plan for 20,000 gallons of avgas.

Then they were dumber than snake shit.  To plan for a plane impact (even if only due to fog -- hey, maybe impacts due to terrorism do more damage?) and not take the fuel into account?  While knowing that there were two international airports right nearby, so the possibility must exist of, say, a plane just beginning a transatlantic flight (thus fully fueled) losing its way for all kinds of possible technical glitches and/or weather?  Do you have any evidence of that degree of their stupidity, or is it just something you need to assume in order to get the necessary fragility?

You need incompetent designers, together with secret fires, just to get the things to break at all.  Then you need a source of symmetry and enough energy to pulverize the concrete to get the disintegration.

I need people who openly asserted their need for a pretext for war, specifically war in central Asia, who are chummy with a guy who's got a couple of white elephants to get off his hands.  I've got mine.

Anybody tried the pose-a-shocking-statement game yet?

Quote
Whereas the beliefs of Muslim fundamentalists are opposite to those of Christian fundamentalists I am perplexed at how often they are juxtaposed as if the behavior of one would be the guide for the behavior of the other.

There must be something similar, or we would not be using the single word "fundamentalist" in both cases.  As in, we can speak of "Victorian houses" and "geodesic-dome houses" -- very, very different buildings, but both get lived in by humans.  Homework:  given the somewhat different beliefs (believe me, hon, from my point of view, Christianity is sort of Judaism v2.0 and Islam is Judaism v3.0, but we digress), what do Christian and Muslim fundamentalists have in common?

Quote
Not all muslims belive this way , but the hijackers were told that their way into heaven would be assured by their martyerdom and that they would probly get to two or three reprobate relations in on their leftover credits. This is opposite to Christian beliefs, your knoledge of Christian behaviors is not usefull in understanding Muslim behaviors.

You miss the point, to which the specific beliefs are not at all relevant.  K took his religion seriously, and chose to suffer for what he thought was right.  Americans are thought to be too decadent to suffer for what is right, preferring to live it up if at all possible -- meaning that they find it hard to understand people like K, or a serious Muslim, who might prefer to spend the rest of their lives celibate (as K would have done) or their last hours in prayer.

I.e, just because you would party it up doesn't mean a truly devout person would.  That you believe a truly devout person would party it up argues against your comprehension of "truly devout".  Regardless of the specifics of the devotion.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 18, 2011, 10:28:01 pm
Quote
Did you look at their evidence?

Yes.  They don't have pictures of lots of flame and they admit they have no pictures of lots of flame:

"What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side [...]"

They also say, of a video, "Anyone seeing this and suggesting no one knew the building was going to come down is lying."  I watched their video.

Yes, I watched that video once and I could hardly tell what was going on. I saw a lot of smoke and couldn't tell where it was coming from.

Quote
The Mandarin Hotel was much, much worse -- the whole building was engulfed.

Sure, and it was built different. The fire was not aviation fuel but stuff that was lying around in a hotel. There was limited oxygen inside the building -- partly because the fire doors etc worked to prevent a chimney effect -- so the hottest fires were at windows in the granite wall. It was a very different situation. But it's suggestive. It didn't fall down. And the Banker's Trust building beside WTC didn't fall down with a 14-floor rip in it, but it didn't catch on fire.
http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

Quote
Would you like me to debunk that whole page?  Or just something in particular?

The statements by the firemen.

Quote
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Is this guy for real? I suppose if he's real he could have made this statement under duress.

Quote
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there.

Quote
"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.

Either this stuff is for real and there's plenty of reason to think the building collapsed from the fire etc. Or it's faked, part of a cover-up. Is there reason to think it's all fake?

I notice that it's all firemen talking about stuff afterward, and not transcripts of what they said at the time. I'd rather see transcripts. But these are particular firemen with names. They fought the fires and hundreds of firemen died. What would it take to get them to do a cover-up? If they didn't really say it, or the names aren't real firemen, then we have a cover-up that can be proven.

Quote
Quote
Then we'd have something better than your guess that it was small cold fires.

So, you didn't bother looking at photos of the Mandarin.  My "guess" comes from comparing a building engulfed in bright flame (and failing to collapse, let alone disintegrate) with three that show only bits of flame here and there

This is an appeal to ignorance. They were different kinds of buildings and it was different kinds of fires. The argument is superficially plausible but you haven't shown that there's anything real behind it.

Quote
one even has a person standing at the edge of the hole (where the oxygen is), a person visible against a very dark background further in.

I didn't see that person. Then last time around I looked at the claim there was a person there, and then I could see him. The harder I looked for ways to interpret it as a person the clearer he got. Then I thought, 'wait a minute, is this real?' and I looked at it as just normal variations in background color and intensity. The person went away and looked like part of the wall. I could switch back and forth, see him or not depending just on how I looked. This is how people see. We are good at seeing patterns, and inventing patterns, and we are particularly good at seeing people whether they're there or not. Is there any evidence for this guy beyond this one photo? Did he wave at people, or jump out of the building, or something?

Quote
Quote
They did not and probably could not plan for 20,000 gallons of avgas.

Then they were dumber than snake shit.  To plan for a plane impact (even if only due to fog -- hey, maybe impacts due to terrorism do more damage?) and not take the fuel into account?

It's a physics thing. Temperature is different from heat. A whole lot of flammable stuff burning at 800 degrees can have a bigger effect than a smaller amount burning at 1300 degrees. I gave a link to an expert who thought they couldn't build with protection against 20,000 gallons of diesel. Protect against that and the building would be too heavy and they'd need a radically different design. I don't know whether that expert was right because it isn't my field. He made the claim and it looks plausible to me. Show me an expert who says otherwise and I'll compare their claims and then I'll have some idea what to look for to form an opinion.

Quote
The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature).
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html


Quote
You need incompetent designers, together with secret fires, just to get the things to break at all.  Then you need a source of symmetry and enough energy to pulverize the concrete to get the disintegration.

When I see more details, the idea put forth by Sams, Tucci, and Quadribloc makes more sense. (Which doesn't make it right.) You could have the floors collapsing on each other first. Then the core and the perimeter aren't particularly connected, and they can collapse independently. The core is subject to twisting and bending, and it doesn't take much of that for it to break here and there. The outer sheath falls and falls apart, some of it falls outward in big pieces. There may be a stub of the core sticking up after everything else has fallen.

We don't see much of what happens inside, except we see the penthouse of Building 7 fall before the outer walls fall. We see part of the core sticking up after the collapse in http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html .

Claims that the buildings fell demolition-straight are exaggerated. Tower #2 fell onto Building #3, etc etc.

Your arguments for asymmetry and falling-too-fast conflict. If it falls that fast then symmetry is not very important -- there wasn't time to fall sideways much. Do you have a link to somebody who's done the math about falling too fast? The handwaving argument is sort of convincing in an emotional way but it's no substitute for numbers.


Quote
I.e, just because you would party it up doesn't mean a truly devout person would.

And yet, it doesn't necessarily take a truly devout person to be a suicide bomber. That sort of thing can go lots of ways. I agree that there are people who are the way you describe, but they are not the only ones who could be recruited for 9/11.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 18, 2011, 10:30:15 pm
Quote
Whereas the beliefs of Muslim fundamentalists are opposite to those of Christian fundamentalists I am perplexed at how often they are juxtaposed as if the behavior of one would be the guide for the behavior of the other.

There must be something similar, or we would not be using the single word "fundamentalist" in both cases. 


No , being fundamentally a fish would not be a simularity to something that was fundamentally an anvil.

What might be simular is  preference for reference to origional sorces.

In some respects Mohammed and Jesus agreed but in some others they took opposite positions , in those cases where the opposite position is the position in question one could not be more opposite than to be fundamedntally in agreement with that opposition.

Christians do not earn their way in to heaven , especially not "fundamentalist:" Christians. Muslims do , especially so the sort that is sometimes persueded to suicide in service to the faith.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 19, 2011, 07:09:28 am
Quote
Yes, I watched that video once and I could hardly tell what was going on. I saw a lot of smoke and couldn't tell where it was coming from.

Well, that rather suggests we don't have a lot to talk about, you and I.  What I did see of visible fire wasn't much.  Some of the lighter "smoke" I took to be steam -- having recently watched a building on fire, live and in person (though from a very safe distance).

Quote
Sure, and it was built different.

Gosh, that's handy.  And a normal stick-built house is built very differently from a straw-bale house, and in case of fire, the straw-bale one will be highly resistant, tending to char and smolder at worst under conditions that would consume a stick-built version -- and even so, given enough fire (heat #AND# temperature -- i.e., total energy), they'll both burn down.

So at some point, given enough energy input, the different structures aren't really going to be relevant.  You still need those towers to be amazingly fragile. 

Quote
The fire was not aviation fuel but stuff that was lying around in a hotel.

You mean, like the stuff you pooh-poohed re the earlier WTC North tower fire.  So you're saying that avgas (aka kerosene, iirc, but it does sound so much more dangerous if you call it jet fuel or aviation fuel) is less volatile than stuff lying around in a hotel, since it resulted in such small fires.

Quote
I notice that it's all firemen talking about stuff afterward, and not transcripts of what they said at the time. I'd rather see transcripts.

So would I.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html

emphasis added in the following:

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Interview, 12/06/01, New York Times

Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
Interview,  , New York Times

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Interview, 12/06/05, New York Times

Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general, everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when [the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering. From there I don't know who was who. I don't even know where my guys went. None of us knew where each other were at at that point in time.
Interview, 12/04/01, New York Times

Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times

There are a lot more on that page.  These are named people as real (as far as you or I can tell) as your firemen.

Now, in addition to post-facto interviews where people are remembering (accurately or not) explosive events, there are also a number of videos taken at the time which contain or claim to contain the sound of explosions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
is one; I don't know if it's a good one or not as I'm having download issues at the moment.

You might like to say that the "explosions" are the sounds of the floors pancaking; only, they occur just before things start to fall, rather than simultaneously with the fall.

Quote
This is an appeal to ignorance. They were different kinds of buildings and it was different kinds of fires. The argument is superficially plausible but you haven't shown that there's anything real behind it.

Given enough energy (like, say, a really violent, energetic fire), the differences diminish.  I keep showing you, not different buildings with comparable fires, but different buildings that nonetheless withstand much, much bigger, stronger fires without even breaking let alone disintegrating.

Pick the strongest man in the world, a real Atlas.  Get me.  Ask each of us to hold a 20 kg weight for X time.  Will there be a difference?  Of course.  Now, give us each a 20000 kg weight to hold.  Won't be much of a difference, before we're both grease smears.

Quote
I didn't see that person.

I yield the person.  The lack of flames and the dark background remain.

