The 9/11 Attack Dog Movement

by Iconoclast421 [Subscribe]

Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 05:17:53 PM PDT

The 9/11 Truth Attack Dog Movement:

This has been inspired by the many many derogatory flames I've read about
9/11 "tin foil hat whackjob lunatic conspiracy theorists". You know... those
idiots who are undermining our democracy, and worst of all, destroying the
credibility of honest dems and giving them a really bad reputation.

Iconoclast421's diary ::
::

I've seen so many completely rational thoughts be attacked simply because
people interested in 9/11 truth are treading such dangerous waters. I've bitten
my tongue on it enough times, and now I must address this specific issue of the
9/11 attack dog movement.

So what is the basis of the 9/11 attack dog movement? It seems to be based
around the notion that 9/11 truth "junkies" are somehow hurting the image of
mainstream democrats. But what sense does it make to think that? Take a good
look at the democratic party. lol. Need I say more? What sense does it make to
attack anyone in the 9/11 truth movement? Does it really matter that a few
people or even a few million people are focused on 9/11 "conspiracy theories"
that will "never affect any real change and will only serve to derail the
progressive movement"? Why aren't you upset with the millions who are content to
sit in front of the tv and care not one bit about politics? Why come down on
9/11 "nutjobs" in such an irrational manner? At least they're looking at some
form of reality other than reality tv. Do you honestly think that the majority
of Americans give two turds about either party? Most don't. The fact is, even if
EVERY republican were to do a u-turn and suddenly decide to vote democrat, the
democrats would still be beaten by the party of nonvoters. You should really
start thinking about what this means for the democratic party. The way I see it,
at least the truth of 9/11 offers some hope for a grassroots revitalization of
the democratic party. None of this other nonsense can do that, because the
repugs will always beat democrats over the head with 9/11. The terrorists are
gonna get you! The boogeyman is gonna get you! It's all they ever talk about!
It's a farce, and it underscores all the reasons most people don't take our
system seriously. Democrats might alienate 5 or 10 million people by fully
supporting the 9/11 truth movement, but they are alienating 50-100 million
people by refusing to do so. I'm not saying the change should happen right now,
but for chrissakes cut these people some slack. Most 9/11 whackjobs are just
trying to get at the truth.

What exactly is the truth about 9/11? I've been silent on this subject
because there is just no way for me to summarize all that I have seen and
learned about 9/11. I've tried repeatedly, but there really is no way to dispel
the myths about 9/11, in a convincing way, in a "30 second sound bite". It's not
going to happen. It has taken me over 500 hours of research to get where I am.
All I can really say to the masses at this point is that something is very very
wrong and it needs to be taken seriously. So far even that doesn't seem to be
happening as much as it should. At this point in time, most of what I'm seeing
is a lot of different (and highly creative) expressions of denial.

I get a chuckle every time I see human denial mechanisms in action. Because I
know what kind of person I am. A wise man once said the only person you truly
know is yourself. So when someone says I'm a "true believer" or I'm "ignoring
reality", it really is laughable. These people don't know me, they don't know
what I've been through, they don't know what I've seen; the millions of
decisions I made that shaped my reality and gave me my world view. I've always
been an extremely rational person. I've developed a keen bs detector over the
years. And let me tell you it pegs off the scale every time I think about 9/11.
And I can't ignore it, no matter how much I'd like to. Life would be so much
easier if I wasn't forced to see the truth as I see it. I didn't choose to "take
the red pill". It just sort of happened, and I have to live with that. Believe
me, I'd like to be watching tv instead of doing this. So I think I understand
what many people in the 9/11 truth movement are going through. Did any of them
ask for this? I doubt it. So why is it that so many people seem to think we
crave this sort of existence? So many conspiracy theorists! Doesn't it make you
a conspiracy theorist just by saying you think all these people are out there
trying to peddle their own twisted version of reality because they have some
sort of dimentia? Confused yet? Good. Yes I am saying that the people who are
attacking conspiracy theorists are in fact acting an awful lot like conspiracy
theorists themselves. Doesn't this odd behavior spark your curiousity even a
little bit? This is a complex societal manifestation of denial. It is always
brought on by culture shocks. And 9/11 certainly qualifies as a culture
shock.

Ok so how does one get past the denial stage? By focusing on facts. I believe
many in the 9/11 truth movement are doing that. And that is what I'd love to do.
But the denial only seems to be getting stronger. It's gotten so bad that even
the critics of the conspiracy theorists are indeed acting like conspiracy
theorists themselves. To them, it doesn't even matter that the official story is
itself a conspiracy theory.

There is such a stigma surrounding 9/11. My ability to ignore these kinds of
stigmas and focus on the issue is something I consider to be one of my best
qualities. But it does me no good when most people still are not ready to do
that. So how do I change that? I haven't been able to think of a way, except to
let time heal the wounds enough for people to start being rational about this
subject. The problem is... this country doesn't have the time to heal. The right
is raping this country, and they are using 9/11 as a
weapon against the people. Can't you just take a step back and examine the
significance of this? 9/11 has become the cornerstone of right wing rhetoric.
These people have shown themselves to be rotten unscrupulous dishonest villians
on every major issue, so doesn't it make sense to assume that if they latch onto
9/11 like they do, then something about the official 9/11 story must be rotten
at it's core? Why else would they embrace the official 9/11 conspiracy like they
embrace deficit inducing tax cuts for the rich, wars for global domination, and
all those other bad things? They're all based on lies, and that makes lies the
basis of right wing power.

Here is a quote from someone called Mia, an outspoken member of the 9/11
attack dog movement.

These 9/11 "truth" nutjobs have created their own reality, free
from the bounds of evidence and logic.  And we are the victims because we
are distracted from the real crimes of the Bush administration.

