John McCain, Liar
In commenting about the failure yesterday by Senate Republicans to pass a trimmed down version of an Obamcare repeal by a vote of 49-51, Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has this to say:
There are going be a great many Americans who tonight feel a sense of betrayal. …If you stand up and campaign and say we are going to repeal Obamacare and you vote for Obamacare, those are not consistent. And the American people are entirely justified in saying any politician who told me that and voted the other way didn’t tell me the truth. They lied to me.
He then added:
“No party can remain in power by lying to the American people.”
Cruz is right, but only partly. The entire Republican Party did not lie to its voters. Instead, a small contingent of fake Republicans lied, led by John McCain, king liar and the most likely person to stab a friend in the back I have ever seen.
For example, for years McCain has done whatever he can to block any real enforcement of the immigration laws. When Trump proposed building a wall McCain was quick to condemn it. Yet, when McCain ran for re-election in 2010, he demanded that we build “the danged wall.”
His dishonesty becomes clearer when you read what he said when he voted for a full repeal of Obamacare in 2015.
The legislation we passed today would unburden Americans from the harmful effects of this failed law and build a bridge to health care solutions that work for families in Arizona and across the country. It is clear that any serious attempt to improve our health care system must begin with a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare, and I will continue fighting on behalf of the people of Arizona to achieve it.
At the time McCain could boldly lie like this because he knew his partisan ally, Barack Obama, would veto the repeal for him.
Now I readily and heartily admit that the “skinny” repeal bill that was defeated by John McCain’s vote yesterday was hardly a repeal at all, and in many ways was a travesty. The only reason it existed in this form at all is because fake Republicans McCain, Murkowsky, and Collins, along with their Democratic allies, would not have voted for anything that would have represented a real repeal. Nonetheless, it was a desperate attempt by the Republican Party to at least try to repeal some parts of Obamacare, to show that they were sincere when they ran on a platform that said they wanted to get rid of it.
John McCain ran on that platform too. Unlike the bulk of the Republican Party, however, he was blatantly lying when he did so.
McCain isn’t the only liar in the Senate. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) could win awards for lying as well. It was a tragedy in 2010 when, after rejecting her to tea party Republican Joe Miller in the primary, voters saved her position in the Senate by giving her victory in a write-in campaign.
McCain though especially galls me. Everything about him in the past twenty years has been a lie. And the worst lie is his claim to be a Republican. Since the late nineties he has spent the bulk of his political effort stabbing Republicans in the back while working hard to block conservative reforms. If he had any sense of honesty he would have switched parties years ago. He hasn’t, however, because it serves his interests to make believe he is a Republican. There is no way he’d win an election here in Arizona if he tried to do it on the Democratic ticket.
I don’t mind people disagreeing with me. What I do mind is someone lying to me, to my face. McCain has been doing this for decades. The Senate, and American government, will be significantly improved when he is no longer part of it.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Because of the no swearing policy, I can’t say what I want. ;-)
I’m with you Robert. But in the end, I’m glad it’s dead. It was just ObamaCare 2.0. Point is, we should have repealed it totally. We’ve lost that chance and we are heading, without doubt, to a single payer system, sadly.
One more reason why we need term limits. It would help if the voters would educate themselves as to who and what they are voting for, there is ne reason that maxine waters should be in a position of power. john mccain should have been retired a long time ago, actually he is in the wrong party.
John McCain was the only thing keeping Mitt Romney from being my least liked Republican. (Imagine my joy in 2008 and 2012)
I also remember the Keating Five. He was the only “Republican” in that den of thieves. That should have told us all we needed to know about this “hero”.
And who can forget how he told us “torture did not work” all the while admitting it worked on him.
PS. See…you CAN blast someone without using four letter words, even though they are banging on your tongue to be let out.
Joe-
Funny you should mention Maxine in the same breath as McCain. They both became rich with “banking investments.”
McCain- “Keating 5”
Maxine- “OneUnited Bank”
Mark Levin:
“Has There Ever Been A Bigger Moron Than John McCain?”
May 7th, 2014
https://youtu.be/RVc0QlPAlAU
(7:04)
Eddie–
Very Good stuff.
Ya’ beat me to the Keating 5.
Remember when he “had to suspend his campaign,” run back to Washington DC, and spend $700 billion dollars?
Victor Davis Hanson has him pegged perfectly, “McCain would rather lose nobly (in his own mind) rather than WIN.”
What Iron balls McCain has for appearing in public after a visit with Dr Frankenstein for the brain implant. The scarred scum never looked better.
LJ Fillmon wrote: “Point is, we should have repealed it totally.”
Funny, but a few days ago we were being told by certain Republican leaders that we should be satisfied getting part of what we want, because we can always get the rest later. They said it was a Reagan strategy. However, not only can we not get what we want, we can’t get part of it, either. And forget what the song says about getting what we need, because this hideous Obamacare fiasco is sooo not what we need.
Apparently, even the full repeal bill failed to eliminate the rules and regulations that have been implemented due to Obamacare, so we still would have been stuck with all of those, too. What a clusterbleep the Republican Party has become.
From the article: “Before he cast his ‘no’ vote, McCain had gathered with a sizable group of jovial Democrats on the other side of the Senate chamber.”
War hero? For the Republican Party and those of us harmed by Obamacare, he is a treasonous traitor, literally giving aid and comfort to the Democrats. Who was the idiot who insisted that we wait for his return before voting on Obamacare? McCain’s friends are in the Democratic Party, which would explain why the onetime war hero lost the 2008 election to an unknown, nobody Democrat.
Trump’s decision to “let it fail” is the same as we would have had if we hadn’t supported the Republicans for the past eight years. All that support and we are ending up with nothing better than had we supported the Democrats. What a waste of our time, money, effort, energy, and hope.
It is the loss of conservatism in the Republican Party (membership as well as leadership) that caused me to re-register out of the party last summer. My decision was just proved correct. Again.
The previous healthcare system was vastly superior to Obamacare. The states, not the insurance companies, provided welfare healthcare for those with pre-existing conditions. The main problem with America’s previous health insurance system was that employers provided so much of it. This meant that an employee who had an existing condition was uninsurable when he loses his job. However, if everyone who wanted insurance bought it on their own, then not only would they be able to take it with them to their next job, but they wouldn’t have to worry about pre-existing conditions.
One of the few things missing from the previous system was a healthcare account that could be used to purchase insurance, especially during times of unemployment. But no, the Democrats had to make a complex system out of it, and take control of virtually every aspect of healthcare, not just the insurance portion, where they said all the trouble was. What [something]holes.
eddie willers,
Sorry for the (substituted) four- and three-letter words, but as you pointed out, they were right there demanding to be let loose on the world.
McCain says he wants to reach across the isle and work with the left. John McCain is both a progressive and a fool. You don’t “work” with the left. They use and take advantage of well intentioned Republicans and then push them under the bus at every election, constantly driving the country into debt trading votes for social justice and socialism.
While we are on the subject of lies and while I am in the mood :
Lies, lies, lies, McCain is a liar, both the Clinton’s are liars, Obama is a liar, Wasserman is a liar, Donna Brazile is a liar, Schumer is a liar, the Bush’s are liars, Democrats and Republican party’s are filled with liars, our entire government is inhabited by professional and highly paid with the peoples tax dollars liars. If you are an empowered politician you by definition must be able to lie for the “Greater Good” (S.O.M.).
We have even discussed after irrefutable evidence has been presented that the lying also goes on within science its self. What is science if it is allowed to be based in lies? If you believe the lies does that make the science true? Is just believing enough? Does mathematics and physics really care about whether humans lie about them? (That’s a rhetorical question Mike)
What happens if the lie is so big that no one would dare to question what must in the end be questioned?
What would it mean if something like this were the truth? https://youtu.be/RJ_jQgIEnI8 30 mins.
Just like the DNC and the Hillary crime operation the truth will in time be revealed, if the powers that be within the government that control and are surrounded by the political sphere of the opaque allow it to be seen. And it will only be seen by the public if 1. It serves their purpose to continue or further perpetuate a lie or 2. If they are backed into a corner and have no choice. Then they are all about the light of truth being shown into the darkest crevices (well the ones that they are forced to shine it into anyway).
This hi IQ nerd in the video above, a former NIST employee (National Institute Of Science & Technology) , tells an interesting story about what he believes are lies perpetrated by his former employers. Very serious charges for a high IQ nerd professional to make. Our current president is a professional builder of very large buildings, I wonder what he thinks on the subject?
We are surrounded by so many big lies that we can plainly see, have lies become the forest and we can no longer tell where the truth now lies? (That’s a bit of a clever play on words, if I do say so myself :)
Cotour, the problem with the massive conspiracies you propse exist is simple: It is entirely possible for three men to keep a secret, but only of two of them are dead.
Secrets as massive as the ones which would be required for an all-encompassing conspiracy controlling the US government couldn’t be kept. Hell, we can’t even keep troop deployments secret.
While I don’t disagree that the politicians are liars, I would disagree with the evident reason you think they lie. They don’t lie to contribute to a conspiracy, rather, they lie to pander to the lowest common denominator, those who lack the education needed to make informed decisions.