Back later on other points; meantime:

Quote
And yet, it doesn't necessarily take a truly devout person to be a suicide bomber. That sort of thing can go lots of ways. I agree that there are people who are the way you describe, but they are not the only ones who could be recruited for 9/11.

Yes, yes.  The argument re the 'truly devout' was not arguing for or against partying suicide bombers; rather, I was trying to make the point that the ease with which Americans swallow the partying-suicide-bombers story is a data point for alleged American decadence.  The easy acceptance was my issue, not whether or not it proved or disproved any hijackers.  Of course such partiers are possible; they are, however, necessary to the official story -- and so few Americans seem capable of even imagining suiciders who really would spend their last hours in the greater ecstasy of prayer.  That, I say, is spiritually pathetic, regardless of the truth of 9/11.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 19, 2011, 08:57:45 am
Yes, yes.  The argument re the 'truly devout' was not arguing for or against partying suicide bombers; rather, I was trying to make the point that the ease with which Americans swallow the partying-suicide-bombers story is a data point for alleged American decadence.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, I recall a news story about a whole family of Muslims having been murdered in order to provide one of the hijackers with a false identity.

I didn't recall hearing more about it after that. So, while I didn't think the 9/11 attacks were a false flag operation, the thought did cross my mind that the government might have engaged in some false propaganda to make the hijackers less likely to be made into romantic heroes.

Perhaps Mohammad Atta's visit to the strip club was a government hoax. Or mistaken identity. That would have at least been possible for me to believe, because that could be done without killing 2,000-odd fellow Americans.

But given that Egypt is known for having belly-dancers as a popular form of entertainment - and, in fact, given what a mob of its Muslim citizens recently did to an ABC news reporter - it isn't secularism that makes this easy enough to believe. We have experience of our own with the Elmer Gantry type. Being hypocritically lax with one's own obligations as a Muslim is not really a barrier to bigotry against Christians and Jews - any more than Christians bigoted against Jews and Muslims are observed to be models of piety.

In Christianity, of course, suicide is viewed as the worst possible sin - you can't go to confession afterward. In Islam, however, martyrdom is glorified. Soldiers and adventurers as romantic figures are not even alien to our own culture. A stupid crazy guy who thinks the afterlife is his best chance to get laid - among one billion Muslims, why couldn't al-Qaeda find one?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 19, 2011, 09:14:38 am
Quote
Yes, I watched that video once and I could hardly tell what was going on. I saw a lot of smoke and couldn't tell where it was coming from.

Well, that rather suggests we don't have a lot to talk about, you and I.

So, let's discount that video. The anti-Truther site said it was important, but until I see something important there I'm going to put it aside.

The thing I'd want you to debunk is those firefighters. If what they are claimed to say is true, then Building 7 doesn't look that different from the two towers. All we need is a source of kerosene, which was there, and the building ripped open which the firefighters claimed, and similar construction which appears plausible from the wreckage. It doesn't need demolition. The firefighters saw the building starting to come apart, which surely happened before the hypothetical explosives would have pulled it down.

More -- if the construction was similar and the testimony was true, it makes something approaching the official line look more likely for the towers too. The penthouse fell before the walls. The building started coming apart before the collapse. Maybe that kind of fire can collapse that kind of building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#1983.E2.80.932001
Quote
The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[4] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.

Here's a claim that it was tube-frame above the seventh floor. So it could have collapsed similarly.

Quote
You still need those towers to be amazingly fragile.

If it's true then it has implications for other buildings made that way,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29
Quote
The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which Khan designed and was completed in Chicago by 1963.[2] This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[3] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.

So this should be an active field of research apart from the conspiracy theory variants which use it. I note again that no 9/11 conspiracy theory depends critically on demolition of the towers. If this part fails the rest stands independent of it.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm
here's a link to the NIST reports about #7. They disagree with me. They say the kerosene was not important, that regular building fires were enough to do it. They identify one key support, Column 79, was enough to bring the building down if it failed, independent of fire or other damage. Ouch! Truly bad design if so. They claim that it wasn't demolition, that the bombs required would have been unmistakeably loud and audio recordings didn't record the booms and nobody spoke of them. Different from the booms you did mention. I haven't looked at the details on this. It seems plausible to me that one small explosive charge on Column 79 might not be that loud, if conspirators knew to do that.

Quote
Quote
The fire was not aviation fuel but stuff that was lying around in a hotel.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm
You mean, like the stuff you pooh-poohed re the earlier WTC North tower fire.

Yes, which did not make the tower fall down.

Quote
So you're saying that avgas (aka kerosene, iirc, but it does sound so much more dangerous if you call it jet fuel or aviation fuel) is less volatile than stuff lying around in a hotel, since it resulted in such small fires.

No, I'm saying that a whole lot of kerosene could result in a lot more heat than the stuff that's usually lying around. Not higher temperature, but lots of heat.

Quote
Quote
I notice that it's all firemen talking about stuff afterward, and not transcripts of what they said at the time. I'd rather see transcripts.

So would I.

Do you have a way to verify this sort of thing, or a way to easily search through the transcripts? I might find one but I'm new at this.

Quote
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html

emphasis added in the following:

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Interview, 12/06/01, New York Times

Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
Interview,  , New York Times

.... etc

I'll look at that but I'm still catching up on building #7. That time firemen noticed it was failing a good long time before it fell. The things they saw were not caused by a traditional demolition. It looks like a building that would fall down without demolition. It looks like the center collapsed first and the walls later. Were the reports false?

There could be something important in what these other firemen heard. The guy who compared it to demolitions on TV isn't real impressive but the important thing is what he heard and not his amateur interpretation of it.

Quote
Quote
This is an appeal to ignorance. They were different kinds of buildings and it was different kinds of fires. The argument is superficially plausible but you haven't shown that there's anything real behind it.

Given enough energy (like, say, a really violent, energetic fire), the differences diminish.  I keep showing you, not different buildings with comparable fires, but different buildings that nonetheless withstand much, much bigger, stronger fires without even breaking let alone disintegrating.

I missed where the combustibles came from in these other fires. How did the BTUs compare to 80,000 liters of kerosene?

One of the links I gave claimed that the fire was probably no more than 750-800 degrees. He sounds to me like he knows what he's talking about in general, but he's making rule-of-thumb estimates without actually knowing what happened.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Quote
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

Quote
Pick the strongest man in the world, a real Atlas.  Get me.  Ask each of us to hold a 20 kg weight for X time.  Will there be a difference?  Of course.  Now, give us each a 20000 kg weight to hold.  Won't be much of a difference, before we're both grease smears.

Yes, that's my argument about symmetry. Drive a nail 3 mm into a board. Drop another nail, head first, onto it a distance of 1 mm. If the first nail is tilted, the second one will definitely fall off and land on its side. Now hit the first nail with a hammer. If the nail is a little tilted will the hammer fall on its side?

Quote
Quote
I didn't see that person.

I yield the person.  The lack of flames and the dark background remain.

If the air was being sucked in there, that would make sense.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 19, 2011, 09:56:35 am

Quote
And yet, it doesn't necessarily take a truly devout person to be a suicide bomber. That sort of thing can go lots of ways. I agree that there are people who are the way you describe, but they are not the only ones who could be recruited for 9/11.

Yes, yes.  The argument re the 'truly devout' was not arguing for or against partying suicide bombers; rather, I was trying to make the point that the ease with which Americans swallow the partying-suicide-bombers story is a data point for alleged American decadence.  The easy acceptance was my issue, not whether or not it proved or disproved any hijackers.  Of course such partiers are possible; they are, however, necessary to the official story -- and so few Americans seem capable of even imagining suiciders who really would spend their last hours in the greater ecstasy of prayer.  That, I say, is spiritually pathetic, regardless of the truth of 9/11.

Sure. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the spiritual maturity of the US public.

The same things went more intensely in Israel. They insisted that arab suicide bombers were cowards who chose a quick death rather than face what would happen to them if they were captured.

So with a dead suicide bomber, they looked for somebody else to retaliate against and chose the relatives. They'd find the guy's mother and sisters and bulldoze their houses down and confiscate their land and bank accounts. Try to take everything they had and leave them on the street.

There were arab charities that were supposed to assist "victims of Israel". The charities considered people whose houses were bulldozed to be victims, and tried to help them. Israel then declared that these were not really charities but instead were terrorist organizations that rewarded suicide bombers by giving money to their families. israel tried to get the charities shut down.

Lots of people have trouble seeing both points of view at the same time, and it's particularly hard to see the Israeli POV. What it takes is to first see that they think if the Israeli government thinks somebody ought to be a victim then it's wrong to do anything to help them. And when somebody does something the Israeli government doesn't like it's OK to punish their relatives for it.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 19, 2011, 11:43:28 am
Quote
It's a physics thing. Temperature is different from heat. A whole lot of flammable stuff burning at 800 degrees can have a bigger effect than a smaller amount burning at 1300 degrees.

Yes, there's more heat in the Arctic Ocean than in the candle I just lit.  A "whole lot" of 800 degree fire vs a smaller 1600 degree fire (I upped the temp a bit) -- will the heat energy be equal, between a 800 deg fire that's twice the size of a 1600 deg fire?  'Cos the Mandarin fire is faaar more than twice the size of any of the WTC fires, so the WTC fires would have to be waaay more than twice the temperature.

Quote
I gave a link to an expert who thought they couldn't build with protection against 20,000 gallons of diesel. [....] Show me an expert who says otherwise and I'll compare their claims and then I'll have some idea what to look for to form an opinion.

My engineer brother-in-law and his engineer buddies all buy the official story.  "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" don't.  "Show me an expert who says otherwise", you say -- well, I daresay you could find someone at http://www.ae911truth.org/ to discuss with.  Does that count as my "showing you an expert who says otherwise"?  It's all I've got.

Quote
The handwaving argument is sort of convincing in an emotional way but it's no substitute for numbers.

Which is about what I think of your superheated invisible WTC fires.

As to the symmetry, yes, you're right, I should have said you need a source of symmetry OR a huge crushing force.  You obviously do understand that, given sufficient energy input, the structural differences become less important or even unimportant.  So you need to assume that the energy of the Mandarin Hotel or One Meridian was small, despite the obvious size, given that the buildings didn't break.

About the math of falling too fast:  The buildings fell, they were not stomped on by something.  The only force allegedly available is gravity.  There is a maximum possible speed; anything else will slow the descent.  ANY energy spent in any deformation (crushing, bending, or just moving aside) -- in a gravity-only scenario -- MUST reduce the speed.  It's a physics thing.  You're arguing that the towers and 7 were so fragile that they provided virtually no resistance to gravity -- at most, only slightly more resistance than open air.  Again, I'd expect the architects & engineers who doubt the official explanation would be the folks to ask . . . but they're probably all just a bunch of deniers.

