PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum
Jazz Guitar Discussion
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Political Banter
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> Hangout, Chat & Get to Know
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DocDosco



Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 251
Location: LA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:
do you have proof of criminality? precisely which law or laws were broken, and by whom?



Here ya go. Happy reading: (PS... I'll post the crimes of Dick Cheney too, if you like)



Congressional record. June 10. 2008:

35 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources

Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX
Imprisoning Children

Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
____________

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power.
_____________
_________________
Doc Dosco
http://www.docdosco.com

Doc's Peerless guitar website
http://www.jazzguitarzone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DocDosco



Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 251
Location: LA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:
OK, those are charges. i believe that they have been dropped.

impeachment can be for incompetence too right? are you saying that every one of those articles represents a crime, or represented a crime, since this attempt has now flopped?

why were the charges dropped?



The impeachment charges haven't been dropped. They were read into the Congressional record on Tuesday. It will not get enough support from the chickenshit congressional members no doubt, but those are real charges and real crimes.

In case you need a synopsis:

June 10 -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) spent 4 hours reading into the Congressional Record 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Interestingly, those articles include not just complaints about signing statements and the war in Iraq, but also charges that the President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,' 'Direct[ed] Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens,' and 'Tamper[ed] with Free and Fair Elections.'





As to Afghanistan, that was a gigantic red herring.

Bin Laden, as you may have noticed, is still at large.

In addition, the Sept 11 attacks were not pulled off by 19 dopey Arabs that couldn't land a Piper Cub. If anyone cares to investigate (and believe me, the stinky truth isn't hard to discover) the trail of 911 leads through heavy obfuscation, and misdirection to the highest corridors of power in the US (and elsewhere). Bush is a dope. He was reading 'My Pet Goat' upside down to school kids at the time of the attack, and doubtless was clueless then (as he remains clueless today). However that 'hijacking that was hijacked' was certainly known to certain elements in the Pentagon, White House, Norad and Mossad.

Unfortunately, the evidence of anything other than the official story has been successfully shuffled off to the realm of the lunatic fringe. Those who question the inconstancies, (and even the fact that the laws of physics have to be broken for the official story of 911 to be true) are commonly ridiculed, scoffed at, and dismissed by government shills or those who are unable to grasp the scope and depth of this event.

It really boils down to the age old adage that if you tell a lie big enough, everyone will believe it.

This is not the time or place for a symposium on 911 and I am frankly tired of sparring with people about it. IMO, either you see it or you don't. People who are convinced that just 19 hijackers propelled by Bin Laden are responsible for 911 are free to think that. And free to live in fear, believe the lies and propaganda of the government and corporate run media, and to support endless war for profit against all of our manufactured enemies, and ... well....

I could go on and on.

But I won't.

;0)
_________________
Doc Dosco
http://www.docdosco.com

Doc's Peerless guitar website
http://www.jazzguitarzone.com


Last edited by DocDosco on Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cmr415



Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 66
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:
OK, those are charges brought by Dennis Kucinich? you say Bush is a crook? people say Kucinich is a kook. not just conservatives either. some of those articles appear to be more about incompetence than crimes, but no matter.

his last attempt at this failed. i believe that this one will too. its his opinion, and he has a right to it. but he has to prove the case. good luck.

also - would you be so kind as to answer my original questions posed to you? thanks

He answered your question, you choose to say it is not valid. Like I said, Republican Retorts 101. Get over it. Actually, we all should get over it, and agree to disagree.
_________________
Heritage 575 Spruce with Kent Armstrong PAF
Reverend Charger 290
Henriksen 10R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DocDosco



Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 251
Location: LA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Igiro,

I will debate any of this stuff with you (or anyone else) if you keep an open mind. If you have your mind made up already, resort to derision or simply spout the official platitudes.... and are not open to looking at ALL of the evidence to make an informed descion, then it is pointless.
_________________
Doc Dosco
http://www.docdosco.com

Doc's Peerless guitar website
http://www.jazzguitarzone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
voodobop



Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 347
Location: new orleans

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cmr415 wrote:
lgiro wrote:
OK, those are charges brought by Dennis Kucinich? you say Bush is a crook? people say Kucinich is a kook. not just conservatives either. some of those articles appear to be more about incompetence than crimes, but no matter.

his last attempt at this failed. i believe that this one will too. its his opinion, and he has a right to it. but he has to prove the case. good luck.

also - would you be so kind as to answer my original questions posed to you? thanks

He answered your question, you choose to say it is not valid. Like I said, Republican Retorts 101. Get over it. Actually, we all should get over it, and agree to disagree.


Lgiro is an impossibly futile person to discuss politics with.