C-
That 9/11 NIST video you reference, is complete conspiracy hokum.
Commodude-
Very well said.
History tells us, time after time, that when a country’s corruption becomes so toxic as ours, the Government will eventually completely collapse, along with the country. If Trump can’t get one BIG bad guy in jail, who can? He said he would drain the swamp, yet it seems to be rising. Must be global warming raising the swamp levels? I am trying to keep the faith, but when I see our AG Gomer F. Sessions, delicate snowflake that he is, talking about his hurt feelings, well, maybe Scaramucci might be a better choice for AG? Have we already crossed the Rubicon? Is it too late?
That our 2004 Presidential choice was either a Bonesman from Yale or a Bonesman from Yale ought to tell you all you need to know about out Two-Party system.
PS. Only 15 people are “tapped” to join Skull & Bones per year.
Mark Levin Takes Down John McCain
9-30-2013
https://youtu.be/kXyYkJr5kCs
(4:26)
Mark Levin on McCain
“A Complete Useful Idiot for Dems”
September 2013
https://youtu.be/HapxujUZVd4
(9:38)
“Skinny” was a gimmick — the ultimate passing of the buck. The Senate was unwilling to repeal ACA and unwilling to replace it with anything which might be more workable. “Skinny” was to be voted for with the intent that it wouldn’t become law but would instead bring the House and Senate together in conference to come up with something entirely new. But if the Senate was unable to come up with anything on its own that it was willing to pass, what was there to compromise on with the House?
As far as I’m concerned, the failure came from both Congress and the White House for neither one putting forward a proper market based plan for health care and health insurance — a plan where we can buy insurance for catastrophic coverage but pay for our expected health care needs out of our own pocket. (And pay fair market prices, not prices that are several times that which insurance companies have negotiated.)
So the failure occurred well before Mr. McCain’s “no” vote, and, as far as I am concerned, he did the right thing to bring this farce to an end.
Verified and confirmed lies, lies, lies actively ignored in the political realm in front of the opaque and still mathematics and physics neither care.
Hokum (?) :
1. https://youtu.be/IO1ps1mzU8o NYC, FDNY in the buildings account. 2 min.
2. https://youtu.be/rLFmkGseZ-8 Flashes in slo mo well below the primary event. 2.53 min.
3. https://youtu.be/oMyHxBH8uq0 NYC, FDNY on the street real time. .19 sec
Mathematics and physics care not about the lies or the self delusional narratives of man.
So now Johnny Boy is a hero to the left again. He learned nothing from 2008, where he went from maverick to out of it loser the instant he got the nomination. Those folks patting him on the back are just looking for the best place to put the knife. What a maroon.
I put nothing past our shadow government, they want to rejigger society, they have different leaders than the leaders we the people vote in.
Kirk wrote: “So the failure occurred well before Mr. McCain’s “no” vote, and, as far as I am concerned, he did the right thing to bring this farce to an end.”
The failure occurred when the Republican Party decided to choose a lifelong liberal Democrat as its presidential candidate and eventual party leader. He has hardly provided any leadership.
In fact, the Republican Party seems to have been choosing progressives for a while, with the choice of the author of the Obamacare model, Romneycare, in 2012 and the choice of the party’s own treasonous traitor, McCain, in 2008.
Cotour,
You wrote: “Mathematics and physics care not about the lies or the self delusional narratives of man.”
Which is why we know that it is hokum. You present us with a few misleading videos, but fires cause many explosive events without the need for any explosive devices. Fires can cause windows to literally explode when the pressure of the fire on one side exceeds the strength of the glass.
That physics does not care about the lies or self delusional narratives of conspiracy.
Your slow motion video fails to show any flashes from the supposed explosive devices, demonstrating that what we saw were the failures of the steel columns as they desperately tried to support the ever increasing forces, due to the fire-weakened rest of the structure — not above those failures, but as can clearly be seen, just to the left of those failures.
Yes, they would happen simultaneously, because as can also be seen, the building begins to move, and resisting motion takes even greater force than merely resisting the weight from above. Once the building begins to move, the rest of the structural elements instantaneously take on far more force, and the added simultaneously added stresses simultaneously overcome their strengths. It is why we have sudden catastrophic failures in our engineering materials. Sudden catastrophic failure is taught in a first-year engineering course: Strength of Materials. This is even more basic than Engineering 101; it is lower division lessons.
That physics does not care about the lies or self delusional narratives of conspiracy, either.
And something going bang during a fire is absolutely unheard of. Oh, wait.
Neither does that physics.
As for your NIST “expert,” he is astonished that their investigation focused almost entirely on fire and plane crashes. Well, duh. That was what was happening at the time, not some conspiratorial controlled implosion. Then he presents absolutely no evidence of his supposed “most likely reason” for the collapse of Building 7, just his astonishment that a fire could cause structural damage. Dismissed by your “expert” is the fire at that building at the time of its collapse; perhaps he should have taken a civil engineering class or two.
He is also astonished that a building would collapse in the direction of gravity. A tree may fall to the side, but it has a solid center, preventing anything approaching column buckling. A building is full of air, allowing each column to buckle. The tree cannot collapse straight down (why do you think lumberjacks cut a notch on the other side of their final cut?), but there is nothing that prevents the building from doing so.
Astonishment by a couple of doofuses hardly constitutes evidence of a conspiracy. If you damage a building, it has a harder time standing up, so people being worried that yet another building on fire may also collapse is hardly evidence of conspiracy; it is evidence of intellect and experience.
By the way, you don’t even have to damage a building for it to fail or collapse. Mario Salvadori has a couple of books on the topic, “Why Buildings Fall Down” and “Why Buildings Stand Up.” You may want to try them, sometime.
Get a grip, Cotour. Some evil people flew planes full of fuel into two of the buildings (you didn’t bother to show those videos, because they show what really happened), causing terrible fires that weakened the structural integrity of the buildings until they collapsed. The airplanes and the collapse of those buildings caused plenty of collateral damage, which explains even more of the disaster of that day.
There may be Democrats within the US who hate their country, but there are people outside the US who also hate it.
McCain might be a treasonous traitor to the Republican Party, but don’t try to pin 9/11 on him or any other politician. You have less evidence of that than you have with even your phony math and physics (neither of which you supplied).
1. Misleading? Those were the shortest and most pertinent and to the point videos.
Q: when was the last time you saw three steel frame buildings, 2 hit by large planes and one incidentally set on fire fall in an organized way? The signature of fire is chaos, no?
And in addition two of the buildings were constructed with core steel columns with a curtain wall and were of exactly the same construction, but the third was entirely different, a fully steel framed 47 story building. How does such organization in such a chaotic environment come to be? Mathematics and physics never tells lies.
CGI? https://youtu.be/cCAoJuDw2Ic
Its the little things: https://youtu.be/G_W9E4r-RGM
Hokum: : a device used (as by showmen) to evoke a desired audience response. Good word Wayne.
Ten years earlier not everyone had video recording capabilities in their pockets nor the means to freely and judiciously analyze and distribute it. Hokum.
Cotour, the signature of fire is heat, not chaos. Fire is very, very organized and spreads in particular ways, which is why forensic analysis of arson is possible.
Steel also behaves in very predictable manners.
When steel is heated, it doesn’t have to melt to lose large portions of its strength.
The conspiracy theories and methods of “scientific explanation” advanced by those who are convinced, for instance, that there was no debris from the plane that hit the Pentagon is hokum of the worst kind.
In these short slo mo clips I am not interested in the narrators speculation (I am really not interested in any speculation, only verifiable plain to see observations) what interests me is the multiple recordings of some kind of source of visible light that plainly hits the face of the buildings before the planes touch it.
https://youtu.be/mhROd7Jt3-w
You can find these individual clips in several different recordings by several different people from several different angles, they all appear to verify each other. I just used this one clip because they have all been compiled in one. I find all of these anomalies, these little observational details, and there are many more, very, very interesting.
‘How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,however improbable, must be the truth?’
Sherlock Holmes Quote
Commodude-
good stuff.
Cotour–
Referencing the clip you mention immediately above; the narrator is just making stuff up. And if you turn off the sound, the images alone, just do not support his bizzaro narrative.
It’s pure bunk. You do a disservice to yourself by believing any of it.
Wayne:
Do you really believe that I would make such observations, and thats what they are, valid observations, and feel that I should share my interpretations of them (here of all places) if I did not feel that I was not very well studied on and have sorted out and thought out all of the counter arguments?
Here of all places given the level of professional scientists, architects, engineers etc. that are potentially reading this right now? The silence from others says plenty to me.
We have discussed the blatant lies that our empowered politicians plainly participate in (Its in their job description / S.O.M.), its right in front of all our faces and they, looking everyone straight in the eyes tell us all that we do not see what we see. We by their definition must be “insane” and / or willfully ignorant ? Are you willfully ignorant or insane ? (Maybe your willfully ignorant related to things too big to process, but not insane).
Remember S.O.M.? Do you think that I just made that up to confuse and piss people off? The facts and observations must have reasonable explanations, all puzzles have solutions, no matter how emotionally disturbing they might be. My observations and conclusions both physical and political are entirely objective. In this mode of analysis I emotionally judge neither.