I am reminded of a different calculation, however; not sure if I can find it any more (Google is not my bitch).  This is what the guy did:
1) Use the official version (OV) of the construction of the Towers.
2) From this, calculate the tons of steel used in their construction.
2a) Caveat:  the OV says explicitly that lighter and lighter gauge steel was used higher and higher in the towers (the extra strength isn't needed, with less & less to support, and the extra weight would be nice to lose).  But the OV does not say at what points the gauge lightens, nor by how much.  So if we assume ground-level-gauge steel throughout, we will be overestimating how much steel was used; we don't know by how much, but we do know it's an overestimate.  Let's use it as a starting point, at least.
3) Get stats, from primary sources or nearly so (maybe press releases from the time of construction?) that state how much steel was actually used.
4) Compare.

The overestimated amount, by his calculations, was ~66,000 tons (for one tower or both, I don't recall).
The reported amount was ~99,0000 tons.

I provide this purely for your entertainment.  No doubt the guy was inept in his assumptions or his math.

Quote
They [NIST} claim that it wasn't demolition, that the bombs required would have been unmistakeably loud and audio recordings didn't record the booms and nobody spoke of them.

Yes, NIST did say that.  "Nobody" has at least one name and it's Barry:

Quote
Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7′s collapse– given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building:

    “I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.”

There are claims of audio recordings with audible WTC7 explosions.  There are claims that the recordings are fake.

Quote
The thing I'd want you to debunk is those firefighters.

All I've got off the top of my head is, they make these claims of fires and holes, and have no evidence, like photos, of fires and holes.  Otoh, my return volley of witnesses, many of whom were also firemen, spoke of seeing very little flame, which is corroborated by pretty much all video evidence; and of hearing explosions, and there are videos with mysterious puffs prior to (not together with) floors collapsing and videos that suddenly shake prior to any collapsing (as if the person or tripod were suddenly slightly jiggled) and videos with audible explosions.

Quote
Quote
The lack of flames and the dark background remain.

If the air was being sucked in there, that would make sense.

Air was being sucked in -- to an area where there was visibly little or no fire, belying the claims of steel-softening infernos due to jet fuel?  Oh, wait, this is more of your invisible fire.

Quote
Sure. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the spiritual maturity of the US public.

That's all I was going for, in that section.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 19, 2011, 02:22:18 pm
So with a dead suicide bomber, they looked for somebody else to retaliate against and chose the relatives. They'd find the guy's mother and sisters and bulldoze their houses down and confiscate their land and bank accounts. Try to take everything they had and leave them on the street.
This is certainly un-Constitutional. But it's also practical: if you want to reduce the amount of any kind of crime, deterrence is much cheaper than security. Making suicide bombings physically impossible would mean denying people on the West Bank any entry into Israel, which would mean penalizing the innocent another way - they would have no means of earning a living.

As for the charities - Saddam Hussein was making large enough payments to the families of suicide bombers that some desperate people were seeing becoming a suicide bomber as a way to help their families. Of course that had to be stopped.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: SandySandfort on February 19, 2011, 04:10:42 pm
So with a dead suicide bomber, they looked for somebody else to retaliate against and chose the relatives. They'd find the guy's mother and sisters and bulldoze their houses down and confiscate their land and bank accounts. Try to take everything they had and leave them on the street.
This is certainly un-Constitutional. But it's also practical: if you want to reduce the amount of any kind of crime, deterrence is much cheaper than security. Making suicide bombings physically impossible would mean denying people on the West Bank any entry into Israel, which would mean penalizing the innocent another way - they would have no means of earning a living.

Of course, there is a 3rd, more ethical option in this particular case. Make entry into Israel dependent upon having guarantors. Instead of a cash bond, the guarantors would have to put up their homes and all the possessions therein. If Machmud does not blow himself up, no harm, no foul. If he does, the 'dozers raze the home. If the home owners are seen to be moving stuff out of the house, Machmud is taken into custody until things are sorted out. Easy, peasy.

There are probably any number of non-violent and ethical additional options. I don't see the Israelis putting much creative thinking into this.

One thing the current system cannot do is stop suicide murderers who are estranged from their families. The real irony would be where a family has disowned a son or daughter because of their violent, radical beliefs. You are just giving the bomber another incentive to commit murder. He can now use the Israelis to punish his family for being "apostates."
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 19, 2011, 05:36:11 pm
Quote
It's a physics thing. Temperature is different from heat. A whole lot of flammable stuff burning at 800 degrees can have a bigger effect than a smaller amount burning at 1300 degrees.

Yes, there's more heat in the Arctic Ocean than in the candle I just lit.  A "whole lot" of 800 degree fire vs a smaller 1600 degree fire (I upped the temp a bit) -- will the heat energy be equal, between a 800 deg fire that's twice the size of a 1600 deg fire?  'Cos the Mandarin fire is faaar more than twice the size of any of the WTC fires, so the WTC fires would have to be waaay more than twice the temperature.

We've agreed that the Meridian fire looked spectacular at windows, and that a lot of the inside didn't burn because there was not enough oxygen present. I haven't looked enough to be certain how true this is but I don't see any strong reason to doubt it.

If one floor of a WTC tower had a lot of kerosene and a lot of air, it had some volume to burn in also. A WTC floor was much larger than a Meridian hotel floor. And one floor might be enough. How much of the building did the wings cut through? I don't know. They weren't that strong and they had a big surface to resist them even after they got through the outer shell. At some point they would shear off, but where?

The planes hit part of the core and it looks like some of the heavy stuff that came out the other side went through the core. If there was another way to get air in or out the core then you have a chimney. But I haven't heard anybody mention that, so maybe they have reason to think it didn't happen.

So the question is how fast could the kerosene burn, and that's limited by how fast air could get in. We can estimate how fast air gets in by how fast smoke gets out.

Here's a BOTE guess. Say the plane swept everything out of about half the interior of one floor. That's 20,000 square feet. Times 8 feet high is 150,000 cubic feet. Say it's 10% filled up with stuff -- desks, filing cabinets, refrigerators, etc -- 135,000 cubic feet. At 8.5 grams oxygen per cubic foot, that's about 1150 kg of oxygen. It takes 8 grams of oxygen to burn 7 grams of kerosene, so using the air in half of one floor of the WTC we can burn about 1000 kilograms of kerosene, or about 1250 liters. Using the lower heating value, that's about 43,000 megaJoules, without any extra air coming in at all.

At this point I'm stuck. I don't know how much metal and concrete will be soaking up that heat, and I don't know how much of it will get pushed out the hole when the air temperature goes up and the gas expands. But we won't have a lot of kerosene burning without an external source of air, and other things that would burn hotter (desks, paper, etc would compete with kerosene for oxygen. The temperature would be above the fire point, at least near the plane debris. The more interior walls get burned through, the more oxygen is available. Too many variables.

Quote
Quote
I gave a link to an expert who thought they couldn't build with protection against 20,000 gallons of diesel. [....] Show me an expert who says otherwise and I'll compare their claims and then I'll have some idea what to look for to form an opinion.

My engineer brother-in-law and his engineer buddies all buy the official story.  "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" don't.  "Show me an expert who says otherwise", you say -- well, I daresay you could find someone at http://www.ae911truth.org/ to discuss with.  Does that count as my "showing you an expert who says otherwise"?  It's all I've got.

OK. I think you could follow that argument if you wanted to. And without doing it, you're stuck with "Look at the pictures, they don't look like enough fire to weaken the steel". I instinctively distrust that kind of argument because there have been a few times I made a decent living by finding something true that people instinctively didn't believe and then used their bad conclusions....

Quote
Quote
The handwaving argument is sort of convincing in an emotional way but it's no substitute for numbers.

Which is about what I think of your superheated invisible WTC fires.

I could easily be wrong. NIST said the kerosene fire flamed out quick. But it started a regular fire with wood and paper etc, all at the same time over a big area. Once that fire was going strong it damaged things in the building interior and it went from there. Most fires start small and spread gradually. I'm not clear what to believe. I tend to believe in the honesty and competence of NIST guys from my limited contacts with some of them. They're a high-morale group, and not the sort to make up lies for the spooks. But there's always a first time.

Quote
As to the symmetry, yes, you're right, I should have said you need a source of symmetry OR a huge crushing force.  You obviously do understand that, given sufficient energy input, the structural differences become less important or even unimportant.  So you need to assume that the energy of the Mandarin Hotel or One Meridian was small, despite the obvious size, given that the buildings didn't break.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire
Quote
The building, along with the CCTV Headquarters Building, was built using far less steel than conventional skyscrapers, and designed to withstand major earthquakes. ....

The engineering firm for the building was Arup, East Asia,[7] who designed and built the TVCC after an extensive internal study of the World Trade Center building collapses on September 11, 2001.

If they tried to see what was wrong with WTC and built with that in mind, it shouldn't be a surprise that the building didn't collapse.

Quote
About the math of falling too fast:  The buildings fell, they were not stomped on by something.  The only force allegedly available is gravity.  There is a maximum possible speed; anything else will slow the descent.  ANY energy spent in any deformation (crushing, bending, or just moving aside) -- in a gravity-only scenario -- MUST reduce the speed.  It's a physics thing.  You're arguing that the towers and 7 were so fragile that they provided virtually no resistance to gravity -- at most, only slightly more resistance than open air.  Again, I'd expect the architects & engineers who doubt the official explanation would be the folks to ask . . . but they're probably all just a bunch of deniers.

Ten seconds instead of 8 seconds is a significant reduction. 25%. Fall 10 feet, get delayed a quarter of the time it took to fall. Fall 10 feet more, get delayed, The faster it falls and the more mass it has, the faster it cracks through the next one.

But what if the inside has already fallen, and the outer shell is just falling and buckling? Then I'm less sure what to expect. Possibly some visible buckling, but I didn't notice any in the videos I saw. But I wasn't expecting it, and I have a bad habit of not seeing subtle things I don't expect.

Quote
I am reminded of a different calculation, however; not sure if I can find it any more (Google is not my bitch).  This is what the guy did:
1) Use the official version (OV) of the construction of the Towers.
2) From this, calculate the tons of steel used in their construction.
2a) Caveat:  the OV says explicitly that lighter and lighter gauge steel was used higher and higher in the towers (the extra strength isn't needed, with less & less to support, and the extra weight would be nice to lose).  But the OV does not say at what points the gauge lightens, nor by how much.  So if we assume ground-level-gauge steel throughout, we will be overestimating how much steel was used; we don't know by how much, but we do know it's an overestimate.  Let's use it as a starting point, at least.
3) Get stats, from primary sources or nearly so (maybe press releases from the time of construction?) that state how much steel was actually used.
4) Compare.