Doc, i feel you on the 911 thing.. you can at least take comfort in not having a shroud of ignorance over your face, something seems wrong about the whole thing, though unlike the conspiracy theorists.. i cant pinpoint what. Some people say ignorance is bliss, i disagree. Skepticism is intellectual inertia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DocDosco



Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 251
Location: LA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

voodobop wrote:


Doc, i feel you on the 911 thing.. you can at least take comfort in not having a shroud of ignorance over your face, something seems wrong about the whole thing, though unlike the conspiracy theorists.. i cant pinpoint what. Some people say ignorance is bliss, i disagree. Skepticism is intellectual inertia.



Well, as you say, something is rotten.

I could go through and refute the government account point by point, but what's the point? It is what it is ...now.....

I will put this out there. If anyone on this planet can tell me how Building 7 at the WTC simply just collapsed without cause at free fall speeds into it's own 'footprint' without breaking the laws of physics, I will seriously entertain examining their viewpoints....

;0)
_________________
Doc Dosco
http://www.docdosco.com

Doc's Peerless guitar website
http://www.jazzguitarzone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
voodobop



Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 347
Location: new orleans

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly.. though im a little ashamed, i didn't even know there was a building 7 until about a year ago, though at the time of the incident i was still a sophmore in hs. Maybe its also a testiment to how efficient the government was at confounding the public's knowledge and perception about the whole thing. And yes that building did seem to break the law's of physics, the only way for a building like that to collapse in that fashion is for it to be destroyed at very exact tolerances, otherwise it will always favor a direction. Though once again, i wont attempt to lay out an elaborate scheme as to how this happened, which ironically is what me and government will have in common on the topic of building 7, neither of us is willing attempt to rectify what happened.. though i feel its clear in an ideal world to whom the burden of this task should fall upon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phrygian Dominant



Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 583
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well Doc all hope is not lost as far as investigating the alleged crimes of the Bush regime and prosecuting them. There are just many on the Democratic side who don't believe it's wise to blow our wad on this issue prematurely. No pun intended Embarassed . Not until the congressional investigations have happened and it's all laid out for the American people to see.

The Republicans have 49 senators + Joe Lieberman the turn-coat "independent" from New York. The Democrats have 50 senators. So although on paper the Dems have a majority it's really only valid in the House not the Senate. Remember that for anything to really happen in congress it has to pass both the House and the Senate. The Republican Senators are too scared of being ostracised and punished by the neoconservative power brokers to ever side with the Democrats on investigating the Bush crimes. They know their political career would be over if they ever did that. That's the way Bush/Cheney operate, either you go along or you're out. That's partly what I find so scary about them staunch right wingers.

So if the neocons don't want something to pass the Senate they can just filibuster. Then the Senate rules say it takes 60 votes to override the filibuster and move forward. The Dems can never get the 60 votes because the petrified Republicans will just vote in lock step with Bush's command. So the bill dies in the Senate.

It's very likely that the Democrats will soon gain more seats in the House and Senate. When that happens, mark my words, we are going to see investigations into the last eight years and things are going to be uncovered about the Bush regime that will shock us ALL. Hold on to your hats folks.
_________________
LISTEN!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Generic Sobriquet



Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 804

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, I thorougly reject the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. It has all been debunked (rather in a cinch), and by people entirely unassociated with government. Skeptic Magazine did an issue dedicated to it, as did Popular Mechanics, there's a great book on the subject, and so on. I strongly recommend those resources. Don't be so "open minded" that your brain drops out and you lose all reason.

Did Bush&Co. seize upon, take advantage of, and thoroughly exploit 9/11 for their own political, corporate, warmongering, criminal gains? Damn right they did. Were any "behind it?" Please.

There's enough actual, empirically evidenced, seriously evil shit going on to point at, much of which people aren't even aware (e.g., the illegal, shameless piracy of Iraq). There's no need to make shit up on top of it; it only kills credibility. These conspiracy claims are nearly, in some cases every bit, as pernicious as, for example, the lies of Bush, et al, in making the case to invade Iraq. Claims that the Bush Admistration, or CIA, or Israelis set up 9/11 are just as unsubstantiated as the suggestions by Bush, Cheney, and their media surrogates that Hussein/Iraq was behind 9/11. A lie is a lie, whomever tells it.

That's the extent to which I'll even dignify those innuendos.


Next, (not-so) small point: Bush is not an idiot, moron, or benign clown. He is a cunning sociopath.


Now....

One needn't exclusively cite Kucinich (whom, I'll say, I do generally like, save some of his new-agey silliness) for a list of crimes, and it is true that some of his charges are more about incompetence and utter ineptitude (deservedly, of course) rather than illegality.

There have been loads of actual illegality to which any serious Constitutional lawyer, jurist, or law professor can point, including very many conservatives and "constitutional constructionists" who've become seriously aggrevated with this Administration and its consolidation and abuse of power, and abuse of the Constitution since literally day one. Bruce Fein, Jonathan Turley, Charles Fried, Fritz Schwarz are a few starting points.