This is your basic 9/11 smear attack. I can also dig up many quotes about how
9/11 researchers must be alien abductees, who think the earth is flat, who deny
the holocaust ever happened, blah blah blah you get the picture. It is all pure
ad hominem. The reason I chose the above quote is because it uses that old trick
of reverse psychology to build up a straw man... one who never uses facts or
logic when in fact the ones making those statements are quite often the ones who
are not using facts or logic. Here we go again with that complex societal
manifestation of denial I mentioned earlier. The end result is that discourse
descends into pointless drivel which can usually be summarized with statements
like this: "I know you are but what am I?!" (Isn't it amazing how we learn this
subtle form of psychological manipulation at such a young age?)

It seems to me that the facts and logic are the key driving forces behind
9/11 truth movement. It's really too bad we aren't allowed to focus on the facts
very often. Too much time is wasted on petty namecalling. Where's the logic in
that??

Another quote from Mia

My problem is that the same skepticism needs to be applied to the
critics.  And when it is, the 9/11 "truth" propopents - Jones, Griffin,
and their ilk - fail miserably. Their facts are wrong and their science is
bad.  You need evidence to support your alternative theories, and there
simply isn't any.

First of all they are not "pushing" a theory as much as they are saying the
official conspiracy theory is deeply flawed and a serious investigation is
required. One that includes the possibility of alternative theories. Also, their
facts aren't "wrong". When Griffin says the buildings collapsed at near free
fall speeds, that's a fact. When he says no other steel frame buildings have
collapsed from fire, that's a fact. When he talks about molten steel and
unexplainable thermal hotspots persisting for weeks after 9/11, it's fact. When
he says that if you drop a block of concrete 1000ft, it will not completely
pulverize into dust like we saw at the WTC, it's a fact. btw, I had already
known all these facts before I had even heard of Dr. Griffin. That's the beauty
of dealing with facts. Facts that are not even remotely subjective or
susceptible to manipulation. You see, once you remove all the "supposed facts"
regarding 9/11, and focus ONLY on what we know to be absolutely true beyond a
shadow of a doubt, you see that the official story has no solid foundation. It's
totally absurd for any rational thinking person to be asked to ignore that. All
we know for sure is that we had an event where some planes were flown into at
least 2 buildings (possbily only two), and that this administration benefitted
immensely from that event. That's ALL we know for sure. Everything else is
subjective.

Everything else. The role Al Qaeda played. The super duper indestructible
passport. The hijackers who keep returning from their fiery graves. The put
options that never happened. The hundreds of people who were warned not to go to
work that morning. The video tape of the apparently ambidextrous Bin Laden who
must have visited a plastic surgeon, because his face is totally different. The
plane that vaporized but left the remains of all it's passengers so they could
all be identified by DNA testing. (Isn't it funny how everyone seems to have a
DNA record kept on file somewhere just in case something like this happens? Hey,
where's mine stored at? OMG why aren't the democrats howling over this? It
sounds like a violation of the 4th amendment to me!)

I could go on and on with this. It's such a completely bogus fairy tale. You
really have to make a serious effort to swallow that pill. But to accuse me of
being unscientific? What exactly is so unscientific about me pointing out the
fact that Bin Laden appears to have gotten a nose job? I could try and conjure
up an explanation, but I'd be a conspiracy theorist if I tried to do that!

Obviously I'm assuming most people have a somewhat basic understanding of at
least what the government SAYS happened on that day. If someone doesn't
understanding my feeble attempts at humor regarding Bin Laden's nose job, then
they need to do their homework. That would be the sensible thing to do. But to
accuse me of being unscientific? It's nonsense. Take just one example, the
collapse of the towers. You see, the collapse never actually happened. What
really happened is that the Chinese used their super alien-inspired transporter
beam thingy on it because they needed the steel. Haven't you noticed how there's
a slight tint in all the videos recorded that day? That's the residual effect
from their particle beam. The 2 planes in New York were of course holograms like
all the experts have said. The projectors were disguised as antennas and mounted
on a neighboring building. (To those of you thinking of stealing my ideas: This
one's MINE! Don't make me call Fox Security. I'll have O'reilly himself knocking
at your door. He'll beat you over the head with his falafel if you even think of
stealing my idea.) And oh yeah, a 757 really
did crash into the pentagon. Like there was really any doubt. After all,
what would the Chinese want with the pentagon? Their beam thingy don't work on
kevlar.

Ok if you can't tell a genuine researcher from an obvious fraud then all I
have to say is... Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney. Not everyone is trying to push
outlandish conspiracy theories which contradict the existing evidence. The
credible evidence anyway. The evidence that can stand up to even amateur
scrutiny. But when someone attempts to classify or label everyone in the 9/11
truth movement as crackpot conspiracy theorists, it really destroys their own
credibility in my eyes. And anyone who engages in that type of activity really
ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Tags: 9-11, ad hominem, agit-trolls, tinfoil hat
brigade (all tags)

Permalink |
395 comments

Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always)
| Indented Flat (Always)

Daily Kos Help

Its pure denial (21+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

wonkydonkey, emmeke, sp0t, sidewinder, bee, rjo, Arken, JenThinks, bebacker, methodishca, ej25, dennisl, blueoasis, free speach 07, hypersphere01, Wbythebay, elocutionary, MacheteJames, zorthron, pkbarbiedoll, Friend of the court

Trollrated by:

Geekesque

Its too painful to look at.  Its also embarassing to think our own
could kill our own.

Why the hell do you think NY is a solid BLUE state? huh?

You would think they would have voted red if they'd thought for ONE SECOND
that the 9/11 families were being given justice and told the truth about what
is going on.

9/11 was a false flag op.  Period.  End of
Story.

If you wanna ban me go ahead.

Assassin: Its worse than you know. Malcolm: It usually is. 宁静

by TalkieToaster on Thu Apr 27,
2006 at 05:19:44 PM PDT

I wouldn't worry (9+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

sp0t, rjo, bebacker, quinque, free speach 07, TalkieToaster, Wbythebay, MacheteJames, pkbarbiedoll

You aren't the first and won't be the last to say things that make you
feel like you could be banned. But so many have expressed this view that it
would make no sense at all to start banning people now.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 05:30:58 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I don't think it's bannable...is
it? (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Thea VA, blueoasis, hypersphere01, pkbarbiedoll

that sounds silly, extreme, authoritarian, irrational,
childishly so.