The overestimated amount, by his calculations, was ~66,000 tons (for one tower or both, I don't recall).
The reported amount was ~99,0000 tons.

I saw a claim of 1,000,000 tons for the weight of both towers. About 300,000 tons of steel and 700,000 tons of stone and concrete. I don't know who's right.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Quote
Quote
They [NIST} claim that it wasn't demolition, that the bombs required would have been unmistakeably loud and audio recordings didn't record the booms and nobody spoke of them.

Yes, NIST did say that.  "Nobody" has at least one name and it's Barry:

Quote
Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7′s collapse– given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building:

    “I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building.”

There are claims of audio recordings with audible WTC7 explosions.  There are claims that the recordings are fake.

NIST said that the explosions would be very very loud, so *everybody* would hear them half a mile away. I haven't checked what their assumptions are, but I tend to doubt it. They have probably made assumptions like for a regular demolition where you care about everything falling just right and you mine every single support and set them all off at exactly the same time. Even then it might not be that loud.

If they play fast and loose with the assumptions for the idea they want to knock down, can I trust their assumptions for their own theory? But maybe they're on the level, I need to look at what they did before I decide. Of course I tend to first do the parts that look like the most fun.

Quote
Quote
The thing I'd want you to debunk is those firefighters.

All I've got off the top of my head is, they make these claims of fires and holes, and have no evidence, like photos, of fires and holes.

Yes, we have lots of photos and videos taken from a good distance away. We don't have much taken from between the collapsed Tower #2 and the collapsing #7. Not many people went there, and the firefighters who did were busy and maybe mostly not taking videos. But you believe the other firemen when they say what they saw and heard. And I believe these too. They were doing firefighting at WTC, and they survived, and some of their friends died. I don't think they'd lie to support a conspiracy that made it happen. Somebody would have to publish fake firemen stories.

If they told the truth, they saw building 7 buckle and bend awhile before it fell. It was ready to fall down, and it didn't need bombs to make it fall down -- unless it already had some bombs to weaken it that much, which seems unlikely to me at this point.

And if NIST was right that the damage and the fires were enough to make #7 collapse, then # 1 and #2 were about the same thing only 60 floors higher.

So at some point I will look at whether these firemen were fakes.

Quote
Otoh, my return volley of witnesses, many of whom were also firemen, spoke of seeing very little flame, which is corroborated by pretty much all video evidence; and of hearing explosions, and there are videos with mysterious puffs prior to (not together with) floors collapsing and videos that suddenly shake prior to any collapsing (as if the person or tripod were suddenly slightly jiggled) and videos with audible explosions.

If the insides fell first, that might account for puffs and shaking prior to the outsides collapsing.

At this point I'm about ready to go along with NIST, though I haven't looked very thoroughly at the details. Building #7 could have collapsed without bombs, and it probably did. And if it could, then #1 and #2 could too. If this is correct then it's a failed offensive for the Truthers. If there was no way to do it without bombs, then there had to be a conspiracy. But there was a way to do it without bombs, and probably #7 had no bombs. (Which makes sense when it didn't have a plane either.)

If I get that settled in my mind then I'll want to look at evidence for bombs like those puffs and shakes etc. Even if the buildings could have fallen without bombs, the conspirators might have left bombs anyway, and there might be solid evidence that they did. The secondary offensive might succeed. And even if there's no evidence for bombs, there could still be a conspiracy that did not use demolition.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 19, 2011, 06:41:57 pm
So with a dead suicide bomber, they looked for somebody else to retaliate against and chose the relatives. They'd find the guy's mother and sisters and bulldoze their houses down and confiscate their land and bank accounts. Try to take everything they had and leave them on the street.

This is certainly un-Constitutional.

Israel does not yet have a constitution. They couldn't agree on one, and also they couldn't agree about whether to have one. Some Israelis thought it was blasphemous to have a document whose legal status would be higher than Torah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel

They have a sort of partial constitution. It does not make laws about what Israelis can do to foreigners who live in occupied territory. Or maybe their Supreme Court says it does. But the administration and particularly the military tend to ignore their Supreme Court when it says things that are inconvenient. Rather like the USA at a similar time in our history.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ... Build a fire under them. When it gets hot enough, they'll go."

Quote
But it's also practical: if you want to reduce the amount of any kind of crime, deterrence is much cheaper than security.

Collective punishment is one of the war crimes which is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, which Israel signed. However, some Israelis say that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Palestinians because Palestinians have never had a nation to sign the Geneva Conventions. By this interpretation, if the victims aren't citizens of a nation which has signed the Geneva Conventions then it isn't a war crime.

Also, the Geneva conventions say that it's illegal to move your own citizens into occupied land or move the natives off. But the argument is that this land doesn't actually belong to anybody so it's OK for Israel to annex it and do whatever they want with it.

Quote
Making suicide bombings physically impossible would mean denying people on the West Bank any entry into Israel, which would mean penalizing the innocent another way - they would have no means of earning a living.

That is what they wound up doing.

Quote
As for the charities - Saddam Hussein was making large enough payments to the families of suicide bombers that some desperate people were seeing becoming a suicide bomber as a way to help their families. Of course that had to be stopped.

Do you believe that?

Consider the source.

Israel is a nation which is fighting a perpetual war, and their ability to persuade Americans that they are 100% right while all their enemies are 100% wrong is vital to their survival. You can't blame them for systematically lying about pretty much everything, under the circumstances.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 19, 2011, 06:46:14 pm

Of course, there is a 3rd, more ethical option in this particular case. Make entry into Israel dependent upon having guarantors. Instead of a cash bond, the guarantors would have to put up their homes and all the possessions therein. If Machmud does not blow himself up, no harm, no foul. If he does, the 'dozers raze the home. If the home owners are seen to be moving stuff out of the house, Machmud is taken into custody until things are sorted out. Easy, peasy.

The whole point of the Separation Wall was to keep Palestinians from sneaking into Israel. That and to split off another big bite of land.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 19, 2011, 07:07:05 pm

Of course, there is a 3rd, more ethical option in this particular case. Make entry into Israel dependent upon having guarantors. Instead of a cash bond, the guarantors would have to put up their homes and all the possessions therein. If Machmud does not blow himself up, no harm, no foul. If he does, the 'dozers raze the home. If the home owners are seen to be moving stuff out of the house, Machmud is taken into custody until things are sorted out. Easy, peasy.

The whole point of the Separation Wall was to keep Palestinians from sneaking into Israel. That and to split off another big bite of land.


Go team Israel  ;D

Stopping the importation of deranged delusioned morons with suicidal tendencies is enough to justify the wall.

But again each time Israel give land back they receive bombs and rocket in response ... they should grab as much as possible and nuke who ever threaten them.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 19, 2011, 08:36:28 pm
One Truther theroy is that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel ,  another is the theroy that there was too much heat in the wreckage to be explained by anything short of incendiary devices .

The wreck was indeed steaming hot for more than a week, but isn't that normal after an oversized fire?

Steel looses strength in a non-linear way when it is heated , the crash of the aircraft looks as if it probly cut 20% of the beams before the fire, if the fire then got hot enough to weaken the rest of the structure 20% would the remaining 60% have held the weight of the upper floors ?

Probly not , haveing doubble or more the strength necessacery to stand would be a wastefull building tecnique.

When the heated steel began to deform the deformed parts would stop being load bearing and the load would be transferred to parts not yet deformed , at some point the weight would overcome the bearing ability of the remaining structure and the failure would seem sudden because there would be little motion before the failure and the transition from enough to not enough weight bearing strength would have been an instant.

  After the top floors were not supported their weight would decend at least a full floor with no resistance, the first floor with unimpared strength  would have caught this falling weight as a pile driver or a wrecking ball and would have broken promptly adding its own weight to the falling mass .

The collapseing floors were full of air which was compressed by the collapse and was forced out the windows in a gush .


It was a big fire and as the grandson of a blacksmith I can vouch for this as a fact , steel becomes plastic when heated.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 19, 2011, 09:39:16 pm
I swore I'd stay out of the 9 11 talk, but...

Energy has a way of showing up as heat. Or maybe think of it as one godawfull big spring. The collapse released enormous energy. Even what went into work, breaking things, ended up as heat just like in an over flexed coat hanger. Whatever heat was in the rubble, some of it was kenetic energy from no more mysterious a source than a huge number of crane hoists of materials up the building. Say it took a year to lift all that steel and 5 seconds to "unlift" it. Consider all the diesel it took to run the construction cranes, all the electrical elevator energy used to lift the furniture, victims and other masses a thousand feet in the air. Then release it in seconds,

Forget the diesel, jet fuel, paper and whatever else burned for now and think of the potential energy released in those few seconds. No wonder it was hot.

What caused it, I have no idea beyond my stated crazy people did something nuts, but remember ALL the sorts of energy released, kenetic.as well as chemical.

I am outta here.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 19, 2011, 10:17:01 pm
I swore I'd stay out of the 9 11 talk, but...

Energy has a way of showing up as heat. Or maybe think of it as one godawfull big spring. The collapse released enormous energy.


True , but if you were to drop an I beam from a mile in the air you might expect its impact to warm it a bit , not heat it to 500 - 1000 degrees or more.

(http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_metal3.jpg)

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.php

There was so much heat that some truthers posit Thermite was the agent of destruction, other Truthers posit that there was not enough fire to weaken the steel.

Proveing against one might simply convert a "truther" to the opposite theroy , there is no possibility of "winning" such an argument  facts and logic arn't being used to learn anything , they are being used as props for the theroy which is fully formed before the fact.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 12:03:39 am
I swore I'd stay out of the 9 11 talk, but...

Energy has a way of showing up as heat. Or maybe think of it as one godawfull big spring. The collapse released enormous energy.


True , but if you were to drop an I beam from a mile in the air you might expect its impact to warm it a bit , not heat it to 500 - 1000 degrees or more.

This is another of those times when we'd need to look at the numbers. You can absorb an awful lot of energy crushing 7000 tons of concrete into sand. How much is left over to go into heat? Some. There has to be some left over for heat. I'm not clear how to estimate it.

Quote
There was so much heat that some truthers posit Thermite was the agent of destruction, other Truthers posit that there was not enough fire to weaken the steel.

Proveing against one might simply convert a "truther" to the opposite theroy , there is no possibility of "winning" such an argument  facts and logic arn't being used to learn anything , they are being used as props for the theroy which is fully formed before the fact.

This is one of the ways human beings do things. Their job is to come up with the best Truther hypothesis they can. If you persuade them that one version doesn't work, they get to pick a better one. If you want to argue against Truthers, don't you want to argue against their best shot and not just some random garbage?