And that doesn't even address the numerous crimes of international law. I grievously cite the Supremacy Clause here, acknowledging that this filthy right-wing Supreme Court recently shat all over it at the behest of Bush&Co.

Afghanistan? Yeah, they've really gone hard after bin Laden, haven't they? Rhetorical question? Yep.


By the way, none of this is addressed at Igiro, but rather is for general consumption. I'm quite sure he won't read, research, or listen beyond his own irrational, lying ideologues. Rush, insane Ann, and Bill-O said so, and so it is so. I expect yet another trite, smart-assed, smarmy, disingenuous, sophist reply from him, nonetheless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
voodobop



Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 347
Location: new orleans

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, the conspiracy theories are problematic.. but so much more easily debunked than the government's role in confounding the mass public's perception, which in my opinion is a much more pressing issue.. its more difficult to debunk what you dont have access to. One of my all time favorite books The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan is quite a riot to read as it debunks alien abductions, ghosts, conspiracies and other supernatural phenomenon, but typically if you are rational its a feeling of just affirming what you suspected, sort of like with the 911 conspiracy theorists. So what im sort of saying is that when dealing with things in the scientific emperical world i always feel that skepticism and the rest of the scientific community is your best friend and you can make some serious ground, but i feel more hopeless with politics as it seems that so much truth can be obstructed, so i always avoid making assertations, not to be completely open minded, but sometimes i feel the best i can do is just say.. something is seriously wrong, rather than make assertations. I can discuss the nature of power structures effect on information and socio-political discoure, but not label every detail of its influence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Generic Sobriquet



Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 804

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Put simply: Directed, precision operations, presumably involving Special Forces and/or the like, to apprehend bin Laden and his 'crew' and bring them to justice for crimes against humanity* under the ICC.

Not to invade, destroy (what was left), take over and occupy a country, usurp its resources, set up military bases, install a puppet government. Then distract from and even forget the original supposed reason for going there in the first place, redirecting and redeploying resources to another illegal, unecessary, unprovoked, war of choice and aggression in a nearby country inhabited by other brown people.

And don't give me some crap about "you think they were better off with the Taliban still in power?"

A) Irrelevant.
B) In some ways, actually, yes, as difficult as that is to say and as irrefutably evil as the Taliban are (not were; they're still there). But that's a much larger, separate subject.
C) Don't pretend that you gave two tiddly-twats about the Afghan people prior to that invasion, or would have had the country not gotten tied up in 9/11 (or 9/11 never occurred).


Incidentally, for fun, to quote a "new rule": You can only kill the number-two man in al-Qaida once.


* EDIT: Technical reword of the original "international war crimes."


Last edited by Generic Sobriquet on Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:49 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Generic Sobriquet



Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 804

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Generic Sobriquet wrote:
One needn't exclusively cite Kucinich....

Read, fool. Barf, why do I bother?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DocDosco



Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 251
Location: LA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:
i have not dug into these theories. i certainly remember the momemt the buildings were hit though. or at least a few moments afterwards.

it took hours of burning before they collapsed. are we to believe that the steel melted or simply got soft? what would it have to do, to simply bend a little? what would bending or softening do? perhaps inch by inch weakening, that would lead to an eventual faliure of the structure?

lets remember chemistry too. just about all elments melt at some temperature, and are converted to vapor at an even higher temperature, right? ever been to a steel factory? lots of molten steel there. a blacksmith shop? (well maybe not)

is the "it was rigged" theory based on the assertion that steel can't be converted to a liquid, or can't even approach a liquid state short of a nuclear blast? what is the so called "science based" argument for "this has never happened before"?

can we agree that there has never been a planned and measured "experiment" in science wherein a modern jetliner was rammed full speed into a sky-scraper with a belly full of jet fuel? in other words, before we say "this has never happened before", perhaps we should say - "this has never happened before"!

so what the heck do we think we know about it anyway? are we to compare it to a building fire started by a cigarette on a couch or something?






Those are good questions.

Consider this:

The Towers were designed to take a hit from a 707. A 707 (I have read) actually carries more fuel than the planes that did hit the buildings.

Steel softens and melts at 1800 degrees. Jet fuel is kerosene. It burns at 400. Your gas barbecue grill doesn't melt when you turn on the flame....

Same principle. The fires did not burn near hot enough to weaken the steel, although government experts and selected skeptics will claim it did to explain the collapse. Most of the jet fuel burned off in a fireball anyway. All that was left burning inside was building material.

Also the towers had a large number of massive reinforced beams going down the middle. Some structural engineers say that it was impossible for crash impact and the jet fuel to destroy the integrity of the spine of those buildings.

Now, one can argue that the floors collapsed, although both towers fell in free fall?

Weird.

Planes did hit the towers and they fell!

OK.