Ever been in a foundry Wayne? https://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE
Cotour–
“Molten metal seen pouring out from the north face.”
Just because somebody on YouTube says it’s “molten metal,” doesn’t make it so.
And yes, I have been in a Foundry. We have a large number of foundry’s and metal-works in my area, they make automobile & tank-engines, just North of me.
I’m just not getting your Point with the 9/11 conspiracy stuff references.
Are you trying to tell us the Government, intentionally blew-up the WTC?
“That dog, just won’t hunt.”
Lets not at this point talk about who or why, although we can discuss that later ala S.O.M. .
Wayne: What is that material pouring out of that corner of the building in copious amounts?
Common: 1. Fire’s characteristic may be heat, however the resulting characteristics of a building that is ON fire is chaos. 2. A piece of steel that is heated takes on certain knowable characteristics, however steel interconnected within a massive complex building that is ON fire also takes on knowable characteristics, chaos. Only a very small percentage of the steel in the building ever experienced any kind of heating. Three buildings, 2 exactly the same, one very differently constructed and all three behave in the same ordered way. (?) 3. I am not concerned with the pentagon, never studied it much.
To quote the poet Axl Rose:
“I know you don’t want to hear me crying, an I know you don’t want to hear me deny.
That your satisfaction lies in your illusions, but your delusions are yours and not mine.
We take for granted that we know the whole story,
We judge a book by it’s cover, And read what we want….
Between selected lines.”
Guns N’ Roses
https://youtu.be/QluEeWttxsc?t=121
Love Guns N Roses, turn it up and play it loud.
But the question still remains, what is that material pouring out of the corner of the building? Anyone?
An inability to answer a reasonable question or choosing to essentially ignore it does not make it go away.
Cotour, you contradict yourself. Chaos implies unpredictable results. The heating of structural members in WTC 1 and 2 created very, very predictable results.
Chaos is a lazy way of dismissing predictable destruction. Your conspiracy theory pabulum about 9/11 is a dog that just won’t hunt.
Cotour wrote: “Misleading?
Misleading.
Cotour asked: “Q: when was the last time you saw three steel frame buildings, 2 hit by large planes and one incidentally set on fire fall in an organized way? The signature of fire is chaos, no?”
So you are using the chaos of fire to prove that the fire did not create the chaos.
Back in the day, when buildings were made of wood, fire fighters would know to abandon burning buildings because of the creaking. When they started building out of steel, their was no more creaking to warn the firefighters. The buildings would collapse suddenly. In fact, this is why they started putting asbestos on the steel frames, in order to delay the time when a burning steel building would collapse. This gave firefighters more time to rescue everyone and more time to put out the fire.
It is those who do not know and understand this history who think the bizarre must have happened rather than the expected. Even I, a non-firefighter, understood on that day that if they did not get those fires put out soon that the buildings would fall. I knew that because, on that day, I knew and understood that history.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that; I just happen to (almost come close to nearly) be one.
I have a slightly different definition of the word hokum, not requiring a device: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hokum
Commodude wrote: “When steel is heated, it doesn’t have to melt to lose large portions of its strength.”
Correct. Steel loses its temper (heat-treated strength) when heated too much. Think of it as being annealed.
Cotour,
You wrote: “In these short slo mo clips I am not interested in the narrators speculation (I am really not interested in any speculation, only verifiable plain to see observations) what interests me is the multiple recordings of some kind of source of visible light that plainly hits the face of the buildings before the planes touch it.”
So you show us a video of the flash as the nose of the plane hits the building. Where was the pre-strike flash? In case you missed it, which you obviously did, the flash occurs at the instant that the nose strikes the building, and the fuel-fed explosion happens as the wings strike the building. Or did you forget that there is length to the airplane. Yeah, I thought so. Mr. “Truthmovementiscool” certainly did. He is yet another doofus.
You have failed to eliminate the obvious, that which is actually seen but reinterpreted to mean something that fails to fit the reality as recorded on your videos. You are not as Holmesian as you believe. Holmes was noted for his attention to detail, but you are ignoring the clearly seen. You have not sorted out and thought out even the clear, obvious evidence, much less any counter arguments to the fantasies that have been supplied to you.
Conspiracy theorists went fishing, and you swallowed it hook, line, sinker, rod, and reel.
You asked: “Remember S.O.M.? Do you think that I just made that up to confuse and piss people off?”
I didn’t used to, but now you are weakening your argument for S.O.M..
You asked: “Ever been in a foundry Wayne?”
Funny you should ask. Yes, I have. I have — in person — watched steel being poured into sand molds and poured into solid molds. Those who said that steel cannot melt are sooo wrong.
“What is that material pouring out of that corner of the building in copious amounts?”
Actually, it could be a large number of things, including molten and burning plastic from the carpeting. But no one knows, because it was not available for examination. You do not know, either.
“Only a very small percentage of the steel in the building ever experienced any kind of heating.”
It may have been a very small percentage of the building, but it was concentrated at the same level, meaning that as those columns were destroyed by the collision and weakened by the fires, the weight that they carried had to be redistributed to the remaining columns at that level. They held until they were overwhelmed by the stresses.
But I already explained that to you as first-year stuff, yet you refused to learn, preferring to listen to doofuses who know not what they talk about. Take it from an actual engineer; I don’t just play one on the internet. I actually designed equipment that used homogenous metals, such as steel, plastics, such as Delrin, and composite materials, such as fiberglass.
Read those books that I recommended to you on the falling and standing buildings. You will not be an expert in materials, mechanics, or design, but you may know a little more about the topic you espouse.
“Three buildings, 2 exactly the same, one very differently constructed and all three behave in the same ordered way.”
They are not so differently constructed as you believe. It does not matter whether the columns are evenly distributed or clustered at the core and the perimeter. The weight that they carried still had to be redistributed to the remaining columns at that level. That is physics, math, and engineering. You spout poorly thought out speculations that don’t match reality, such as ignoring the nose of the plane hitting the building.
The rest of us just aren’t that gullible.
Retire your dog. He just ain’t huntin’.
Now these are proper steel frame building fires, both built more like WTC 7:
https://youtu.be/v8D7VeRXZrU
https://youtu.be/CpLQdxUfhZk
Both burned for many, many hours, one burned for 24 hours, much, much hotter and consistent temperatures, in the morning they were both found to have fallen into nice neat non chaotic piles (Not really, they had to be entirely disassembled because they were more or less fully intact from top to bottom).
WTC towers burned for 56 minutes and 102 minutes, WTC 7 burned for about 4.5 hours (?) they all three conveniently fell into a nice neat pile (That actually happened, all on the same day). Relatively isolated burning pattern in the towers and relatively low temperatures, the majority of both buildings never saw any fire below where they were struck and were essentially untouched and whole. I wonder how they stood at all for 30 years they were so flimsily built. (SRCSM) Woof.
(Its hard to imagine one building doing any of that. Why? Because it is not possible. Not to mention 3 at the same place within minutes / hours of each other. Not without help anyway.)
I am sure that we will revisit this in the future.
Edward-
Good stuff.
Cotour–
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/#damage
Yes, McCain is hiding behind his cancer and using its as a weapon. Disgusting!
What would the difference have been if he did migrate to the Democrats?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/30/mccain-once-almost-left-the-gop-what-about-now-215437
McCain right now is a Democrat mole operating on the inside of the republican Party, he is in the perfect position to effect policy and remain relevant. Maybe he really hates the American people and intends to make them pay after they soundly rejected his ridiculous presidential run? Thank God this will be his last hurrah.
Michael
I agree with your thought.
—————————————-
Practically none (a handful) of these Senators actually oppose each other politically, they just collude together against the People, and send us the bill.
They went to the same 12 schools and joined the same fraternities, they all marry each other, they all send their children to Sidwell Friends, they all invest their money with the same people, very few of them actually drive their own cars and even less of them have ever pumped gas or know which side of the limo the gas tank is on. yadda, yadda, yadda.
(and I’m supposed to bow down to these people and thank them, for their crumbs? I think, not.)
And… they are basically ignorant people. Power-hungry sociopaths, but ignorant.
How many of them actually communicate complete thoughts, in complete sentences? It’s painful to watch them spin their lies.
(Anyone heard from Thad Cochran recently? He doesn’t even know his name or what year it is.)
Repeal the 17th Amendment. We don’t need a Senate unless they actually represent their State and are accountable to their State legislatures.
“Piggies”
The Beatles
https://youtu.be/h1-WZO0jtkM
(2:17)
This particular web site we participate on is all about this video analysis (The analysis is not done by Popular Science or Vogue) :
https://youtu.be/lKYW89xEYg0
You may get it eventually Wayne, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Mathematics and physics never lie. I am not offering the intricate details of how it gets accomplished, there can be a very expansive conversation about motivations and execution, but the mathematics and physics do not lie. People lie, politicians lie, corporations lie, babies lie, drug addicts lie, but mathematics and physics never lie.
It embarrassingly took me 7 years, and then 2 solid months of study to understand it, and then another 3 years to explain where it comes from. I stand by my observations and conclusions.
https://youtu.be/lKYW89xEYg0
Watch here in slo mo as the “Collapse” on the right side corner leads the descending rubble by what looks like about 100 + feet. Under the slo mo microscope the actual progression and unusual / anomalous characteristics can be seen.