And when they pick holes in the official theory, that's a cue for somebody to improve the official theory. If they can disprove the best official theory then they're really on to something.

And a lot of people do their best thinking when they feel like they have something to win and something to lose. They get personally attached to their ideas, and they do the best they can to prove theirs and to knock down the others.

They're likely to keep struggling to patch up their theory even after they ought to concede. That's no big loss except to them. It's sad when they try sophistries to try to convince people wrongly. Lots of people care more about winning than following the rules, and all you can do is watch for it.

But somebody who's looking for truth can listen to all sides and pick what works, and get the benefit of smart people who go all out to pick holes in each other's arguments. If the fanatics never give in, you still get the advantage of all the ideas they come up with.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 12:19:45 am

Of course, there is a 3rd, more ethical option in this particular case. Make entry into Israel dependent upon having guarantors. Instead of a cash bond, the guarantors would have to put up their homes and all the possessions therein. If Machmud does not blow himself up, no harm, no foul. If he does, the 'dozers raze the home. If the home owners are seen to be moving stuff out of the house, Machmud is taken into custody until things are sorted out. Easy, peasy.

The whole point of the Separation Wall was to keep Palestinians from sneaking into Israel. That and to split off another big bite of land.


Go team Israel  ;D

Stopping the importation of deranged delusioned morons with suicidal tendencies is enough to justify the wall.

But again each time Israel give land back they receive bombs and rocket in response ... they should grab as much as possible and nuke who ever threaten them.

That's pretty one-sided.

If you make a habit of not looking for the other guy's point of view, you're probably going to have to kill somebody. It's exciting. You can figure that you had no choice, it was them or you. You could have gotten killed real easy, it was a good thing you were better than them. You have to be ready in case it happens again.

But after you get good at it, it just feels mean.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 20, 2011, 12:37:37 am
..........But somebody who's looking for truth can listen to all sides and pick what works, and get the benefit of smart people who go all out to pick holes in each other's arguments. If the fanatics never give in, you still get the advantage of all the ideas they come up with.



Ah yes indeed so....

.... but you have to think it is fun,
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 20, 2011, 12:53:03 am
Of course, there is a 3rd, more ethical option in this particular case. Make entry into Israel dependent upon having guarantors.
You're absolutely right that this practice is unethical and imperfect in effectiveness.

One of the major legitimate grievances of Palestinians in the West Bank is the expansion of settlements there, so it is indeed clear that Israel is not trying hard to behave in an ethical way to the people under occupation.

Initially, in the years leading up to 1947, Jews had come to Palestine legally - with permission, however, from the British colonial government, not an elected Palestinian government. Since Western Europe was a safe and prosperous place in the postwar era, it's not clear why the Holocaust was a reason to admit large enough numbers of Jews to Palestine so as to cause objections by the locals. (However, many of the Jews who went to Palestine, instead of living as free people in Israel, would have been trapped behind the Iron Curtain had they stayed in Europe.)

Although admitted as immigrants, they weren't stealing land (nor depressing the labor market, for that matter).

In any case, despite the history of Fiji, or Uganda, or even Sri Lanka, until a terrorist movement emerged among the Tamils, it's generally accepted that immigrant populations, even if they resulted from immigration not authorized by a truly representative government of the inhabitants of the country, may not be persecuted. (Of course, that's somewhat like holding the people responsible for debts incurred by a corrupt government - the sort of thing that "Economic Hitmen" talks about.)

But while the "moral capital" from the Holocaust is rightly dismissed as irrelevant to the Middle East situation, the attempt to drive the Israelis into the sea in 1948 isn't something Europeans did. When something like that fails, I'm afraid that the result is that one's intended victims are really not going to be seeing themselves as having ethical obligations towards you, for a long time to come.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 20, 2011, 01:24:24 am
That's pretty one-sided.

If you make a habit of not looking for the other guy's point of view, you're probably going to have to kill somebody. It's exciting. You can figure that you had no choice, it was them or you. You could have gotten killed real easy, it was a good thing you were better than them. You have to be ready in case it happens again.

But after you get good at it, it just feels mean.


Well for me it is enough that the Israelis aren't the ones trying to commit genocide ... I have no simpathy to race based atrocities, so the IDF takes a free pass.

If I think of it deeper I might see the other side, but I have few simpaties for people who try to do Ethnic cleansing ... so I go for those who defend themselves, the Israelis.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 07:18:08 am

But while the "moral capital" from the Holocaust is rightly dismissed as irrelevant to the Middle East situation, the attempt to drive the Israelis into the sea in 1948 isn't something Europeans did. When something like that fails, I'm afraid that the result is that one's intended victims are really not going to be seeing themselves as having ethical obligations towards you, for a long time to come.

That's one side's point of view.

Putting aside the propaganda about history, the peace movement in Israel is now dead. It's no longer safe for Israelis to publicly advocate a peace agreement that involves a viable Palestine -- do that and you're likely to get a sock in the jaw and people will say it serves you right.

Since there is no chance for peace, Israel's first international priority is that no arab or muslim nation anywhere get access to nukes, that Israel be the only middle east nation with nukes.

However, Israeli nukes obviously threaten Syria, and the Syrians felt they needed some sort of way to retaliate if they get nuked. So they have missiles with nerve gas aimed at Israeli cities, to counter both the nukes and Israel's nerve gas.

Occasionally Israelis get concerned about that and get into a big tizzy about plastic sheeting and duct tape to seal their apartments, and carrying their gas masks around with them, etc. But of course Syria will not attack. They just don't want Israel to nuke them.

I say this is no way to live.

Somehow, Israel has wound up with the same international relations the Nazis had, on a much smaller scale. With two big differences -- they have the USA for unconditional support instead of an implacable enemy. And they have nukes.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 20, 2011, 07:29:58 am
Putting aside the propaganda about history, the peace movement in Israel is now dead. It's no longer safe for Israelis to publicly advocate a peace agreement that involves a viable Palestine -- do that and you're likely to get a sock in the jaw and people will say it serves you right.

Are you serious ? All the war were started AGAINST Israel ... they just succeded beyond expectaction and the IDF counter-attacked gained them more than they want : Sinai, the whole of palestine, Golan Heigh and some bits of lebanon.

Are you serious that this is the problem of Israeli Warmongering ? If the IDF was grounded today by some sort of insane phenomenon, you can expect all arab armies to invade and conduct the worst genocide in human history.

Have the armies of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Irak and Hezbolla/Hamas/Muslim brotherhood vanish today and the IDF will not invade any of these countries ... so who is holding peace back ?

How can you have an Empire without having the population to settle it ? There are 5 millions Jews ... how are they going to conquere the 100 millions middle Eastern Arabs ?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 07:47:39 am
Putting aside the propaganda about history, the peace movement in Israel is now dead. It's no longer safe for Israelis to publicly advocate a peace agreement that involves a viable Palestine -- do that and you're likely to get a sock in the jaw and people will say it serves you right.

Are you serious ? All the war were started AGAINST Israel ... they just succeded beyond expectaction and the IDF counter-attacked gained them more than they want : Sinai, the whole of palestine, Golan Heigh and some bits of lebanon.

If you've made up your mind there's no reason for me to argue with you.

Quote
How can you have an Empire without having the population to settle it ? There are 5 millions Jews ... how are they going to conquere the 100 millions middle Eastern Arabs ?

By a peculiar coincidence, the Nazis had that exact same problem. They had way more enemies than they needed, and they found they had to conquer way more land than they had any use for. Israel has avoided doing such a big invasion so far. The USA invaded Iraq, and there was a lot of agitation for the USA to invade Iran while the Israeli army stayed home.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 20, 2011, 09:10:33 am
Quote
How can you have an Empire without having the population to settle it ? There are 5 millions Jews ... how are they going to conquere the 100 millions middle Eastern Arabs ?

By a peculiar coincidence, the Nazis had that exact same problem. They had way more enemies than they needed, and they found they had to conquer way more land than they had any use for. Israel has avoided doing such a big invasion so far. The USA invaded Iraq, and there was a lot of agitation for the USA to invade Iran while the Israeli army stayed home.


If the Israeli had to wait for the US they would have vanished like South Vietnam ... it is more a case of blackmail than overlordship.

If the Israelis go down they will nuke most of the middle east in the process, with nukes they got without US permission from the French ... who did it to avenge their ass beating in Algeria.

Just like during Yom Kippour when the US had to send help because a total Israeli rout would result in Cairo going down in flames.

Also the whole US aid to Israel is nothing more than corporate welfare because the aid can only buy US manufactured weapons ... so it is more a win to the Big Guns and Zionist smart thinking than anything else.

Israelis have much skill fighting, surviving and managing to get vital US support, sometime by using nuclear blackmail, but the image of Zionist overlorship is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 10:35:25 am

Also the whole US aid to Israel is nothing more than corporate welfare because the aid can only buy US manufactured weapons ... so it is more a win to the Big Guns and Zionist smart thinking than anything else.

Think about this one.

If we only wanted corporate welfare, we could buy the weapons and keep them ourselves.

Buying them retail and shipping them to Israel is a favor to Israel and not to anybody else. Think about it. You don't have to stay hypnotized.

(As a minor side issue, we require Israel to buy US weapons with about 3/4 of the money, and let them spend the rest buying from somebody else including themselves. That money all contributes to our foreign exchange deficit.)
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 20, 2011, 10:53:13 am
Think about this one.

If we only wanted corporate welfare, we could buy the weapons and keep them ourselves.

Buying them retail and shipping them to Israel is a favor to Israel and not to anybody else. Think about it. You don't have to stay hypnotized.

you don't understand, YOU don't buy the weapons, the Corporate dudes buy the politician so he can raid taxpayers money, which might well include you personally has J Thomas, to buy enough weapons to destroy every single countries in the worlds 5x and still have hand grenades to overkill whatever still stands.

Although nobody ever went broke banking on the stupidity of taxpayers and voters, there are fluctuations to how much crappy contracts you can milk from them ... so why not get yourself 3 Billions $ welfare, for Israel and Egypt who both receive aid, which will never change because the Holy Land war will maybe never end and even then calling to cut this aid will be met by cries of Anti-semitic racist. Just ask Ron and Rand Paul who are slanted like such.

This is the sacred cow contract for politicians and Corporate ... you pay the bills and nothing else.

(As a minor side issue, we require Israel to buy US weapons with about 3/4 of the money, and let them spend the rest buying from somebody else including themselves. That money all contributes to our foreign exchange deficit.)

3/4 of a lot of money, something like 3 Billions $ per year, is still a lot of money and a nice fixed income at the expense of US tax payers.

On the real commitment of the US to the existence of Israel is not that strong, nor is the hold of Israel over it so strong has you think ... it is all about Pork and the rest is collateral damage.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 12:06:27 pm
Think about this one.