What about Building 7? Only 2 floors were on fire. That was it. It just magically fell down.

The towers fell. Yes. Since it had to be explained, and certain people couldn't or wouldn't see the controlled demolition as a reason, they had to scramble and make up some new science to explain the collapse.

If you carefully scrutenize the evidence, the goverment's account (and the expert testimony) begins to unravel.

However, many people will not open their heads to the reality of the strangness of what occured. Or I should say, cannot, for some odd reason that baffles me.

If it walks like a duck and it quakes like a duck. then.....


One more blasted PS.

You can actually see the puffs of smoke from the charges in video shots right before the towers drop. So called experts will claim these are due to the floors pancaking, however they are explosives.

You have to see who benifited from 911 to find potencial culprits. I have a good idea of who and why, but that involves speculation so I will leave that for another time.
_________________
Doc Dosco
http://www.docdosco.com

Doc's Peerless guitar website
http://www.jazzguitarzone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DocDosco



Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 251
Location: LA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just read an interesting perspective that postulated that the WTC complex was wired when it was built. Planned obsolence and all that. The buildings have to come down one day, so why not build the demolition charges into the design?

Don't know if I buy it, but this guy provided a lot of so called 'evidence'. It was an interesting read.

One way or the other, the towers came down in free fall and collapsed into their own footprint. That means explosives were used.

So it goes...

;0)


PS, yet again.

I may be flogging a dead horse, and I will move on soon as I am gigging all weekend, but I started checking this out. It actually makes sense in a bizarre way. I will leave any judgment to others, however it is fascinating when you read what is presented (and some of the follow-ups). At least it is food for thought.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2854
_________________
Doc Dosco
http://www.docdosco.com

Doc's Peerless guitar website
http://www.jazzguitarzone.com


Last edited by DocDosco on Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:57 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DocDosco



Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 251
Location: LA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:



WOOOOW. that involves speculation all right! let's back up a step please.

so the buildings "were designed to take a hit from a 707" huh? who says? what are your sources please? what does that mean? how do they know? can there be a difference between design plans and construction reality? (that last question is rhetorical. the answer is yes)

jet fuel IS kerosene, or jet fuel has kerosene in it? its the latter i believe. so, at what temperature does jet fuel burn?

and after we answer that, does the amount of jet fuel matter? in other words, are we talking about one gallon or 10 gallons, or 100 gallons, or 1000 gallons? how much fuel was in those tanks? if it catches fire, how hot could it burn, and for how long?

so, the jet fuel burned off in a "fireball" huh? again, who says? how do they know? what are your sources? when planes crash on the ground, they sure burn for a more than a few minutes from a "fireball". how is 9/11 different?

steel softens at 1800 degress, or it melts at 1800 degrees? has anyone claimed that it actually had to melt to a liquid state for the structure to fail? have they taken the mass of the building into account? what is the total mass of the building, fully furnished and occupied, over the floor of impact please?

what is the content and mass of the "building material"? how hot could it burn? how long? what woud be the temperature of the buildings' frame after hours of burning, from radiant heat?

are we saying that the plane could not have even dented the frame of the building on the 1-3 floors around point of impact? surely not. so lets consider for a second that maybe heat wasnt the big player as you say. what about structural integrity loss after a blow, and greater and greater forces being applied from above and from the sides, and from the interconnections of the frame itself, as the result of a compromised structure? couldn't that lead to a collapse?


Here ya go:

The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html

I also should correct from my earlier statement that the 767 and the 707 carry approx the same fuel.

I also should have phrased it 'steel melts at 1800 to 2000'. It softens at much less. However there are serious questions about how much damage the fire actually did. As to the fireball, you can see it when the second plane hits. It also hits off center. The building should have collapsed with that side first. It didn't. It went straight down.

Listen, I am not an expert on this stuff. I have been trying to recall all the theories and numbers. There are other theories and other sets of numbers of course. Some I agree with, others I don't.

One thing is for sure, there is a high degree of strangeness with the WTC collapse. There are numerous pictures that show the massive steel beams in uniform lengths in the rubble and they have been sliced cleanly like a knife through butter ... apparently by cordite/thermite charges. And the basement was filled molten metal for weeks afterwards.

See:

http://www.wrhlive.com/thermite.html

It's hard to just explain that away.

I have been noodling around on some websites and I have found some new info on the demolition angle from when I looked at this several years back.

This is a learning journey. If you really want to know what happened, start looking at all the evidence with an open mind.

Put explosives and WTC in google and you will get pages on both sides of the debate. If you are interested, do some reading.

I don't know exactly what happened, (maybe no one ever will) but I sure know something smells really rotten....
_________________
Doc Dosco
http://www.docdosco.com

Doc's Peerless guitar website
http://www.jazzguitarzone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> Hangout, Chat & Get to Know All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group