If you spend real time going through it, I doubt that anyone commenting has spent serious time drilling down on this, if you do you will come to understand it.
“They went to the same 12 schools and joined the same fraternities, they all marry each other, they all send their children to Sidwell Friends, they all invest their money with the same people, very few of them actually drive their own cars and even less of them have ever pumped gas or know which side of the limo the gas tank is on. yadda, yadda, yadda.”
Sounds like an elite conspiracy.
https://youtu.be/lKYW89xEYg0 A reasonable and interesting analysis by Popular Mechanics (Not)
I am not a conspiracy theorist Wayne. Mathematics and physics never lie. I am not offering the intricate details of how it gets accomplished, there can be a very expansive conversation about motivations and execution, but the mathematics and physics do not lie. People lie, politicians lie, corporations lie, babies lie, drug addicts lie, but mathematics and physics never lie.
It embarrassingly took me 7 years, and then 2 solid months of study to understand it, and then another 3 years to explain where it comes from. I stand by my observations and conclusions.
Wayne,
The 17th amendment will never be repealed without a serious upgrade to the level of civics education in the American school system.
The educational system will never be reformed (rooting out every last vestige of Zinn educational systems) unless politics are reformed.
Its a catch-22, the ultimate peaceful answer to which is the convention of states. It’s well that the Founders left us with one Alexandrian solution to the Gordian knot.
After all that work, the McCain and the Republican Party has left us with diddly, and we have been diddled (by all definitions of the word: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/diddle ).
Cotour,
You wrote: “I am sure that we will revisit this in the future.”
Only due to your own gullibility.
You have equated a couple of small undamaged buildings with onetime tallest-buildings-in-the-world that had 15% or so of their columns broken during the airplane impacts. You must be thinking that the small buildings were fueled by jet fuel — or rather rocket fuel, since you think that they burned hotter — but they did not start their fires with any broken columns, and they didn’t have dozens of stories (millions of pounds of structure) above them.
Once again, you ignore the obvious evidence, thinking that you are as smart as Holmes.
Your evidence just gets weaker and weaker, comparing all fires, thinking that they are exactly the same. If they were, no one would have to do any post-fire investigations.
“they all three conveniently fell into a nice neat pile”
Except for all that collateral damage that they caused. But then I guess you, Cotour, get to choose your own definition of neatness for each situation, in order to make whatever point you choose.
“Its hard to imagine one building doing any of that. Why? Because it is not possible. Not to mention 3 at the same place within minutes / hours of each other. Not without help anyway.”
First you claim airplanes hitting the buildings as the cause of the fires (remember your claim, above, that the noses of the airplanes didn’t exist?), now you claim the fires started within minutes or hours of each other without any help. Which is it: were there airplanes crashing into the towers or not?
And now you question why the lower parts of the buildings collapsed, even though you saw millions of pounds of steel and concrete (flooring) crash from hundreds of feet above. What makes you think that the lower parts of the buildings should be strong enough to withstand all that punishment? Remember the math that you like so much? What does the math say that the speed of those millions of pounds of upper floors should be when they fall into the lower parts of the Towers? (hint: v = sqrt(2*d*a), where”v” is speed, “sqrt” is square root, “d” is distance fallen, and “a” is acceleration of gravity.)
Of course, you could view the videos, again, and get an overall sense of the speed of all those millions of pounds of building falling down, accelerating due to the Earths physical gravity at a rate that can be mathematically calculated (v = a*t, where “t” is time; or d = 0.5*a*t^2; where “^” means “to the power of”).
Your argument continues to collapse just as the World Trade Towers did, but in this case your S.O.M. hypothesis takes the collateral damage.
“I am not a conspiracy theorist Wayne. Mathematics and physics never lie.”
Except that you, Cotour, have ignored the math and physics over the non-mathematic, physics-defying, illogic of a few doofus conspiracy videos.
If you were not a conspiracy theorist, then you would have listened to the engineer in the group who was telling you how the real world works. You might have even bothered yourself to read a couple of recommended books on the topic of buildings, too.
Just how much math and physics did you learn in school, anyway? Are you sure that they are in any way involved in the conspiracy theory videos, which fail to provide examples of either?
I now return you to your fantasy world of conspiracies and doofuses, where math and physics work however you want them to, at any given time, so that when you make your points you can claim that they don’t lie — even though you didn’t use them to make your points.
https://youtu.be/lKYW89xEYg0
Watch here in slo mo as the “Collapse” on the right side corner leads the descending rubble by what looks like about 100 + feet. Under the slo mo microscope the actual progression and unusual / anomalous characteristics can be seen unzipping the corner.
If you spend real time going through it, I doubt that anyone commenting has spent serious time drilling down on this, if you do you may come to understand something different than you thought.
Cotour,
What makes you think that I would understand something other than physics after spending real time going through it? What do you think is different than I thought? And just how much math and physics did you learn in school, anyway?
What you are calling “unzipping” looks like the building is being damaged by falling debris. Not the debris on the outside but on the inside. The outside debris is falling faster than the unzipping. Also, you failed to add to your conspiracy theory why the windows were blowing out from the inside of the rapidly accordion-ating building. (Hint: physics, not explosives placed after the planes struck the tower.)
By the way, controlled implosions have buildings fall in on themselves, not tossing debris all over the sky, as is seen in your latest video in which you are trying to get us to believe something different from reality, such as some doofus’s hokum conspiracy theory.
This guy, engineer, Gordon Ross (Doofus?) has a very interesting interpretation of the events.
https://youtu.be/ABuCO5ifeIE
You keep watching Edward, I will be here for you when the switch goes off in your head.
Cotour: The one switch that never goes off is the switch in your head. You buy into this crap somewhat blindly, and indicate a credulous naivety that discredits almost everything else you write, something that is very sad.
Real engineers have tried to explain things to you. You insist that they must be wrong, because their understanding of math and physics does not fit with your theories. In the process you exhibit a smug certainty that suggests you believe everyone who disagrees with you is a fool.
My next question is thus obvious: Are you a NOAA or NASA climate scientist? Because you follow their approach to science: The facts must fit the theory, and if the facts don’t we must change the facts.
I think no one is a fool here, I am just presenting a different interpretation of certain events that are just accepted by the public. Do you fully accept the official explanation? (You do not have to answer that).
Do you find it at a minimum interesting that 3 steel buildings all fall down on the same day all due to fire?
Does this really look like melted carpet to you https://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE as was suggested by the building structural engineer “expert” Edward? Coincidently right at the corner of the building where it begins to fall?
Real engineers have tried to explain things to me? That have studied the events in detail ? No. Is Gordon Ross a structural engineer? He says he is. And there are lots of other structural engineers that say the same thing, are they all “Doofus’s” as Edward thinks? Are all of the other structural engineers and demolition people who have some very strong opinions counter to the official version on the subject that neither agree with Edward or Wayne not really engineers? Are you a structural engineer or a demolition expert? Do you think that Edward or Wayne are experts in the field of demolition or building structural engineering? Thats what you accept as expert opinion on the subject?
After all that has been discussed and agreed upon here about how dirty politics and the world in general can be and is and the abuse of power and corruption and the history of it all and everything else related to it, you accept the official explanation without question? Because that is what both Wayne and Edward are strongly suggesting. Forget suggesting, that is exactly what they are saying. That seems counter intuitive to me.
Like I said, I think no one is a fool here. And it was interesting to me how long you allowed the conversation to go on, with video’s, without commenting. I have to assume that its not one of your favorite subjects.
I am certain that in the future there will be other related conversations.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” Adolf Hitler
I’m definitely not an expert in demolition, or photo-interpretation.
What I do know about video on the internet;
original source files are rarely in “high definition” to begin with, especially circa 2001. It’s generally (but not exclusively) VHS quality and non-digital TV only had a resolution of 525 scan-lines. VHS quality video is uploaded to Youtube, whereupon they convert it to .mp4 format. People in the audience then download the .mp4 file and may or may not try to up-convert it to a higher resolution and/or re-upoad it, again and again
That’s a Fail– you are completely limited by the resolution of the original file.
Still more people download the file and view it on their computer-monitors or phone-screens.
After multiple iterations, the quality is further degraded and encoding artifacts are introduced, magnified, and replicated, over and over again.
Then 16 years later, someone claims molten metal is pouring out of an office.
This whole thread sounds like the “mysterious object seen near SpaceX rocket, seconds before it explodes…hmmm,” sorta stuff.
Doesn’t matter the camera was 2-3 miles away, doesn’t matter the sound was re-synced to give you the impression the camera wasn’t 2-3 miles away. Somebody sees a bird or an insect, and we are Off to The Races.
I question. You may not like my questions, but I question. And ignoring or poo, pooing my questions does not diminish them or make them go away.
To your points about video and it being copied over and over that is certainly valid, but not all video is manipulated. Especially when you can see video from several, even many sources of the same event. In that case manipulation is not an option.