If we only wanted corporate welfare, we could buy the weapons and keep them ourselves.

Buying them retail and shipping them to Israel is a favor to Israel and not to anybody else. Think about it. You don't have to stay hypnotized.

you don't understand, YOU don't buy the weapons, the Corporate dudes buy the politician so he can raid taxpayers money, which might well include you personally has J Thomas, to buy enough weapons to destroy every single countries in the worlds 5x and still have hand grenades to overkill whatever still stands.

There's certainly some truth to that.

Quote
Although nobody ever went broke banking on the stupidity of taxpayers and voters, there are fluctuations to how much crappy contracts you can milk from them ... so why not get yourself 3 Billions $ welfare, for Israel and Egypt who both receive aid, which will never change because the Holy Land war will maybe never end and even then calling to cut this aid will be met by cries of Anti-semitic racist. Just ask Ron and Rand Paul who are slanted like such.

Here's where it doesn't make quite so much sense. You're saying that the corporate lobbyists who pay politicians chicken feed so the politicians will pay them billions, can't get the politicians to buy as much military stuff as they want to sell. But they can get the politicians to buy a fixed amount of extra military stuff to give away to Israel.

So, consider that we agreed to give I$rael $30 billion over 8 years. Only about 3/4 of that goes to US vendors at all, that cuts it down to about $23 billion. Of that $23 billion the vendors make, say, 20% profit. That's $4.6 billion over 8 years. But I$rael gets $30 billion.

And Israel has you telling us that it's the defense corporations that are calling the shots!

Quote
On the real commitment of the US to the existence of Israel is not that strong, nor is the hold of Israel over it so strong has you think ... it is all about Pork and the rest is collateral damage.

You could be right. I hope so. I tell you what -- when the USA stops its gifts to Israel and shifts the money to Singapore instead, that will be definite evidence that you are right.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 20, 2011, 12:08:09 pm
Go team Israel  ;D
...
Israel ... should grab as much as possible and nuke who ever threaten them.

the IDF takes a free pass.

If the Israelis go down they will nuke most of the middle east in the process,
...
Israelis have much skill ... managing to get vital US support, sometime by using nuclear blackmail, but the image of Zionist overlorship is ridiculous.

Some statists have an emotional attachment to a particular government, will excuse the vilest atrocities committed by that government, and are willing (or even eager) to see that government commit even worse atrocities.  I don't think this is true for all statists, but my experience is that sams is not unusual.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 12:35:22 pm

Some statists have an emotional attachment to a particular government, will excuse the vilest atrocities committed by that government, and are willing (or even eager) to see that government commit even worse atrocities.  I don't think this is true for all statists, but my experience is that sams is not unusual.

I think it's likely that sams is not an Israeli citizen, and is not even eligible for Israeli citizenship under Right of Return.

Israel gets a whole lot of outsiders to give them loyalty out of sheer admiration for their bloodthirsty victories. Or some other reason.

The Apple computer company achieves something like this. They get customers (and some who can't afford their products) to assume that whatever they make will be the best, that they are somehow the good guys as opposed to the MicroSoft bad guys, etc.

I have some guesses how they do that, but I don't really understand it. If I knew how to do it myself I'd sell bottles of Kool-ade that people would think were worth high prices. Or maybe carefully scented air. Or possibly imaginary bottles of air.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 20, 2011, 12:41:43 pm
Quote
Although nobody ever went broke banking on the stupidity of taxpayers and voters, there are fluctuations to how much crappy contracts you can milk from them ... so why not get yourself 3 Billions $ welfare, for Israel and Egypt who both receive aid, which will never change because the Holy Land war will maybe never end and even then calling to cut this aid will be met by cries of Anti-semitic racist. Just ask Ron and Rand Paul who are slanted like such.

Here's where it doesn't make quite so much sense. You're saying that the corporate lobbyists who pay politicians chicken feed so the politicians will pay them billions, can't get the politicians to buy as much military stuff as they want to sell. But they can get the politicians to buy a fixed amount of extra military stuff to give away to Israel.

So, consider that we agreed to give I$rael $30 billion over 8 years. Only about 3/4 of that goes to US vendors at all, that cuts it down to about $23 billion. Of that $23 billion the vendors make, say, 20% profit. That's $4.6 billion over 8 years. But I$rael gets $30 billion.

And Israel has you telling us that it's the defense corporations that are calling the shots!

To answer this and the Singapore point :

The destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews is a realistic enough scenario has to scare the pants out of the Americans to get them to pay for it. It is an additional scare to get more contracts, just like most US enemies are recently.

Now I bring the cautious note that ''nobody are calling the shots'', it is simply a question moral hazard and public choice politics.

The interests of hawkish politicians, weapons manufacturers and Israel just happen to werdly meet at that point, not that there is conspiracy. Are you familiar with public choice theory ?

Go team Israel  ;D
...
Israel ... should grab as much as possible and nuke who ever threaten them.

the IDF takes a free pass.

If the Israelis go down they will nuke most of the middle east in the process,
...
Israelis have much skill ... managing to get vital US support, sometime by using nuclear blackmail, but the image of Zionist overlorship is ridiculous.

Some statists have an emotional attachment to a particular government, will excuse the vilest atrocities committed by that government, and are willing (or even eager) to see that government commit even worse atrocities.  I don't think this is true for all statists, but my experience is that sams is not unusual.


It is not a question of being ''statist'', it is a question of understanding the situation the Israelis are facing.

I'm from Africa and my father family is from white descent and has kids they had to flee the country because idiotic black nationalists were willing to kill them.

They come back and he married my mother who is from another nationality, like American marrying Mexican ... and now that I'm adult I routinely meet moron who tell me and my father to go back to ''Europe'' while others want to throw my mother over the border because she has the wrong papers.

Apart with this personal experience of Xenophobia I live in the same continents where Mugabe confiscated Zimbabwe whites property, Tutsi almost got whipped by Hutus and Congoleses once burned Rwandan people with car tyres ... So I understand the threat Israelis are facing are real and their destruction is only 2 inchs away.

Call it Statism, I call it how I see life and I can easily me imagine like it feel to be Israeli.

Edit : small correction
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 20, 2011, 01:24:34 pm

The destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews is a realistic enough scenario has to scare the pants out of the Americans to get them to pay for it.

It is not realistic at all, but it is an exciting enough fantasy to appeal to people who have not been paying attention.

Quote
Now I bring the cautious note that ''nobody are calling the shots'', it is simply a question moral hazard and public choice politics.

The interests of hawkish politicians, weapons manufacturers and Israel just happen to werdly meet at that point, not that there is conspiracy. Are you familiar with public choice theory ?

Yes. OK, that's a better point than it sounded like. I thought you were saying that the zionist lobby was not important, but only the military contractors were important.


Israel ... should grab as much as possible and nuke who ever threaten them.

Some statists have an emotional attachment to a particular government, will excuse the vilest atrocities committed by that government, and are willing (or even eager) to see that government commit even worse atrocities.  I don't think this is true for all statists, but my experience is that sams is not unusual.


It is not a question of being ''statist'', it is a question of understanding the situation the Israelis are facing.

I'm from Africa and my father family is from white descent and has kids they had to flee the country because idiotic black nationalists were willing to kill them.

They come back and he married my mother who is from another nationality, like American marrying Mexican ... and now that I'm adult I routinely meet moron who tell me and my father to go back to ''Europe'' while others want to throw my mother over the border because she has the wrong papers.

Apart with this personal experience of Xenophobia I live in the same continents where Mugabe confiscated Zimbabwe whites property, Tutsi almost got whipped by Hutus and Congoleses once burned Rwandan people with car tyres ... So I understand the threat Israelis are facing are real and their destruction is only 2 inchs away.[/quote]

OK! I see something of how you make the identification. I still don't see how Apple does it.

You feel threatened by big strong forces. You imagine Israel is also threatened by big strong forces, but somehow they repeatedly win. If they can survive maybe you can too.

But it's mostly show, like professional wrestling. They still try to pose as plucky little Israel, two inches from destruction. That may have been true in 1948, but it hasn't been true since.

Quote
Call it Statism, I call it how I see life and I can easily me imagine like it feel to be Israeli.

Given your history, can you see what it would feel like to be Palestinian? It's not that different, except without the victories.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 20, 2011, 01:47:30 pm
Go team Israel  ;D
...
Israel ... should grab as much as possible and nuke who ever threaten them.

the IDF takes a free pass.

If the Israelis go down they will nuke most of the middle east in the process,
...
Israelis have much skill ... managing to get vital US support, sometime by using nuclear blackmail, but the image of Zionist overlorship is ridiculous.

Some statists have an emotional attachment to a particular government, will excuse the vilest atrocities committed by that government, and are willing (or even eager) to see that government commit even worse atrocities.  I don't think this is true for all statists, but my experience is that sams is not unusual.


It is not a question of being ''statist'', it is a question of understanding the situation the Israelis are facing.

I don't know what "question" you are considering.  Do you question that you are statist?  Even ignoring your support for Israel government atrocities, you have supported government aggression on this forum.  (Granted, you don't like some government programs, but so what?)  I'll find 1 or 2 examples and post them later.

[EDIT: I had the impression that you were passing yourself off as a supporter of anarchy (voluntary cooperation), but I was mistaken.  I see that in reply #90 of the topic "Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals", you confessed (your word) that you are a statist.  I didn't mean to imply that you were being underhanded--if I did I apologize.  :-[ ]

Do you question that your statism is the reason that you support Israel government atrocities?  I didn't say it was.  I merely said that you, in common with many other statists, have an emotional attachment to a particular government (the Israel government in your case).  I don't know whether 1) your statism is the cause of your emotional attachment to that government, 2) your emotional attachment to that government is the cause of your statism, 3) they are both caused by some third thing, or 4) they are entirely independent.  (I obviously suspect 1), 2), or 3).)

I'm from Africa and my father family is from white descent and has kids they had to flee the country because idiotic black nationalists were willing to kill them.

They come back and he married my mother who is from another nationality, like American marrying Mexican ... and now that I'm adult I routinely meet moron who tell me and my father to go back to ''Europe'' while others want to throw my mother over the border because she has the wrong papers.

Apart with this personal experience of Xenophobia I live in the same continents where Mugabe confiscated Zimbabwe whites property, Tutsi almost got whipped by Hutus and Congoleses once burned Rwandan people with car tyres ... So I understand the threat Israelis are facing are real and their destruction is only 2 inchs away.

Everything you said up until the last sentence would lead me to empathize with the people oppressed by the Israel government and other governments.  Instead, you empathize with (at least) one oppressing government.  (I empathize with people oppressed by all governments or by other criminal organizations or by free-lance criminals.)