Getting banned for discussing the most momentous occasion since Pearl
Harbor?  The largest crime on American soil?  The reason for two
current wars and possibly a third?  The justification for the unitary
executive and dismantling of checks and balances?  The cause of a
potential conflagration throughout the middle east?   The reason for
spying on Americans without probable cause or warrants?  The reason
Bush may end 60 years of nuclear quiescence?

You get banned for wanting to discuss and understand the event that is
still used as an excuse for overt war crimes, torture, rendition, illegal
gulags, and all that other stuff?

Yes, the attack dogs bring less than nothing to the table, ie they
simply attack, and are therefore self-evidently ridiculous, but banning?
Has it happened?

by Compound
F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 05:48:03 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

9/11 was not a fake inside job.
Logic follows. (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

tgs1952, Avila, Ahianne, rockhound, Dioscuri, lazybum

There are two sides to the 9/11 conspiracy theory, somewhat
interrelated.

(1) towers were not brought down by planes but by explosives

(2) the planes were "remote controlled".

Questions:

*) if it was brought down by explosives, then why the planes?

*) why not just explosives, if there was an insider with such
access?

*) If it was by 'remote control' take over, then why did the passengers
report by phone that there were hijackers?

*) If there were agents on board pretending to be hijackers, how would
you get US government agents to go on a suicide mission to kill thousands
of their own?

*) If it was an inside job why would they hit the Pentagon and not
Yankee stadium or Disneyland?

But most centrally, even assuming maximum government duplicity and
cynicism there is a large logical hole:

It is now clear by enormous documented evidence that prior to 9/11/01
Bush etc were all fixated by finding ways to go to war with Iraq,
not Afghanistan.  Evidence is even more potent in this
direction because they did make up reasons to go to Iraq and we all know
it now.

Therefore:  If 9/11 were an 'inside job' then why
wouldn't they bomb the WTC as was attempted once before and blame it on
Saddam's secret service?  It would be the easiest and
most direct way to the goal.

The other facts are that of course al-Qaeda really is real and intended
to commit terrorist acts.

I think the truth is obvious:  they wanted to go to war with Iraq
no matter what and 9/11 got in the way, so they then milked it to get what
they really wanted.

Fascism is indistinguishable from any parody
thereof.

by mbkennel on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 05:57:08 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

explosive alone (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Iconoclast421, lazybum, elocutionary

would be too obvious as controlled demolitions.  WTC7
seems to be a case in point.  Other types of explosives could cause
too much collateral or uninsured damage.  A plane attack is
dramatic, and may have been planned by hijackers, hence the reports of
hijackers.

What's wrong with hitting the Pentagon?  It is more than just a
symbol of American military might?

Why not blame it on Saddam?  Because Al Qaida is more plausible
to other intelligence agencies, such as the Russians, who provided early
warnings for such an attack from Al Qaida.  Saddam was not a
credible threat.

Bush found it very easy both in Congress and in public opinion to
expand his war, once he started.  Thought he had everything under
control.  If he were not so incompetent, he would still enjoy
popularity, despite numerous leaks about pre-war intelligence, because
Americans are very gullible and pugnacious.

by Compound
F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:15:19 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

OK. (7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Paulie200, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan, Eternal Dope

So, where's the evidence? Are you a scientist, foresnics expert,
physicist, or chemist?

Iraq War news
and comment.

by Eternal Hope on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 12:30:20 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Good Argument (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Iconoclast421

I'm a sceptic, especially about the official story which, is a
travesty.

However, your premise:

It is now clear by enormous documented evidence that prior to
9/11/01 Bush etc were all fixated by finding ways to go to war with
Iraq, not Afghanistan.

may not be as strong as it appears. There was also considerable
interest in Afghanistan in elite circles prior to 9/11, and our dealings
with Pakistani secret service goes back to the late seventies, I
believe. The former concerned a proposed energy pipeline. The latter, of
course, our organization of the jihadis in the biggest covert, or at
least the most expensive, up until that time.

As usual in the US, official explanations begin under the assumption
that history began 5 minutes ago, when there is a fairly clear causal
chain that reaches back to Carter's presidency. At a minimum, "blowback"
was involved and yet was never even entertained.

Remote controlled planes? The vanishing of passengers in the
Cleveland airport? - I don't buy it either for reasons similar to
yours.

But given the importance of that day and the incompetance of the
offical version, I am glad that someone is keeping these questions
alive.

by tgs1952 on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:16:42 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Do you know of Dov
Zakheim? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Iconoclast421

Dov
moved from top levels of Systems Planning Corp. to the top levels of
the Pentagon. SPC just happens to make the Flight Termination System,
a remote control unit for planes.

A rather unique coincidence.

My feeling? The FTS could easily take over the plane while
hijackers on board thought they were taking it over. The flying skills
exhibited in three direct hits were formidable. Much more formidable
the those of Cessna 182 students.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about
the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham,
Alabama in 1963.

by bewert on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:40:02 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

two words: flight
recorders (0
/ 0)

by Compound F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:46:47 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

As in, where are they?
It's CLASSIFIED n/t (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

TalkieToaster

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent
about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in
Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

by bewert on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:34:58 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

an investigation could
really clear things up (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

JenThinks,
Thea VA,
TalkieToaster,
pkbarbiedoll

flight boxes are nearly indestructible.

by Compound F on
Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:45:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

no tapes of hijackers going
through security? (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

that's enough for me to suspect that there never were any
hijackers.  add the fact that some were clearly "inserted" with
passports dropped at the scene and it starts to look like a keystone
crook caper.