Cotour: We must all be open-minded and skeptical. You know I endorse this perspective if you read what I write. At the same time we mustn’t be so open-minded our brains fall out.
You raise questions using questionable evidence. When the weakness of that evidence is repeatedly shown, you refuse to recognize it. In fact, it is interesting how your skepticism and questioning vanishes when you are offered weak evidence for absurd conspiracy theories. Somehow, we mustn’t question this weak evidence because it supports such theories.
In fact, you come here to BtB almost exclusively to comment on political matters. When you try to delve into science and engineering, however, you routinely show an ignorance of science and engineering that embarrasses you. I suggest that you question a little less and try to learn a little more about these subjects. Remember: On the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken.
No one here has stated that they studied the subject in question in any depth. They have just parroted the status quo.
And what are your qualifications to question engineering or construction? I spent 30 years in the construction industry, as I understand it you started out making horror movies and you are a writer, your not an expert, you report on others work. (?) I certainly know more about materials and construction than you, and probably more about construction than Edward and certainly more than Wayne. I would never think of questioning Edward on aerospace engineering nor would I question Wayne of the management or characteristics of drug management.
I respectfully suggest that you honestly spend several days delving into the subject in question. If you do not you personally or anyone else who has not done so have no grounds to question me. Especially when you violate you own stated mantra on science. I invite everyone to push back on my observations.
I read this: ” Had he, he might have found the skepticism reasonable. In fact, the scientific method is founded on skepticism. To believe that your work should never be questioned only proves that you aren’t really a scientist at all.”
And thought, maybe the Zman should take a moment and read what he himself writes.
Cotour–
what exactly is it that you are stating as your hypothesis, ref 9/11?
Simply, related specifically to lower Manhattan on 9/11/2001. I am not concerned in this conversation with the other connected events.
1. The towers were essentially a massive building monolith contained within a lighter but very robust building outer steel box shell. The core was comprised of 47 massive steel supports ( most were: 54″ L X 2″ Thk X 22″ W, some smaller 36″ X 2″ X 16″) that graduated to lighter supports as it rose. They were a monolith, meaning that from the foundation up, the core was a welded and bolted together box frame locked together within probably foot think concrete floor pours. That can not be crushed down to the foundation by a building that is being held up by that very same foundation. Think about that for a second, upon a collapse at some point very soon the remaining building starts to push back, well above street level. The top could fall off upon failure, but the building stands, no matter what.
“Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.”
The claim of a “pan cake” if that indeed naturally happened might have occurred on the outer wall concrete floor pours that were separate from the core and that were build around the core on trusses. I could actually see that happening. But how could a pan cake effect possibly happen within the massive locked together core? Answer: It could never happen, not without help. Watch that Gordon Ross video if you have not.
The buildings were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 hit, they were hit by slightly larger 757’s. The 707’s were faster but a bit lighter, essentially similar. The hits and the fires were well above the bulk of both buildings. The rest of the building is designed to stand no matter what. If you do not sever the steel the building can not come down in the fashion that it did. After a fire it must be disassembled, no question. And if the building were to come down due to defect or being hit by something that could knock it over (I can not imagine what, it was designed to take a hit from the biggest airliner) then the building would fall over into the city, steel intact for the most part.
“John Skilling, designer of the WTC:
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.””
In fact the bulk of the fuel was burned off upon impact. Its up to you to look, there are mountains of information. Think.
You asked.
Cotour: You haven’t answered Wayne’s question.
Your questions also imply solutions that defy Occam’s Razor.
“The 2nd WTC Attack: 43 angles”
https://youtu.be/NpUKM0MFNaM
(9:51)
This looks like an airplane to me.
I took his question as relating specifically to the building failures.
Like I have stated, I am concerned with the actual mathematics and physics involved in how buildings collapse, specifically how these buildings collapsed, that first must be agreed upon. Buildings even hit by big planes do not just collapse, especially when they were specifically designed not to. To begin with who and why is a totally other question that tends to cloud and confuse the ability to properly understand. What happened happened.
Wayne sited his thinking on a conspiracy within the inside group within crony government. That conspiracy he is able to imagine and believe. Is a successful conspiracy just a function of how unbelievable it is? Just find that point, and move the line beyond that point? The human mind just will not accept some things that are outside of their reality definition of “normal” or “moral”. We The People are Moral, which is what limits our ability to believe some things, leadership and the individuals that occupy leadership positions, where ever they might be located in history become / can become Amoral related to their position and what agendas “need” to be fulfilled. This is how and where abuse of power becomes justified in the minds of men. “Make the lie big!” A.H.
How do I explain 9 11? I do not explain it specifically but I was forced to develop a theory of how it might be conceived and executed, your familiar with it, I called that theory S.O.M. (Strategy Over Morality). That IMO is what lies at the foundation of most things of this sort. Disturbing from the everyday persons perspective for sure. Disturbing to me, scared the heck out of me.
7 years and 2 months from 9 11 to understand it, 3 more years to quantify it. And once again, I think no one here a fool. Not at all. Thats why I like it here, your mantra is my mantra. But can we find and then handle the truth?
Wayne:
Agreed, what else would they be? Planes are the handiest things around.
Cotour: The World Trade Towers did not collapse when the planes hit them. Their engineering, as designed, worked. They collapsed because no one had considered the possibility of that lots of burning jet fuel would create heat that would structurally weaken the towers, after the collision. I have read more than a few engineering postmortems that looked at the buildings’ design and figured this out, very reasonably.
This is the simple and very straightforward explanation. To instead suggest, as you are clearly doing, that someone planted bombs in the buildings to make them collapse, after the planes hit them, and to do it with no one finding out, and leaving no evidence of doing it that none of the thousands of clean up workers ever found, and to do it for political strategy, is absurd, and beyond simplicity.
Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence. You have provided nothing.
As I said, your skepticism is only good when it doesn’t serve your theories. When you find something that might confirm them, then to you that evidence must be true. This might satisfy your personal whims, but from a scientific and engineering perspective, it is bad thinking, and demonstrates that you do not really understand science in the slightest.
Then its settled.
Cotour,
You wrote: “This guy, engineer, Gordon Ross (Doofus?) has a very interesting interpretation of the events.”
What was the first thing that the speaker said? Oh, yes: “Okay, um. The first thing I’m going to say to you tonight is: ‘you shouldn’t just believe everything I say.’”
So, did you “go back on the internet and get the original sources“? Or did you just believe everything he said? He said, “the more you look, the more you find.” I do that with movies, too. It does not make a movie any more real.
You asked: “Do you find it at a minimum interesting that 3 steel buildings all fall down on the same day all due to fire?”
Given the circumstances of that day? Now I am beginning to believe that you do not think that there was an attack on New York but you think that it was some sort of Hollywood stunt that fooled us all that these buildings ever existed. Or are you denying that there were fires associated with those attacks?
You claim not to believe in conspiracies, yet you are flummoxed that burning buildings might fall down.
I’m beginning to think that someone, here, is a fool.
“And there are lots of other structural engineers that say the same thing, are they all “Doofus’s” as Edward thinks?”
Actually, this is the first person that you presented who is introduced to be an engineer, though not introduced as a structural engineer. If he were a structural engineer, don’t you think that they would have emphasized that?
“Are you a structural engineer or a demolition expert?”
But then, neither are you, and nether is you supposed expert. Those who investigated the collapse were, however, but you choose to go with the amateur conspiracy theorists rather than the actual experts in the field.
Looks like my thinking that there is a fool here is being justified.
Oh, and you still have no alternate hypothesis, except for S.O.M., so my thinking on that hypothesis is also being justified.
Do you actually believe that it is counterintuitive that America has actual enemies? If so, please explain such other counterintuitive attacks on US soil as Boston, Fort Hood, and San Bernardino.
You seem to be trying to make your lie big and simple and you keep saying it. Thus I can only conclude that you hope that we are gullible enough to eventually believe it.
“I question. You may not like my questions, but I question.”
Except for the conspiracy theorists that you see on the internet. Real math and physics, you question, even as you say they don’t lie, but conspiracies you propagate.
“No one here has stated that they studied the subject in question in any depth.”
This includes you. Yet when I study the evidence and show you how it is bogus, you go on to yet another piece of bogus evidence. You won’t even read the books that I recommended to you. You continue to trust people who claim expertise on the internet, but you refuse to listen to to those with actual engineering experience, who have read up on these subjects, and who can do the actual math. Rather than using judgment or common sense, you decide that it is counterintuitive that three burning buildings might lose their structural strength and collapse. The internet has tricked you into saying the most silly things.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fool
I will bet that I have taken more civil engineering classes than you have, Cotour.
“I respectfully suggest that you honestly spend several days delving into the subject in question.”
It has been more than fifteen years suffering fools with stupid conspiracy theories. You are not the first person that I have had this conversation with. This is a well known subject, and yet no one has actually been able to show that the official reports on that day are in any way in error or have come to the wrong conclusion. No one.
“Especially when you violate you own stated mantra on science. I invite everyone to push back on my observations.”
Show me the violation, and I already do push back, to no good effect. You are just as you were before I disproved all your sillinesses.