I can easily me imagine like it feel to be Israeli.
So can I.  The US government (which claims me as a subject) frequently commits atrocities, which puts me in danger from those who see all Americans as responsible for those atrocities.  Similarly, the Israel government frequently commits atrocities, which puts people living in Israel in danger from those who consider all Israelis responsible for those atrocities.  (That isn't fair, but many people feel that way.)  I suggest that the Israel government should stop committing those atrocities, and you suggest that they should commit even more.  (Some people say that the only way for the Israel government to survive in the long term is to stop committing at least the worst of the atrocities; I have no opinion on that.)
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 20, 2011, 02:01:27 pm
Given your history, can you see what it would feel like to be Palestinian? It's not that different, except without the victories.

Nope I can't identify with the Palestinians. See a total victory of Israel means arabs crying like little babies, a total victory of Arabs over Israelis means massacres and people fleeing for their live.

Have heard Hezbolla and Hamas people talk ?

How likely is Israeli to get destroyed ? In my opinion not in the next 50 years or sooner with half of the middle east going down in a nuclear strike with it.

But I agree with you that Zionist and Arms dealers are laughing all the way to the bank meanwhile.

Everything you said up until the last sentence would lead me to empathize with the people oppressed by the Israel government and other governments.  Instead, you empathize with (at least) one oppressing government.  (I empathize with people oppressed by all governments or by other criminal organizations or by free-lance criminals.)

No you don't understand :

1- Black nationalist take over : You loose your property, get thrown at the border or get killed with machetes.
2- Arabs vanquish Israel : Jews loose property, get thrown at the border and get massacred.

Are you people aware that the Arabs are the ones launching suicide bombers against little children and randomly launching rockets over towns ?

Oppression ? these guys want to kill them ALL.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: quadibloc on February 20, 2011, 04:56:44 pm
But it's mostly show, like professional wrestling. They still try to pose as plucky little Israel, two inches from destruction. That may have been true in 1948, but it hasn't been true since.
Oh, that's quite true.

Unfortunately, those Israelis are fussy, greedy, and selfish people. As bad as Americans. It's not enough that the Arabs surrounding them have no realistic prospect of conquering Israel, just as it's not good enough for Americans that al-Qaeda would never be able to impose an Islamic theocracy on the United States.

No. What they demand instead is that there are NO Qassam missiles, NO suicide bombers - that not one single Israeli meets death by violence from outside forces.

I mean, do you Americans routinely have missiles launched into your country from Canada or Mexico? Would you put up with that? Or what if Native American radicals confronted the police, army, or National Guard and killed people?

To expect tempers to cool, to expect Israelis to negotiate in a reasonable way about ensuring that the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip can return to living their lives in peace, first the war has to end; the killing has to stop. As long as terrorists kill Israelis, stopping those terrorists by force is the priority. One never, ever, negotiates under the threat of force if one can possibly avoid it, because that only encourages attackers, by showing that the use or threat of force can yield profits. This is a basic principle that has shown its value throughout history.

Israel is trying to negotiate with the Palestinian parties that have renounced force, but with Hamas and Hezbollah, the only option is their complete destruction. From precedent, to negotiate with them would be taken as a signal that Israel is weak and is on the verge of defeat.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: terry_freeman on February 20, 2011, 05:51:37 pm
The Israelis need to admit that there are two sides to this debate. It's fine to present your grievances about bombs and such - but the Palestinians also have their grievances, including dead, injured, and sick people.

If the only solution which will satisfy you is to "nuke them all," then a just God should simply nuke both Israel and the Palestinians - so perhaps you should find another solution, neh?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 20, 2011, 06:30:52 pm
Quote
As long as terrorists kill Israelis

Ever looked at the stats on Israelis killed (and age grouping) vs Palestinians killed?  It's like 1:10 Israeli:Palestinian.  Who's killing whom?

Quote
One never, ever, negotiates under the threat of force if one can possibly avoid it, because that only encourages attackers

Which is exactly how the other side feels.  So neither side can ever, ever negotiate because they're both under the threat (or reality) of force.

Quote
This is a basic principle that has shown its value throughout history.

Which is pretty much why Gandhi won.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 21, 2011, 02:31:46 am
The Israelis need to admit that there are two sides to this debate. It's fine to present your grievances about bombs and such - but the Palestinians also have their grievances, including dead, injured, and sick people.

If the only solution which will satisfy you is to "nuke them all," then a just God should simply nuke both Israel and the Palestinians - so perhaps you should find another solution, neh?


Hamas and Hezbolla don't want to negociate, they want the destruction of Israel ... it is not ''Evil Israeli state'' vs ''stateless Palestinians'', the Palestinians want a Islamist state which will see the end of Israel and jews swimming back to Poland.

For this is a case ''Underdog Worship'', just because the Israeli have managed to beat the crap out its enemy doesn't mean that the poor palestinians are the little underdog ... support the victim ?

The Israeli death figures are low because they work like hell to thwart the Palestinians schemes to launch attacks
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 21, 2011, 09:02:47 am

Hamas and Hezbolla don't want to negociate, they want the destruction of Israel ... it is not ''Evil Israeli state'' vs ''stateless Palestinians'', the Palestinians want a Islamist state which will see the end of Israel and jews swimming back to Poland.

And Israel definitely wants the total destruction of Hamas and Hizballah. So what?

Try to see both sides of it? During WWII the Free French and the Maquis didn't want to negotiate with Nazis, they wanted the destruction of the Nazi regime. Can you blame them? Nazi Germany was not a good neighbor to have.

Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 21, 2011, 09:04:39 am
Nope I can't identify with the Palestinians. See a total victory of Israel means arabs crying like little babies, a total victory of Arabs over Israelis means massacres and people fleeing for their live.
We're not talking about your dark fantasies which you project onto people you consider "the other".

We're talking about oppression right now.  The Israel government treats huge numbers of innocent people as sub-human, stealing their land, destroying their livelihoods, impoverishing them, preventing their travel to earn a living, denying their families medical care, locking them in cages, torturing them, and other horrors up to and including murdering them.  That government also encourages (by doing nothing to prevent it) the commission of atrocities by non-government agents on those innocent people.

Have heard Hezbolla and Hamas people talk ?
Sure.  Some is not very nice.  Almost as bad as talk by many Israel government leaders.

But talk is essentially irrelevant compared to actions.  And the atrocities committed against Israelis are minuscule compared to the atrocities committed by Israel government agents.  Anarchists condemn all atrocities.

Are you people aware that the Arabs are the ones launching suicide bombers against little children and randomly launching rockets over towns ?
Yes, we are aware.

Are you aware of the far greater atrocities committed by Israel government agents?  Little children murdered by artillery shells, machine gun bullets, and aircraft bombs?  Deliberate starvation of little children?  Denial of medical care to little children?  Etc, etc, etc.

I wonder why some people consider suicide bombs to be worse than other atrocities.  Why is killing 10 innocent people with a suicide bomb worse than killing 10 innocent people with a bomb dropped from an aircraft or killing 10 innocent people with a machine gun or killing 10 innocent people with a grenade?  Is it because suicide bombs are typically used against powerful governments by oppressed people?

Oppression ? these guys want to kill them ALL.
Projection again.  A small number of people want to kill those who they consider "the other".  Most people do not.

Hamas and Hezbolla don't want to negociate, they want the destruction of Israel
The Israel government mainly commits atrocities against innocent people, not against agents of organizations which it once supported and now describes as enemies.

... it is not ''Evil Israeli state'' vs ''stateless Palestinians'',
Nobody here said it was.  It is massive, continuing, deliberate atrocities against innocent people, most of them committed by the Israel government.  You oppose the victims and want more atrocities.  Anarchists oppose the atrocities.

the Palestinians want a Islamist state which will see the end of Israel and jews swimming back to Poland.
Projection again.  Sigh.

The Israeli death figures are low because they work like hell to thwart the Palestinians schemes to launch attacks
Not quite true.  The Israel government works like hell to generate schemes against it, by committing atrocities against innocent people.  They say they oppose those schemes.  (They may even work to keep the damage down--I don't know.)  They certainly want the schemes to be carried out, since it encourages the gullible Israeli people to give the government even more power.

The reason the death toll from Israel government atrocities is so high is that the innocent victims can do nothing to prevent them.  You consider that good?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 21, 2011, 10:11:21 am
And Israel definitely wants the total destruction of Hamas and Hizballah. So what?

So what ?

Hamas and Hezbolla have no intention of negotiating, therefore it would be stupid for Israel to take them lighly.

Seems that for you and Burgle the concept of aggressor and agressed is difficult to grasp. I keep it simply : What happen if each side won the war completely.

My personal conclusion is that complete Israeli victories are almost always restrained to guaranteeing the safety of Israeli. A complete Arab victory will be followed by atrocities.

So I go for team IDF
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Plane on February 21, 2011, 10:48:31 am
On Isreal.

I wonder , If I came upon a man who was holding a wolf by its ears whether I could persuede him to let the poor things ears go.

Isreal can loose only once ,, it is like a great team on the feild , but has no bench, playing a much less skilled team that can call on a very deep bench.

Isreal will loose once , it is in prophecy.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Xavin on February 21, 2011, 10:53:06 am
Seems that for you and Burgle the concept of aggressor and agressed is difficult to grasp. I keep it simply : What happen if each side won the war completely.

I think other people here keep it even simpler - who is initiating the use of force?

Palestinian shooting rockets over the Lebanese border into Israel? Aggressor.
IDF shooting said Palestinian as he tries to shoot said rockets? Not aggressors - they're defending against aggression.
IDF shooting the guy who planned the attack and sent said Palestinian out there with the rockets? Hmmm... debatable. The guy shooting the rockets is responsible for his own actions, but shooting the guy who sent him is at least arguably a form of defence. Note that this argument probably means that shooting the Israeli defence minister is also not aggression...
IDF shooting hellfire missiles into the tower block where they think the planning guy is? Aggression - destroying property and taking the lives of people who aren't attacking anyone.
Invading Lebanon? Blatant aggression.

The point is not "IDF good, Hamas bad", nor vice versa. It's "aggression bad, period".
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 21, 2011, 11:13:37 am
I understand your point, however these are not isolated events, these are all interconnected events.

Hamas shooting is not an isolated incident, they shoot them with intention to harm people and will likely repeat. In reaction to that the IDF attack those who try to launch attack to prevent these attack. They also kill the planning and logistic type to prevent the next attack, because Hamas is likely to attack again.

You could see videos on Youtube of Israeli airstrikes, they call the home with 2 minutes to have you move so they can bomb the Kassam, because Hamas use innocents as human shield. There is even a video of Hamas operatives hiding in homes and using little kids to avoid sniper fire.