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:21:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

actually that's very
simple (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis

See my all my answers below, but the answer to this one
is this:

If it had only been about Iraq, if they had said "it was the Iraqis
who hit us",  well then the international war on terror would now
be over now, wouldn't it?

Yet it goes on.  It's vital for them that they have an
endless, unwinnable war.  In fact, that is the ENTIRE point.
It had to be the nation-free "Al Queda" because, hell, Al Queda
can be anywhere, can't they, even in "sleeper cells" here in the
U.S.

The "war on terror" will never end.  It's not supposed to end.
We have always been at war with terror, and we always will be.

To invade Iraq, all they had to do was say "Iraq wants to 9/11 us,
only worse".  Right now, they're saying that about Iran.
"they want to 9/11 us, only with nukes".

They'll keep using that excuse until either it no longer works or
somebody stops them.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes
a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:35:35 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

facts? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis

thats the problem here. Not that I'm arguing the matter, but
rhetorically, prove al-Qaeda exists. Simple enough right? Trace the
logic. You inevitibly must come back to the same sources. Are they
trustworthy and competent? Looking at the rest of this blog, tempted to
say no.

And actually there are more than two side to it. One is that the Bush
administration knew about it, but allowed it to happen.  Questions
like, why were AF planes so late in scrambling, why did the response
contradict what NORAD and the FAA state are standard proceedures on
potential highjacking. Why was intellegence about Islamic extremists
attending flight schools suppressed? Are they all really symptoms of
incompentency?

Its the glaring paradox of the Bush bio. Graduate of Harvard and
Yale. Is he really that stupid. Easy to say yes, he cheated, strings
were pulled etc.. But doesnt the possibilty exist that its a ruse? Six
of one, half dozen of the other for my money.

Respect your opinion, odds are its pretty likely correct, but to
think that we are capable of having 100% knowledge of this, I'd say the
odds of that are about 0%. Many obvious truths have been disproven later
in history. Let 'em run I say.

I am not blaming those who are resolved to rule, only those
who show an even greater readiness to submit. ~Thucydides

by get up
stand up on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:36:14 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

questions (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Compound F

*Disclaimer. This is all pure speculation.

*) If there were agents on board pretending to be hijackers, how
would you get US government agents to go on a suicide mission to kill
thousands of their own?

They thought they were taking part in a wargame exercise or
anti-terrorist drill.

*) if it was brought down by explosives, then why the planes?

*) why not just explosives, if there was an insider with such
access?

They had to be able to run under the cover of wargame exercises and
drills. They couldn't really run drills of bombs in buildings, but they
could easily run drills for hijackings.

*) If it was by 'remote control' take over, then why did the
passengers report by phone that there were hijackers?

If these hijackings were part of a drill, then why wouldn't there be
phone calls like what were reported on 9/11? The question you should be
asking is: how violent were these reported hijackers? How many hostages
did they kill in order to ensure total control? And had this really been
just a series of drills, then, during the process of taking over the
planes, how many reports of hostage killings would you expect? Hmm??
Think about this carefully.

*) If it was an inside job why would they hit the Pentagon and not
Yankee stadium or Disneyland?

There would have been too many needless deaths. I'm not saying this
cabal has a conscience, just that the more deaths, the more people ask
questions.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:48:27 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Boy, that sure makes me
hungry. How about you? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Mia Dolan

Jacques Pépin 's Stuffed Salmon in Flaky Dough

The Stuffed Salmon in Flaky Dough (Jacques does warn) is an
undertaking. The most complex step is making the ideal pastry dough.
If you are comfortable with this, it is a fairly simple dish. If not,
the instructions are very detailed and with care you will roll a
successful crust. To save time the day of serving, the recipe suggests
preparing the pastry, stuffing, and boning the salmon the day head.
The dish can be assembled ahead and refrigerated until you are ready
to bake it. One tip we would add to the recipe is to use a thinner,
1/2 to 3/4 inch-thick salmon fillet. Ours was closer to an inch in
many parts. The resulting dish tasted quite good, but our presentation
resembled a chubby goldfish more than a salmon. Although the stuffing
is very flavorful, the lemon sauce makes this dish. The salmon does
not absorb the flavors from the stuffing and requires the sauce to
give it life.

Stuffed
Salmon in Flaky Dough

1 small salmon (about 5 pounds with head on), yielding
about 2 1/2 pounds of boneless, skinless salmon flesh.

Flaky Butter Dough:

2 cups all-purpose flour (about 10 ounces), placed in freezer for
2 hours to cool, plus 1/4 cup cold flour for rolling the dough

1/2 teaspoon salt

8 ounces (2 sticks) unsalted butter, cut into 1/4 inch slices and
kept very cold in the refrigerator

1/2 to 2/3 cup ice-cold water (amount depending on the moisture
in flour)

Mushroom-Shrimp Stuffing:

1 tablespoon unsalted butter

1/3 cup sliced shallots

1/2 pound wild or cultivated mushrooms (chanterelles, oyster,
cremini, shiitake, or a mixture), sliced (about 3 cups)

4 ounces shrimp, peeled and cut into 1/2-inch dice

1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper

1/4 teaspoon salt

3 tablespoons chopped chives

For Finishing:

1 large egg

For the flaky butter dough: Put the cold flour in a mixing bowl.
Add the salt and butter, then pour in a little less than 1/2 cup of
the cold water, and mix briefly with a wooden spoon. Dump the dough
out onto a floured work surface, and, using a dough scraper,
coarsely mix the ingredients together, adding a little more ice
water (no more than 2/3 cup total) if needed to make the dough hold
together. Try to work quickly to prevent the butter from
softening.