You have yet to show any math or physics that counters the conclusions of the official reports, so your quote about being skeptical has no weight. Scientists and engineers are skeptical of that which has yet to be accepted. After that, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” — Carl Sagan (Robert beat me to this.)
You haven’t even shown actual evidence, much less extraordinary evidence.
“1. The towers were essentially a massive building monolith”
Which just goes to show that you have no idea what a monolith is.
“That can not be crushed down to the foundation by a building that is being held up by that very same foundation.”
Again, we depart from reality. Since you like to do research (except when it involves discovering that you are wrong), look up column strength or buckling. Also investigate compression strength.
They did withstand being hit by the 757s. It was the fires that weakened them.
“If you do not sever the steel the building can not come down in the fashion that it did. ”
Well, even your expert admits that the steel was severed. duh.
“And if the building were to come down due to defect or being hit by something that could knock it over”
What did I say about these buildings not being solid, like a tree. Or a monolith.
Oh, and John Skilling thought of the plane as the smaller 707 variety, and he also assumed that the structures would be protected by asbestos. Instead, asbestos became outlawed, and they had to use a poorer material.
You want us to spend days studying this event, yet it turns out that I have already studied it far, far more than you have. And just because the “bulk” of the fuel was burned off upon impact does not mean that there wasn’t fuel flowing down through the stairwells or that the other flammable materials in the building refused to keep the fires going. What do you think was burning in the two videos of the smaller buildings that you showed us a couple of days ago? Oh, that’s right: rocket fuel.
Yet another reason for me to conclude that there is a fool in this conversation.
You know, Cotour, you complained that there were not more people commenting on your silliness, then when Robert gets involved, you mock him for his delayed response. Which do you want, more comments or fewer comments?
Your supposed expert tried to tell us that the buildings failed well below the points of impact, but the videos show the buildings to be badly damaged well below the points of impact. The farther down the building you go, the more weight that has to be carried, so it is completely believable that the buildings would fail farther down than where the noses of the planes (remember that nose? I didn’t think so) impacted the buildings.
“Like I have stated, I am concerned with the actual mathematics and physics involved in how buildings collapse, specifically how these buildings collapsed, that first must be agreed upon.”
Except that you have failed to do any study on the math or physics of this topic, much less take the couple of days you want the rest of us to waste on your malarkey conspiracy theories. You won’t even read the two books I recommended. So, just how concerned are you with the math and physics?
Except that since you will not agree upon this one topic, it is yet another silliness on your part to insist that we must agree on your misinterpretation of the math and physics.
“Buildings even hit by big planes do not just collapse, ”
And, yes, the pentagon did “just collapse” when it was hit by a big plane, meaning that your statement about that is wrong. You yourself admitted that the towers were only designed to survive a hit by a smaller plane, then you pretend surprise when the fires and damage from larger planes bring them down. Larger planes, more damage, bigger fires. Duh.
“3 more years to quantify it.”
You have quantified nothing, here. In fact, the only one repeating a mantra, here, is you, Cotour.
“But can we find and then handle the truth?”
We have. You have not.
Finally, if you are going to have a conspiracy theory for that day, you need to include all the other affected buildings, including the pentagon and flight 92. Otherwise, you are just blathering on about diddly.
“Then its settled.”
Yes, it is settled: there is a fool in this conversation.
I now return you to your fantasy-world of conspiracies, doofuses, and diddly.
Cotour
“Wayne sited his thinking on a conspiracy within the inside group within crony government.”
I don’t recall alluding to that thought, but no matter.
Referencing building’s-collapsing.
What astonishes me, is they lasted as long as they did. One can’t just wish away all that jet fuel nor the conflagration it helped produce.
I believe the initial impact & fire set up a chain of events that were, or rapidly became, completely insurmountable.
I’d have to believe way toooo many things, collectively to the contrary, to buy into alternative causes.
All,
I want to note something important. My initial post was about John McCain, liar and fraud who not only campaigned on repealing Obamacare and has done everything since to keep it the law, but during the past two decades has consistently fought every conservative policy effort while stabbing his fellow Republicans in the back.
Cotour for some reason didn’t want to talk about that. Instead, he hijacked this thread to raise conspiracy theories about the attack on the World Trade Center.
To me, that is the behavior of a troll.
Just sayin’.
Edward: Rocket fuel? I said nothing about rocket fuel. Where did you get that? If you are referencing the lights that are plainly recorded touching the buildings before the impacts, I did not propose what they were. That’s not what they look like to me. I do not know what they were, but I saw them (I assume you also saw them, Wayne saw them and the Zman also saw them, what are they? Please tell me).
I am aware of some people thinking (which you attributed to me incorrectly) that but I am not one of them. Seemed unusual to me to say the least, one of many unusual elements observed in lower Manhattan that day and only that day. Please find and show me other examples of steel frame buildings of either design falling down to their foundations due to fire or otherwise, including JDAM strike, earth quake, tsunami etc. Please find it and show me, I am very visual.
Wayne: This is what I am referencing from one of your earlier posts.
“They went to the same 12 schools and joined the same fraternities, they all marry each other, they all send their children to Sidwell Friends, they all invest their money with the same people, very few of them actually drive their own cars and even less of them have ever pumped gas or know which side of the limo the gas tank is on. yadda, yadda, yadda.”
This is the governmental leadership / employee conspiracy that you implied. And I do not disagree with you, once you are on the inside you want to stay there.
Cotour,
You asked: “Edward: Rocket fuel? I said nothing about rocket fuel. Where did you get that?”
This isn’t the first time that I mentioned it. Aren’t you reading my replies to your nonsensical comments? Well, that explains a lot.
“If you are referencing the lights that are plainly recorded touching the buildings before the impacts, I did not propose what they were.”
I was clear about those, too. But once again, you don’t read my replies, so how would you know what those “lights” actually are? You ask me to tell you again, but I don’t think that you are even reading this reply to your latest comments, so what is the use. Or, you could go back and find where I already explained them. I kept referencing the explanation throughout my replies, yet you are only now getting around to asking about them.
You want other references to falling buildings, but I already referenced two books on the topic, and continually asked you to read them. Once again, you are unwilling to do actual research to question the conspiracy theories that you embrace with such enthusiasm that you cannot even bear to read any contrary evidence.
Thus, it is settled.
This was my transition, please reread it, totally connected IMO, no trolling on my part. All lying within government is ultimately connected. Some lies are bigger than others, some lies are held at arms length and no one in a power position or in the media would dare question them. That’s why I commended you for allowing at least the conversation.
“While we are on the subject of lies and while I am in the mood :
Lies, lies, lies, McCain is a liar, both the Clinton’s are liars, Obama is a liar, Wasserman is a liar, Donna Brazile is a liar, Schumer is a liar, the Bush’s are liars, Democrats and Republican party’s are filled with liars, our entire government is inhabited by professional and highly paid with the peoples tax dollars liars. If you are an empowered politician you by definition must be able to lie for the “Greater Good” (S.O.M.).
We have even discussed after irrefutable evidence has been presented that the lying also goes on within science its self. What is science if it is allowed to be based in lies? If you believe the lies does that make the science true? Is just believing enough? Does mathematics and physics really care about whether humans lie about them? (That’s a rhetorical question Mike)
What happens if the lie is so big that no one would dare to question what must in the end be questioned?”
Cotour: You discredit every other claim you might make by implying here that the lying by government officials is so widespread and systemic that it even included a widespread conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center. You also put a stain on my own posts, by creating an association with the real lies that McCain has made and the fake lies you are manufacturing out of whole cloth.
The result: People will ignore the real lies, either because they think this is all absurd conspiracy thinking or because they will conclude it will make no difference. “They all do it, all the time, for the most evil of reasons, and nothing we say will stop them. We might as well give up and join them in doing evil for our own benefit.”
Not only is this sloppy thinking, it is somewhat bigoted. As much as I have a low opinion of most politicians, not all of them are corrupt, not all of them lie, and not all of them are entirely evil. They are human, like us all, and in any group you will have a range. But because these humans happen to be in the position of wielding power, they require much closer observation and criticism.
Your approach does this effort a disservice and great harm.
I respectfully disagree with you.
The nature of power is to corrupt, I think you would agree with that. And we are talking about the ultimate power on the planet here. I am not suggesting that all people within government are corrupt or lie but the people who get to push the buttons certainly do know how to not do what is in the interests of what you and I would agree was more or less the best for the country. We can both site many, many instances of this duplicitous activity. Humans seem to magically change their focus after becoming empowered, that does not happen without cause. Does the responsibilities of their leadership positions fundamentally change them? I would say yes as I have explained.
Q: How is the Hillary Clinton illegal email server investigation going? Oh, there was no investigation the FBI director could not find intent. 13 minutes of a laundry list of indictable charges news conference and he could not find intent? This an example of how pressure is exerted on good people, life long governmental employees who are looking forward to their pension and a big fat comfy retirement. But they will do as they are directed, no insider would dare to resign and threaten everything. And I will recognize that Hillary at the time was within the political realm where things are a bit more massaged for political purposes, but that can only go so far and then the people understand “We really are not in charge, they are going to do as they please”.