Sure the lost of lives and property is sad, but on the aggregate I think the Israeli fight for their safety is ''good''. Present me with an actual instance of Israelis using force for no purpose than killing innocent palestinians and I will agree with you.

So far I am convinced of the Israeli good intention by their commitments to build fences and static defences to deter the entrance of terrorists.

Seems that for you and Burgle the concept of aggressor and agressed is difficult to grasp. I keep it simply : What happen if each side won the war completely.

I think other people here keep it even simpler - who is initiating the use of force?

Palestinian shooting rockets over the Lebanese border into Israel? Aggressor.
IDF shooting said Palestinian as he tries to shoot said rockets? Not aggressors - they're defending against aggression.
IDF shooting the guy who planned the attack and sent said Palestinian out there with the rockets? Hmmm... debatable. The guy shooting the rockets is responsible for his own actions, but shooting the guy who sent him is at least arguably a form of defence. Note that this argument probably means that shooting the Israeli defence minister is also not aggression...
IDF shooting hellfire missiles into the tower block where they think the planning guy is? Aggression - destroying property and taking the lives of people who aren't attacking anyone.
Invading Lebanon? Blatant aggression.

The point is not "IDF good, Hamas bad", nor vice versa. It's "aggression bad, period".
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 21, 2011, 11:22:38 am
Gandhi was mentioned a while back, quite a guy who accomplished a lot.

We need to remember where and when he worked, at the birth of modern India, against a worn out empire and in the light of the worldwide press, that is very publicly. Had he done the same against someone like Stalin or Mao, or Gadafi in today's headlines, he'd have lasted seconds.  It takes nothing away from his accomplishments to observe how incredibiliy lucky he was.

Right up to when he got shot, that is.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 21, 2011, 12:34:52 pm
I understand your point, however these are not isolated events, these are all interconnected events.

That's what I'm seeing.

Israel attacks Palestinians, it's a reprisal for something Palestinians did.

Palestinians attack Israel back, but that isn't a reprisal, they shouldn't have done it.

Israel attacks Palestinians for reprisal for that unprovoked attack.

Palestinians attack israel, not a reprisal, unprovoked.

Israel attacks Palestinians, it's because Palestinians attacked Israel.

Palestinians hit Israel, bad, nono, they shouldn't have done it, they deserve another reprisal for that.

And more recently we've seen --

Palestinians stop hitting Israel, bad, Israel goes on hitting them back for things they used to do.

Online I've watched people argue this. One time they took it back past 1948 to riots in 1946, but the Israelis had attacked arabs in Palestine in the 1920's, but the Arabs had attacked Jews in a market in 1905, and these amateur historians took it back to the 1880's before they got tired of arguing about who hit who first.

There's no cheese at the end of that tunnel, little mice.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 21, 2011, 12:50:33 pm
On Isreal.

I wonder , If I came upon a man who was holding a wolf by its ears whether I could persuede him to let the poor things ears go.

Kind of an unstable equilibrium.... Probably neither of them will get a good night's sleep while he's holding on.

Quote
Isreal can loose only once ,, it is like a great team on the feild , but has no bench, playing a much less skilled team that can call on a very deep bench.

Isreal will loose once , it is in prophecy.

I wouldn't know about prophecy, but if I wanted the survival of a small cosmopolitan ethnic group I would think a whole lot about putting 5 million of them in one tiny nation that can never have peace, in a world with nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 21, 2011, 12:57:23 pm
Online I've watched people argue this. One time they took it back past 1948 to riots in 1946, but the Israelis had attacked arabs in Palestine in the 1920's, but the Arabs had attacked Jews in a market in 1905, and these amateur historians took it back to the 1880's before they got tired of arguing about who hit who first.

There's no cheese at the end of that tunnel, little mice.

It is not the criterion I use, I use the Praguer criterion :

If the Arabs give up their fights the Israelis will follow and there will be peace the next day. If the IDF give up, would Hamas, Hezbolla stay home ? nope.

So the criterion is who of the two is willing to stand down if the other side give up.

See the 5 minutes videos of the point :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hTOaRu7h4&feature=player_embedded

ETA : It is like arguing of which ''race'' or ''people settle'' a country ... silly discussion like you pointed out.

I wouldn't know about prophecy, but if I wanted the survival of a small cosmopolitan ethnic group I would think a whole lot about putting 5 million of them in one tiny nation that can never have peace, in a world with nuclear weapons.


Call it donkey homesteading

ETA : It is kind of joke, because some libertarians believe in ''homesteading'' and weird ''geographic'' justice, in which they can occupy whatever land they want.

A donkey like you know is stubborn.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: macsnafu on February 21, 2011, 01:15:42 pm
Seems that for you and Burgle the concept of aggressor and agressed is difficult to grasp. I keep it simply : What happen if each side won the war completely.

I think other people here keep it even simpler - who is initiating the use of force?

The point is not "IDF good, Hamas bad", nor vice versa. It's "aggression bad, period".

I agree, but when it comes to an ongoing situation, it can be difficult, or even impossible, to tell who started it.  Furthermore, it's far too easy to "retaliate" beyond any reasonable or justifiable position.  Like the Hatfields and McCoys, the Middle Eastern situation won't stop until someone decides not to "retaliate", or there's no one left alive to retaliate.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: J Thomas on February 21, 2011, 01:31:12 pm
Online I've watched people argue this. One time they took it back past 1948 to riots in 1946, but the Israelis had attacked arabs in Palestine in the 1920's, but the Arabs had attacked Jews in a market in 1905, and these amateur historians took it back to the 1880's before they got tired of arguing about who hit who first.

There's no cheese at the end of that tunnel, little mice.

It is not the criterion I use, I use the Praguer criterion :

If the Arabs give up their fights the Israelis will follow and there will be peace the next day.

What possible reason do you have to believe that? Anything?

Quote
See the 5 minutes videos of the point :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hTOaRu7h4&feature=player_embedded

Oh. You believe the propaganda.

OK, how did you come to accept this hasbarah uncritically, without thinking about it?
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 21, 2011, 01:37:40 pm
Online I've watched people argue this. One time they took it back past 1948 to riots in 1946, but the Israelis had attacked arabs in Palestine in the 1920's, but the Arabs had attacked Jews in a market in 1905, and these amateur historians took it back to the 1880's before they got tired of arguing about who hit who first.

There's no cheese at the end of that tunnel, little mice.

It is not the criterion I use, I use the Praguer criterion :

If the Arabs give up their fights the Israelis will follow and there will be peace the next day.

What possible reason do you have to believe that? Anything?

Quote
See the 5 minutes videos of the point :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hTOaRu7h4&feature=player_embedded

Oh. You believe the propaganda.

OK, how did you come to accept this hasbarah uncritically, without thinking about it?


Because there is not enough Israeli to conquer the whole middle east, so far the IDF focus as always been to guaranty the existence of Israel and no one's destruction
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: mellyrn on February 21, 2011, 01:52:47 pm
Quote
We need to remember where and when he worked, at the birth of modern India, against a worn out empire and in the light of the worldwide press, that is very publicly. Had he done the same against someone like Stalin or Mao, or Gadafi in today's headlines, he'd have lasted seconds.  It takes nothing away from his accomplishments to observe how incredibiliy lucky he was.

Lucky?  Hmm.  Egypt just now seems to have tried the Gandhi approach.  They're not done, of course; but then, even Gandhi took decades to drive the Brits out.  And with very little loss of life of ordinary people -- in both cases.

I don't think Gandhi was lucky at all.  I think he operated from a more profound grasp of human nature than the brute-forcers can or will believe. 

If I told you that six big young men armed with sledgehammers fled from one little old lady armed only with a pocketbook, would you believe me?  Without the video, I'd probably get all kinds of arguments -- all of them very good -- as to why that could never happen.  But it did.  Maybe she "got lucky".  Or maybe there was something subtler going on.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 21, 2011, 01:53:50 pm
Present me with an actual instance of Israelis using force for no purpose than killing innocent palestinians and I will agree with you.
How is anyone supposed to know all of the purposes behind murder?  Perhaps a murderer gets pleasure from killing.  Perhaps a murderer has religious reasons.  You ask the impossible.

But, just in case you really mean something more reasonable, I'll give you several actual instances (a minuscule fraction of the total, of course) of the murder of innocent Palestinians by Israelis.  Several IDF soldiers who participated in atrocities (including murders) against innocent Palestinians discuss them in Occupation of the Territories: Israeli Soldiers’ Testimonies 2000-2010.  It's online:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45787174/Breaking-the-Silence-Full-Book-ENG-Dec22-10-Occupation-of-the-Territories-Israeli-Soldier-Testimonies-2000-2010

I was struck not just by the murders and other atrocities that the soldiers felt bad about, but also the casual brutality that the soldiers accept as routine.  Random beatings, wanton destruction of homes and other property, arbitrary disruption of travel (to get to work, etc.), with no apparent purpose other than humiliation.  Now and then a soldier questions the treatment of innocent people as sub-human, but that makes no difference to the rest.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 21, 2011, 02:18:20 pm
Present me with an actual instance of Israelis using force for no purpose than killing innocent palestinians and I will agree with you.
How is anyone supposed to know all of the purposes behind murder?  Perhaps a murderer gets pleasure from killing.  Perhaps a murderer has religious reasons.  You ask the impossible.

Nope it is easy to know : Hamas and Hezbolla adverstise their intentions ... kill the jews and destroy Israel.

The IDF mission is to protect Israel. Sure there are crazy Jews ... at least they are not in charge

I will have a look at the ebook later.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: Brugle on February 21, 2011, 02:32:52 pm
Sure there are crazy Jews ... at least they are not in charge
I don't think anyone here considers Israel government leaders to be crazy.  They are obviously shrewd politicians.  Treat some people brutally enough, get a few of them to strike back in some way, and frighten the populace into supporting the state.  Government 101.
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: sams on February 21, 2011, 02:50:41 pm
Sure there are crazy Jews ... at least they are not in charge
I don't think anyone here considers Israel government leaders to be crazy.  They are obviously shrewd politicians.  Treat some people brutally enough, get a few of them to strike back in some way, and frighten the populace into supporting the state.  Government 101.


I don't think the people taking the beating in this case, the palestinians, are included has members of the state of Israel, which is based on religious and etnic consent.

There are things that don't fit the anarchist meme ... dude did Holt contaminated me ? ???
Title: Re: Why such a low key invasion?
Post by: spudit on February 21, 2011, 04:30:29 pm
Sams,
Dude, and Contrary Guy pretty much agreed with me. This is like weird man, too freaking weird as in yeah man, and I see it too,  ;D