Place the dough on a lightly floured cold surface, preferably
marble or granite. Press lightly at first with your hands, then roll
the dough to extend it into a rectangle about 16 inches long and 10
inches wide. Fold the length of the dough in on itself into thirds,
like a letter. Then, with one of the folds facing you, roll the
dough again into another rectangle, this one measuring about 18
inches long by 11 inches wide. By this time, the dough will be
starting to get elastic and rubbery. Fold the long sides once again
into thirds, and wrap in plastic wrap. Refrigerate for 45 minutes to
1 hour. Then repeat the two rolling and folding procedures described
above, flouring the marble lightly as needed to prevent the dough
from sticking. You will notice that when you are first rolling the
dough the pieces of butter are quite visible, but by the fourth turn
the pieces of butter will have practically disappeared from sight.
Wrap the dough and refrigerate it until ready to finish the dish.

For the mushroom-shrimp
stuffing: Heat the tablespoon of butter in a skillet. When it is hot
but not smoking, add the shallots. Sauté for about 1 minute, until
the shallots have softened, then add the mushrooms, and cook over
medium to high heat until they have released their juice. When that
juice has evaporated and the mixture starts sizzling again, add the
shrimp, and cook for about 1 minute, just long enough for the shrimp
pieces to change color. Season with the pepper, salt, and chives.
Cool.

When ready to assemble the dish, line a large cookie sheet with
parchment paper. Roll the dough into a 16-inch square. Cut a
16-inch-long strip from the dough measuring 5-6 inches wide, and
place it on the diagonal on the parchment paper. Place one of the
salmon fillets on top, and sprinkle it lightly with salt and pepper.
Spread the cooled mushroom-shrimp stuffing evenly on top, then cover
the stuffing with the remaining salmon fillet.

Take care to arrange the fillets so that the thinner part of the
fillet on the bottom corresponds to the larger, thicker part of the
fillet on top (tail to head and head to tail), and the shape and
thickness are the same throughout. This way the salmon will cook
evenly.

Roll the remaining, wider strip of dough up onto your rolling
pin, then unroll it on top of the second fillet. Brush off any flour
from the surface of the dough, and press it all around the edges, so
it conforms to the fish shape underneath. The larger top layer of
the dough will stick around the edge to the layer of dough
underneath. Press the two layers of dough gently around the edge so
they adhere well together, then place in the freezer for about 10
minutes to firm up the dough. This will make trimming and decorating
the "fish" easier. Preheat the oven to 375 degrees.

After 10 minutes, remove the "fish" from the freezer, and trim
the excess dough all around the edge to create a fish outline with
dorsal fins as well as a tail from the extra dough around the
salmon. Make a gill with a strip of the trimmed dough, and cut and
position a round piece of dough for the eye. Continue decorating as
you fancy.

Break the whole egg into a small bowl, and remove about half the
white. Beat the remaining egg in the bowl with a fork to make a wash
for coating the "fish." Brush the salmon with the egg. Holding the
tip from a pastry bag (large end down) at an angle, press it lightly
into the "fish" to simulate scales. Bake in the 375 degree oven for
35-40 minutes. Remove and set aside, uncovered, in a warm place
while you make the sauce.

Foamy Lemon Sauce:

1 1/2 cups chicken stock

1/2 teaspoon potato starch

3 yolks from large eggs

1/4 teaspoon salt

dash cayenne pepper

2 tablespoons lemon juice

Whisk together 1 cup of the chicken stock and the potato starch
in a saucepan, and bring to a boil. Whisk the egg yolks and the
remaining chicken stock in a bowl, then pour into the hot stock, and
whisk constantly over medium heat for about 2 minutes, or until the
sauce thickens and foams, but don't let it boil. It should reach a
temperature of 180 degrees, the temperature needed to cook the eggs
and the starch and to thicken the sauce. Whisk in the salt and
cayenne, then remove the saucepan from the heat, stir in the lemon
juice, and set aside. The sauce should have doubled in volume.

To serve: Using two long hamburger spatulas, transfer the "fish"
to a serving platter. To serve, cut into 1-to-1 1/2 inch slices and
arrange on warm individual plates. Spoon some sauce around the
slices, and serve immediately.

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled
with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

by Bouwerie Boy on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 09:01:11 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

answers: (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Sharon
Jumper, free
speach 07, TalkieToaster, pkbarbiedoll

#1.   As a PSYOPS operation, it is absolutely
important to horrify the American public with the unthinkable
heinousness of what happened.   Therefore, suicide planes, filled
with people, not just crashed, but crashed into buildings also filled
with people.  It was vital that this be a heretofore unthinkable
crime.    It was also vital that the buildings collapse for
two reasons:   the psychological benefit of having those two huge
symbols of American strength crumble to dust, and to destroy all the
evidence.

#2.  See answer to #1.   It wasn't about just blowing up
buildings, it was about emotionally scarring everyone who survived the
attack.  There is a reason people are so emotionally attached to
the "official story" -- because of the spectacular success of the PSYOPS
operation aspect of it.

#3.  There are a great many unanswered questions as to whether
or not you can actually make a cell phone call from a speeding plane at
an altitude attributed to the planes in question.  And not
everybody in the 9/11 "truth" movement believes the planes were flown by
remote control.  It is merely a theory which helps explain some of
the nearly super-human maneuvers the planes made before crashing
(especially the Pentagon plane).

#4.  You don't get U.S. agents to do this mission.  You get
jihadists to do it for you.  You farm it out, just like we farm
everything out now.

#5.  Hitting the Pentagon had much more of a psychological
affect than hitting a civilian target.  Hitting the Pentagon made
it an act of war, so in people's minds going to war was not a question
whatsoever.  It also showed that they were willing, that they had
the unmitigated GALL, to attack the symbol of U.S. military
strength.

And your last question is really quite easy to answer:

If it had only been about Iraq, if they had said "it was the Iraqis
who hit us",  well then the international war on terror would now
be over, wouldn't it?

Yet it goes on.  It's vital for them that they have an endless,
unwinnable war.  In fact, that is the ENTIRE point.   It had
to be the nation-free "Al Queda" because, hell, Al Queda can be
anywhere, can't they, even in "sleeper cells" here in the U.S.