Getting back to WTC, I know many FDNY firemen that were there that day and also worked the pile, some that died, they tell me first hand stories, stories that do not support your version, stories that they keep quiet. Why? They all have families and they all want to get to that 20 years and get out and live their lives. They lost 343 of their fellow workers on one day, but they are reticent to talk about it publicly, and it could have been any one of them.
Getting back to my disrupting the flow of the conversation, I will try not to divert it in the future. You are free to push the button on me if you wish seeing that my brand of thought process disturbs you so. As a matter of fact, I do not always like or agree with what you have to say. But that is the push and pull of this medium.
“I know many FDNY firemen that were there that day and also worked the pile, some that died, they tell me first hand stories, stories that do not support your version, stories that they keep quiet. Why?”
This is classic conspiracy theory stuff. It is like my doctor not wanting anyone to know about my “dehydration diet,” losing weight by not drinking liquids. You lose weight fast, especially after you die of dehydration. But hey, the doctors don’t want you to know about it (conspiracy theory), therefore it must be the right thing to do (poorly thought out conclusion based upon garbage conspiracy input). Right?
If I am reticent to talk publicly about the recent loss of my cousin, does that mean that there was some conspiracy about his death?
I really worry about the way you think, Cotour. It makes you think that voting for lifelong Democrats to be the Republican candidate is a good idea. It makes you deny the math and physics of the world even as you claim the bogus claims to be based upon them. It also makes you conclude that there is nothing that we can do about our politicians.
The next time you watch “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington,” please notice that the corrupt politician, Claude Rains’s character, Senator Paine, started out as honest and enthusiastic as Jimmy Stewart’s character, Mr. Smith, or as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or several other real life examples, but that power and time were what corrupted them, not just the power. They understood this concept a century ago.
This may have been what happened to Senator McCain. He may have started out as Mr. Smith, but eventually succumbed to the Paines of Washington. This is why I think that term limits are better than the system we have now, but I do not think that term limits are a perfect solution.
Cotour: Please note that at no time was I suggesting I wanted to ban you. Not in the slightest. However, I demand high standards from those that want to comment on BtB, and I think here you are failing badly in meeting those standards. More importantly, I think you are doing harm to your own arguments. I thought it necessary to make you aware that you were doing this to yourself.
One of many, many stories that is more to the point about how an individual might think twice about saying something or not about where they work and what they do:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/a-whistleblowers-horror-story-20150218
So then, Edward you seem to be agreeing with me with your Mr. Smith Goes To Washington analogy in how corruption becomes the norm at the leadership level. I did not say that I invented it, I have just defined it in a different more concise formulaic way. And then the next logical question must be, where is the line drawn where its too much? What will someone in a leadership position NOT do of they can justify an action in order to in their subjective opinion related to their interpretation of their fiduciary responsibility?
As far as your diet goes, good luck with that, have a salad. As an analogy in the context of this conversation its very weak there is no theory regarding peoples unwillingness to talk about things that they reasonable believe are a personal threat to them and their family.
This does not seem a line too far at the time to justify an action to deliver a result. Is the line at the border? :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
If anyone is arguing that these kinds of actions that to some would be morally outrageous and impossible based in their subjective everyday lives, their are plenty of examples throughout history to prove through evidence that that is an incorrect assumption. Its just a matter of where someone can justify drawing the line, what is too much or too far in the pursuit of a justified goal related to preserving or acquiring power or securing agenda?
And as to the quality of some of my arguments, I will endeavor to raise it, we will see where that goes. But know this, I do not post here to please anyone. My observations and arguments are what they are, so push back, point out weaknesses and I will counter, but that can be messy at times.
Cotour,
It is difficult to express the extent of my disappointment at realizing, yesterday, that you do not read my replies to your comments and questions. I spent a lot of time and effort to present you with actual facts, but you haven’t bothered to even read them, much less learn anything from them.
But then again, I am still delusional that you will bother to read this one. What a waste of keystrokes.
Oh, I am disappointing so many this week.
Because I have been pressed for time this week (I actually do other things during the day, believe it or not, and you write like a demon on crystal meth) I skimmed / speed read and picked out what stuck out, you will forgive me I hope. I am still looking for that “rocket fuel” reference. I will review them in detail and properly respond.
As to the subject matter in question, I am still not soothed or comforted and remain uneasy.
I my opinion McCain was never a hero. At least not as much as they made him out to be.
He was NOT the only pilot to have a stay at the Hilton and he was not the only pilot to come out of there that day.
What did he do before his crash? Anything to make himself famous?
He was a democratic party liberal then and he still is now.
Its just that when he first wanted to run for office a war hero couldn’t get elected by the democrats with a wish and a billion bucks.
So he lied and went Republican. And he is still lying.
Hopefully he recovers from his brain tumor, I do not wish him dead, but I do hope it at least sidelines him for the rest of time.
And I want my 15 minutes of wasted time back from reading this whole off track thread.
Some new information about another event where “conspiracy” over and above the prime suspect and story line presented by government is suspect and became to be doubted. And it still is doubted, with good reason based in evidence.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/03/jfk-assassination-lone-gunman-cia-new-files-215449
There are still reams of evidence that will apparently never be seen by the U.S. public because why? Because the actual truth may be too destabilizing to the country and the world.
The private individuals default position must always be to doubt the official narrative, just like the default position of the private individual must always be to default assume that any aspiring or empowered politician is lying. Why? Because that it what experience and common sense tell you.
Cotour: So now, rather than talk about silly 9/11 conspiracy theories, you want to talk about silly JFK assassination theories.
No one here argues with your desire to “always doubt the official narrative.” That we aren’t interested in your focus on weak conspiracies doesn’t mean we accept official narratives, it only means that we don’t want to waste our time (as you do) on irrelevancies.
And focusing on irrelevancies is that trolls do. You might consider that.
I am buttressing my argument, presenting supporting evidence from the real world.
Do you really have a problem with that? Its an ongoing and interconnected logic that needs to be understood. YOU are now being unreasonable. (If you have not noticed)
” So now, rather than talk about silly 9/11 conspiracy theories, you want to talk about silly JFK assassination theories.”
I am not talking about anything “silly”, pay objective attention.
Below are pictures of explosive destruction of buildings and not buildings damaged only by fire. Accept that as a plain to see fact. Look at them, review the few short videos of the anomalies that I have provided and understand something other than “something” you read. Look and “SEE” for yourself. Even you can understand this.
http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks/pictures/911-world-trade-center/ruins-of-world-trade-center-2
This is what a building damaged by fire looks like. Planes or no planes.
https://youtu.be/1h-f-CJzgG8
And I will tell you one other important thing, other than presenting supporting evidence from the real world that clearly supports Amoral strategies by governments or power brokers / manipulators, how ever you would like to define it or them.
No one in the political world either aspiring to power or already empowered OR anyone in media or who actively contributes to media in any significant and credible way, even if they came to understand these things with every fiber in their being…………………..would never say so publicly. It would represent an immediate curtailing of their contributing to their profession. And I would totally understand.
I am not a “conspiracy” theorist, I see what I see and judge it based in reality, no matter how outside of my morality model it is because I know its probably not outside of someone elses. Some things happen for reasons, but nothing happens without leaving evidence, especially when there are hundreds of individuals recording it. It truly is a crazy world we live in, doubt that not.
(And if and when IT hits you, you will be embarrassed as to your blind ignorance and then you will become scared like I was. Then you have to figure out things from there)
“Flexible Inventory of Conspiracy Suspicions.”
-the 5 question mini conspiracy-inventory-
https://conspiracypsychology.com/2016/11/08/what-suspicion-tells-us-about-beliefs-in-conspiracy-theories/
Just so happens this is apparently going on right now in Dubia.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4166631/dubai-fire-latest-updates-residential-tower-blaze/
Stay tuned for the characteristic aftermath.
I have not reviewed this stuff in a while, I just found this nice little tutorial, you want to argue with Newton? Go right ahead. Nothing happened below the initial events that would explain such destruction. Explosive destruction or damage from fire, two entirely different characteristic signatures.
https://youtu.be/iiwpj7aa9c8
Notice all of the letters and designations after these credentialed professionals names, Civil Engineer, P.E. Structural Engineer, B.S. Physics, M.S. Mathematics, Explosive Evidence Expert etc, etc. and there are another 2000 plus more of them. When you see it, first you will be embarrassed as I was for being willfully blind, then you will be scared. Its OK, we create the explanation in our minds to explain what we see (Or don’t see). You tend to want to see what you want to see to reasonably explain what you see. Much like a magic trick.
Make the lie big! I will be here for all.
With single payer health care this would never have happened. The administration would simply have instructed the doctor that this patient won’t attend Congress, and he won’t.
I found some more interesting contradictory “official” computer modeling, just like the “Climate Change” / “Global Warming” model where the numbers are tweeked to fit a desired result. People here should be all over that. Two government funded and controlled entities that need a known result. What in the opinion of most here did the climate scientists do to their data? Why would another government entity not do the same? Did these things happen or not?
https://youtu.be/v3mudruFzNw
Symmetry and free fall is not the signature of a steel building damaged by fire, chaos is. The top falls off the building, parts of it slump, pieces fall of etc. etc. that is all normal for steel structures under intense fire conditions. In this case two very different kinds of buildings in close proximity to each other have all done what can not be done, all on the same day and just a couple of hours apart.