The "war on terror" will never end.  It's not supposed to end.
We have always been at war with terror, and we always will be.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a
little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:32:55 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

hmm (0
/ 0)

I dont agree with the logic in #4. Getting a few agents to
participate in anti-hijacking drills would be infinately simpler than
involving jihadists.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:14:42 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

really? (0
/ 0)

You think, with the preponderance of suicide bombings
in the muslim world, it would be that difficult to find some happy
volunteers?

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional
takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:42:35 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

what!?! (0
/ 0)

The planes were cover!  If you just bring it down with
controlled explosives then that becomes the 'way it happened' which is
totally implausible to say it was our enemies if it happened that way.
Your theory is way too complicated.

Assassin: Its worse than you know. Malcolm: It usually is.
宁静

by TalkieToaster on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:51:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I'm trying to decide if this
is snark (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan

Are you really saying that a plane crashing into a building and it
falling is more complicated than:

Planned power outages to allow infiltration of a building to plant
explosives? Followed by a controlled demolition, simultaneously
occurring with jets crashing into a building under remote control to
"cover up" the explosives? And disrupting Air Traffic Control and
NORAD to prevent them from responding?

All this an many, many other "explanations" to get the evidence to
fit the story instead of the other way around?

Are you really saying this? My humor meter falls
short sometimes so I'm giving you a chance to respond. And you may not
believe all of the "facts" put forth by many CT diarists, so I don't
want to put words in your mouth.

What, exactly, do you mean here?

It is a well known fact, that those people who most want
to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. - Douglas
Adams

by SeattleLiberal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 11:33:44 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

you omit building 7, and
the alleged hijackings (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

from your "simple" scenario.  yes, inside job is MUCH more
simple.

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:23:43 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Except that it is NOT
possible (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Bouwerie Boy, Sharon Jumper, Mia Dolan

The planes hit in EXACTLY the places where the the controlled
demolition explosives had been placed, didn't dislodge those
preplanted explosives, and the building showed signs of collapse at
those very impact sites for seconds before the buildings fell, but
somehow it was explosives that brought the building down?

That makes no sense.

There is no possible way that these planes were able to be steering
into the EXACT places that they needed to be flown to hit the places
where pre-planted explosives existed.

These were NOT very well-trained pilots, and even well trained
pilots cannot fly jumbo jets at 500 mph and hit a target like that -
and remember, one plane hit one tower at (almost) horizontal, whereas
the other plane turned at the last moment and went in sideways. They
PLANNED that? They planned those exact floors to hit on? Are you aware
that the planes, at 500 mph, travel MORE THAN half a mile in 5
seconds? How accurately can you pinpoint a floor on a 100 story
building when you are half a mile away? Really! Think about it.

The next time you want to discuss this issue, think about that
fact.

How accurately can you pinpoint a particular floor on a 100 story
building from half a mile away?

Yeah, I thought so.

You can say "Never Mind" any time!

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 02:51:57 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

People don't like to
think... (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, free speach 07, TalkieToaster, hypersphere01, Wbythebay, elocutionary

...that there are people in control that view the civilian population as
anything more than tools to achieve their own agenda.

I do not know who was behind 9/11, but I do suggest these people read up
on "Project Northwoods".  It was a plan put forth in the 60's by the
Pentagon that involved killing American civilians in a staged terrorist
attack that would justify taking military action against the Cubans.

Thankfully Kennedy rejected this plan.

Who's to say there still aren't craven sociopaths in power at the
moment...err....who can't say there still aren't craven
sociopaths in power at the moment.

by BornUnderPunches on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:21:22 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

NY (9+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Paulie200, tlh lib, SeattleLiberal, seanleckey, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan

Trollrated by:

TalkieToaster

Why the hell do you think NY is a solid BLUE state? huh?

You would think they would have voted red if they'd thought for ONE
SECOND that the 9/11 families were being given justice and told the truth
about what is going on.

Was blue long before 9/11.  History is your friend.

by tvb on
Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:44:41 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Man you're a bastard (7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Paulie200, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, tvb, Mia Dolan

You suck for getting here 2 hours before me and getting to post that
simple fact.

I hate you!   I bet you were in on 9/11 too.   Fuckin
undercover pancake hater.

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh
lib on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:29:41 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

it's time (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tlh lib, slouise217, Mia Dolan

You knew tlh lib.

by tvb
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:33:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

you're all like a street gang
trolling here (1+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

free speach
07

Trollrated by:

Mike S

tvb, thl lib, eternal hope, mia dolan, slouise, and a few more of
you descend on EVERY SINGLE post like fanatics.  you stick out
like 10 sore thumbs here, and don't think people aren't noticing.
the polls that all go against you you ignore.  you lie
about the evidence of explosives--in fact you would seem to be saying
that the real heroes (not the ones immortalized on celluloid in fake
movies) the brave men and women of the FDNY, must have been lying when
they testified to witnessing multiple explosions in the towers before
their collapse.  you threaten people with banning as if you owned
the place, always warning people that big broth-  er, Markos is
going to come down hard on all us "tinfoil" people, but it never
happens.  It's just your little gang with your trusted user
rating schemes.  I just want you to know that these conversations
are happening EVERYWHERE in America, and you can't stop them all.
sleep well!

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:28:46 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

If you want to get
banned.... (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

TalkieToaster

...just say that the Israelis were behind 9/11.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert
(-6.38/ -4.21)

by wonkydonkey on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:51:18 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

has anyone been banned?
(0
/ 0)

because if not, then people shouldn't be implying those
types of things.  It's not fair to this site.

by Compound
F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:10:21 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

yes, people were banned
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

TalkieToaster

it was some time ago, but a good many people were banned
for this stuff.  Some were let back but I'm assuming some weren't.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a
little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:36:23 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

what was the precise nature
of the banning? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

TalkieToaster

do you recall?  Was it just the subject matter
itself that was banned, or a particular kind of behavior that occurred
on the threads?

by Compound F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:41:43 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

It had to do with
(2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, pkbarbiedoll

promoting 9/11 "conspiracy theories".