To begin to understand something you start with what did in reality happen that is observable, not with what could never happen and that opinion is based in a personal self limiting model of what reality “should” be. The political / power model explanation of who and why is not relevant, it is a mistake to bog oneself down with those big picture questions. On one level it does not really matter.
“Open-borders shill John McCain resurrects Gang of 8 amnesty push”
Conservative Review 8-4-17
https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/open-borders-shill-john-mccain-resurrects-gang-of-8-amnesty-push
This is becoming full blown political war. I even resent the term “Gang Of Eight”, it sound thuggish to me and has a Mafiosa feel to it. Is that the symbolism that is meant to be instilled? McCain has become an enemy of the people IMO.
Pouring steel in a foundry: https://youtu.be/3IE64r9rkXs
Similar material poring from Tower corner or melted “carpet”? : https://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE
(Physics: What is the spectral signature of molten steel?)
Why is this significant? A fire in free air can not develop temperatures high enough to cause steel to become molten. In ideal conditions a fire like in the towers in free air could develop aprox. 1400 degrees F max. for a short time. The majority of time the fire temperatures in the towers were much lower than 1400 degrees F, they were more like 400 to 500 degrees as is evidenced by the black oxygen starved smoke that they both produced for most of the time of the events.
So if indeed these two video examples are examples of molten steel, and that is what they both plainly look like they are to me, where did the missing 1300 + / – degrees come from? Why 1300 + / – degrees? Steel is molten more in the 2500 to 2750 degree range. Where did the extra energy come from to accomplish this feat? And where is this condition observed? Right at the corner where the failure of the building initiates.
Make the lie big, and dare anyone of consequence to challenge it.
When you see it, when it clicks, you will be embarrassed then scared.
Lets take a look at a proper steel framed building fire, a bit of a different design but it burned hot and it burned long. Result? Expected and normal.
Torre Windsor: https://youtu.be/sngD_YEGOZQ
Disassembly of the Windsor took months for this one relatively small building, other larger buildings would have taken years. “Luckily” these large buildings were both absolutely razed to ground level. Nothing at all of consequence left standing, extremely uncharacteristic of any building under fire conditions, no matter their design or if they were hit by a plane. Buildings are specifically designed and way, way over built to stand and stay standing. As a matter of fact it is more than uncharacteristic, it is unique on the planet through out all history :
https://youtu.be/SfckJvJKtRM
WTC 1 was struck at aprox. the 95th floor level, the building was I think 102 stories, thats only 7 stories plus the antenna above the impact zone and the building fell down to street level, to its foundation. I wonder, how did these buildings stand for so long being so lightly built? (They were actually built about 4 or 5 X’s heavier than needed, designed specifically to take a hit from a jet plane and they were designed to survive the resulting fire.)
And its hard to argue with evidence of 2000 plus degrees in the form of melted steel masses that need 2500 to 2700 degrees to form found in the basements, and NASA satalite measurements after 5 days of 1300 plus degrees. I do not care how big the buildings are that fall down, the high temperatures which was exclusively located all the way up at the top of the building can not find its way down to the basement. The the basements, where nothing of much consequences was going on (?).
https://youtu.be/WSXUGR2g9HU
Mathematics and physics never lie. They won’t even lie if you desperately want them to to fulfill your already preconceived notions that explain the reality you want explained.
Joe Rogan and Eddie Bravo on 9-11
https://youtu.be/-kliqRaxULA
(9:38)
wayne: At this point any response to Cotour on the subject of 9-11 is feeding the troll. As Edward pointed out, he is not willing to read or listen to any facts or theories on this subject, by knowledgeable people, except for those who reinforce his beliefs. A discussion therefore is a waste of time, and I would rather we ignore him on this subject from now on.
I will also add that his posts keep distracting us from the main point of my post, that John McCain is a liar. I wonder why.
Cotour, take a look at this graph of yield strength of steel vs. temperature.
I found this by googling to show a general idea of what happens when you heat steel, but to get an accurate picture you’d have to find a graph for the specific steel used and the temperatures encountered.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shaopin_Song/publication/263931277/figure/fig4/AS:392410912837633@1470569460084/Fig-4-Yield-strength-and-Young%27s-moduli-as-a-function-temperature-for-2-14CrMo-and.png
Steel doesn’t have to be molten to fail.
I can not believe what I just read that the Zman wrote himself. (Who the hell is Edward?) My beliefs and understanding is rock solid and based in reasonable observation and common sense. What has Edward introduced to counter them? Molten carpet? You do not have to be a aerospace engineer, or much of any other kind of engineer to understand what is plain to see. However, many engineers and other related professionals do understand it and have plainly said so. Their numbers are in the thousands. But I guess here the professional designations after their names mean nothing? Except for Edwards?
You do yourself a great disservice, and your method is not at all scientific. “Molten Carpet”. Edward certainly has drilled down on the entire thing and because he dismisses it all, thats it. Now that is weak, the weakest argument that I have ever read here on this fine web site.
” he is not willing to read or listen to any facts or theories on this subject,”
Hang your head in shame Zman. Wayne, and anyone else reviewing these things that I have presented make up your own mind. What I have presented is reasonable and logical. This is a kind of intellectual intimidation that is counted on to keep the confusion going. And I understand it, I really am aware of the immensity that causes such thinking. Its human nature. (I forgive you)
But I do commend your posting my comments on this subject. When it clicks in your head and you see it, and you become embarrassed, I will be humble because this is much too big to be anything other than that.
The Bowles Of Christ To you.
Cotour-
“What I have presented is reasonable and logical.”
No, it’s not reasonable nor logical.
->It’s a bunch of internet “stuff.”
The French have a phrase for this type of shared delusional belief;
“folie à plusieurs,” loosely– “the madness of many.”
Gary,
I agree, steel does not have to be molten to fail, that is a hard fact. Where what appears to reliably show molten steel is just below and to the right of the initial corner that failed. (Review the video) The material that cut the corners apparently inadvertently flowed from the corner site down to the concrete floor and burned through the facade to be filmed pouring out (Wups). Looked just like molten steel being poured to me. That is very interesting, No? For the building to reliably fall the corners must be cut, especially with this particular design building.
And molten steel was found in the basement. How does molten steel get to the basement? Where did the additional energy come from to produce it? A building fire in ideal conditions can produce nothing near the temperature to melt steel. The fire would have to burn aprox. at twice the temperature, fact. It certainly could heat it to a point of weakness or failure, but it can not in any scenario melt it.
And thirdly: What happened to the remaining steel in the building below the sites of the events? Nothing, they were just doing their job, holding up the building. There was no fire of any consequence below the impact areas. Some fuel apparently fell down an elevator shaft, no biggie, it was designed with that in mind.
The steel, all of the remaining steel that held up the buildings for 30 years, apparently just decided to not do their job any more. It would be like you standing and someone hitting you in the knees and you fall to the ground just behind the time that it would take if someone who was holding you just dropped you. In one scenario there is a bit of residual resistance, in the other you fall free to the ground due to gravity acting upon you, no resistance. Through measurement there was apparently no resistance of any consequence.
The mathematics is wrong. Steel just does not disappear. Buildings can not just hit the ground without there being resistance from the remaining structure. The only instance where it is exactly the same is during an intentional destruction event.
I won’t speak for Edward, but he’s the guy that puts forth far more effort than I would care to expend on the interweb, to try to respond to your 9/11 commentary.
In other news;
It’s august 7, 2017, and John McCain remains a liar.
He’s a very skilled liar, but a liar nonetheless.
If he told me the sky was blue, I’d wonder what sort of scheme he was plotting.
Wayne, Trust me I have questioned that from the beginning, it took me 2 solid months to understand it to the degree that I have. I have not just listened to some “internet nut” who thinks this. Make the reasonable efforts and observations and come to reasonable conclusions. For you to classify this as “Internet stuff” is dismissing. I am not really the kind of person that if they tell you something like this you dismiss them out of hand.
I totally understand the inability to understand it, the implications are as big as they get, never ever been bigger. And that is part of the brilliance of of it all.
“They” (?) took the Hitler quote “Make the lie big” to heart. The psychology is well understood, the limits of the average persons ability to believe what is unbelievable is knowable. So just draw the line over that knowable line, reinforce it and do as you please. In this case it was way, way, way, WAYYYYYY over the line. Strategically brilliant, things at this level takes real S.O.M. stones.
Like I said, I understand your position. You will read and listen to this conversation, if it continues, and maybe in time it will click. Maybe.
I’m doubting you “understand my position,” and you’re a bit condescending.
Wayne: Saying that Cotour is “a bit condescending” is quite an understatement.
I wish to close this thread, as it has nothing at all to do with anything that I have ever posted on Behind the Black, and it concerns childish conspiracy theories that distract from the real issues of the day. Unfortunately, my website does not provide me a feature where I can close the thread at a point of my choosing.
For this reason, I am going to close this thread in this manner: I will accept posts here for the next two hours, but after that I will delete unread any additional posts to this thread. I will do this no matter who posts, so no one should complain that I am playing favorites.