I should have been more specific, because the parent to your
response mentioned Israel being behind 9/11, and I don't remember
that having to do with the big purge that did happen.  I think
it had to do more with people promoting what many folks call
"conspiracy theories" in general.

I was just a lurker then.

I think things have loosened up a bit since then, there seems to
be a bit more tolerance now, or else Kos is just really busy.
:)

It's funny, since "Loose Change" became viewable on the web, more
and more people are seeing it and freaking out over it.   I
keep having people send me these e-mails saying "omigod you've gotta
see this!" with the link.

"Conspiracy theories" are going more mainstream.   Which is
good, in my opinion.  The official story is so obviously a pack
of lies it's downright silly.   Yet people are vehemently
attached to it, in an emotional and irrational way.   Which is
exactly the intended affect of such a psyops operation.

I mean, after all, no matter WHO really did it, 9/11 was the
biggest psyops operation of all time.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional
takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:54:45 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

asdf (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
lazybum

It's funny, since "Loose Change" became viewable on the web,
more and more people are seeing it and freaking out over it.
I keep having people send me these e-mails saying "omigod
you've gotta see this!" with the link.

That's funny, I've never received one.  They must not be
doing a very good job.

Genitals and chromosomes on the other hand...

by tvb on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:57:36 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

well supposedly
(0
/ 0)

it's getting quite a following and it's gonna even
be on Spike TV pretty soon.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional
takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on
Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:00:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I watched loose
change (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
Ahianne,
slouise217,
tvb, lazybum

And its possible every single thing in the movie is a lie.
Actually I said that once before and someone pointed out
that the movie portrayed the sky being blue that day, and the
sky was, in fact, blue on September 11, 2001.

by Mia Dolan on
Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:02:00 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Laughable
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

TalkieToaster

The directors corrected themselves with the B-25 issue, but
a lot of the movie is recounting facts and science in a manner
contrary to the government's own "conspiracy
theory".

by pkbarbiedoll
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:20:18 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Facts and
Science? (6+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

Mike
S, Avila, SeattleLiberal,
slouise217,
Bouwerie
Boy, tvb

Trollrated by:

TalkieToaster

Maybe I missed that part of the movie.

by Mia Dolan
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:34:18 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

and United 93 is
pure fact? (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike
S

You only lie about Loose Change because you know it is
in fact 95% true and 5% speculation that will be cleared
up as soon as subpoenas start to be issued.  In fact
this site is going to get a few for letting people like
Mia Dolan, who are undoubtedly working for the
conspirators, use it for knowingly assisting in a coverup.
Think we're only working the internet?  Think
again.  Think we're not in the government and
military ourselves?  Think again.  And keep
burying yourself in evidence folks.  Everything now
is on the record, and if you thought the Nurenberg trials
were harsh...

9.11.01 NEVER FORGET (who really did it)

by radwhitenblu
on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:34:24 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

thanks. Except for
intolerant threaders (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, TalkieToaster,
Wbythebay,
pkbarbiedoll

I haven't noticed any other intolerance,
partiuclarly  from the site administrators.   I didn't
know about previous bannings.  It's good that they have
loosened up.  Bascially, if most find the discussion is
meritless, it won't get recommended.  It's that simple.

I do find it incredibly irrational on the part of some to
insist on looking at the real issues, ie., Bush's abuses of power,
while siimultaneously insisting on not looking at the root cause
of his abuses, the one Bush openly declares gives him the right to
abuse.

It was his failure.  And that's a real issue.

by Compound F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:06:51 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Get real (6+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
Eternal
Hope, slouise217,
Bouwerie
Boy, tvb, Mia Dolan

Trollrated by:

TalkieToaster

It has been made very well known by many front pagers, Kos
himself, and hundreds if not thousands of respected users that
conspiracy theory claims are not acceptable here.

Whether a diary is recommended or not is completely and
totally irrelevant and completely and totally disrespectful to
those putting hours of their own time into diaries that DO
respect the communities standards which then get driven down
because some fuckwit decides to post crap that people have been
banned for and the community has, by consensus, decided is not
allowed.   It's not merely a matter of who gets glory on
the rec list...it's a matter of respecting the community that
you've just recently joined (not meaning you...but you and all
newer members).

You're rather new, as are most of those spouting the
9/11 stuff, but those of us who are not new don't really
care whether you're old or new...just that you adhere to
established community standards if you're going to be a part of
the community.

It's really not that hard to understand.

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh lib on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:34:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Ideas that are new
& different ... (6+
/ 4-)

Recommended by:

theyrereal,
blueoasis,
free speach
07, TalkieToaster,
Iconoclast421,
Jay
Esbe

Trollrated by:

Avila, Eternal
Hope, tlh lib,
slouise217

from the established & accepted norm are essential if
you are actually progressive. Otherwise you are merely
conservative, but about a different set of views.

by sidewinder
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:41:37 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

here's a novel
idea (7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Paulie200,
tlh
lib, sooner,
slouise217,
Bouwerie
Boy, lazybum,
Mia
Dolan

don't attribute to malice what can be explained by
stupidity.

if you think The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight is
capable of MIHOP or even LIHOP, then you also believe that
several hundred people (military and civilian) failed to do
their jobs on that day and on that day
only.

and each and every one can keep a secret better than a
priest.

do you even begin to comprehend how totally insane that
picture is?

All difficult things have their origin in that
which is easy, and great things in that which is small.
--Lao-Tzu

by Avila on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:09:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

they were doing
their jobs (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

TalkieToaster

they were doing simulation exercises, and
they were following their orders given by the higher-ups.

Everybody did their job that day, as directed.

The problem was in the direction and those giving it.

The illegal we do immediately. The
unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry
Kissinger

by theyrereal
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:20:18 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Got news for you
... (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

TalkieToaster,
Jay
Esbe

the Gang that couldn't shoot straight got us into Iraq
& kept us there for going into a fourth year now.

They've raped the Treasury to the tune of $200 billion
on this boon-doggle, got Dubya "re-elected", got two
reactionary judges onto the Supreme Court & God knows
what else I'm leaving out.

Every last thing they've done to this country since day
1 has been based on lies, deceit, misdirection &
malfeasance disguised as incompetent bungling. And, like
some compulsive serial killer who writes notes to the
police, they announce their misdeeds with the same old
phrase "Nobody ever thought that ...".

Now mebbe it isn't malice, maybe it is stupidity, so
let's have a real, competent, independent investigation -
let's turn this thing upside down & shake it 'til the
loose change falls out of its pockets. Then I'll be
satisfied.

by sidewinder
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:32:56 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

incompetence (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Paulie200,
tlh
lib, sooner,
slouise217,
tvb,
Mia
Dolan

in Iraq has no correlation to 9/11.

All difficult things have their origin in
that which is easy, and great things in that which is
small. --Lao-Tzu

by Avila
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:53:24 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

heh
(0
/ 0)

They've raped the Treasury to the tune of $200
billion on this boon-doggle, got Dubya "re-elected",
got two reactionary judges onto the Supreme Court
& God knows what else I'm leaving out.

I'd say you're leaving out a zero on the end of that
number.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421
on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 09:01:46 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Why so awful that we would kill our
own? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

TalkieToaster

Pearl Harbor anyone? Lusitania?The Maine?

by abbeysbooks on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:11:45 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Brave soul for posting this.
(13+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

bewert, emmeke, sp0t, bee, bebacker, blueoasis, free speach 07, TalkieToaster, hypersphere01, Wbythebay, elocutionary, zorthron, pkbarbiedoll

I've always thought that democracy was about the discussion of ideas, and
this includes 9/11.  There are loose pieces that make people wonder.
What's a little talk?

by JenThinks
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 05:22:01 PM PDT

And such courage must (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Paulie200, SeattleLiberal, Mia Dolan

create quite an appetite. What better way to feed a group of hungry
conspiratists than with Martha Stewart's yummy Beef Wellington. A main
course that depends on a complete cover up in delicious puff pastry.

Beef
Wellington

Serves 6 to 8
Look for duck liver, chicken liver, or peppercorn
mousse in specialty-food shops.

1 two-and-a-half-to-three-pound   beef tenderloin, trimmed
of excess fat
2  teaspoons
coarse salt
1/2 teaspoon   freshly ground pepper
2
tablespoons   unsalted butter
1 small onion, finely chopped
1
pound   white mushrooms, stems removed, finely chopped
1/4 cup
dry sherry
All-purpose flour, for dusting
1 pound
frozen puff pastry, thawed, plus more for garnish if desired
1/4 pound
(4 ounces)  duck liver, chicken liver, or peppercorn mousse,
room temperature
1 large egg, lightly beaten
Sea
saltor coarse salt, for sprinkling (optional)

Tie tenderloin with kitchen twine in 1-inch increments to
form an even piece, so it will hold its shape during cooking. (Your
butcher can do this for you.)

2. Heat a large cast-iron or heavy skillet over
medium-high heat. Season beef with 1 teaspoon salt and 1/4 teaspoon
pepper. Sear tenderloin until well browned on all surfaces, about 1 1/2
minutes on each side, including ends.

3.    Transfer tenderloin to a cutting board with a
drainage well; let rest until cool. Cut and remove the kitchen twine, and
chill tenderloin until ready to assemble and beef is cold, at least 1 hour
or overnight.

4.    In another
large skillet, heat butter over medium heat. Add onion; cook until it
softens, about 4 minutes. Add mushrooms; season with remaining teaspoon
salt and 1/4 teaspoon pepper. Cook, stirring occasionally, until they are
tender and liquid is released and evaporates, 8 to 10 minutes. Add sherry;
cook until mixture is dry, about 4 minutes more. Cool at room temperature
or in the refrigerator for up to a day.

5.    On a lightly floured surface, roll the puff
pastry into a rectangle 1/4 inch thick and big enough to enclose the beef.
If using store-bought pastry, it may be necessary to lay out 2 pieces,
overlapping, and roll them out into one piece. Spread the top of the
tenderloin evenly with half the mousse, and spread half of the mushrooms
evenly over the top.

6.
Carefully invert coated tenderloin into middle of puff pastry,
mushroom-side down. Spread another layer of mousse on top and sides of
tenderloin. Spread remaining mushrooms over top. Fold up long sides of
dough to enclose tenderloin, brushing edges with beaten egg to seal. Trim
ends if necessary, then fold up, and seal. Carefully transfer tenderloin,
seam side down, to a baking sheet, and chill at least 2 hours or
overnight. Roll out any extra dough, cut into holly or other shapes if
desired, and chill on baking sheet with beef.

7.    Preheat the oven to 425°. Place a baking sheet on
the middle rack in the oven until hot, about 15 minutes. Decorate top of
pastry with shaped cutouts if desired; brush with beaten egg. Make 2 to 3
slits in pastry for venting steam. Sprinkle with sea or coarse salt if
desired. Carefully transfer beef Wellington to preheated baking sheet.
Bake until pastry is golden brown and beef registers 120° to 130° on an
instant-read thermometer for rare, 130° to 135° for medium rare, 35 to 50
minutes. Cover pastry with foil if it gets too brown while cooking. Let
rest on a cutting board 10 minutes before slicing.

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with
the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

by Bouwerie
Boy on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 11:07:23 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

go ahead (0
/ 0)

and post all these recipes. Waste as much time as you like. You only
highlight you're own irrationality, and make the conspiracy theorists seem
more credible in comparison.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 09:04:22 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Gosh, you just reminded
me...dessert. (0+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

For a group of hungry conspiracy theorists, an unusual confection is
required. How about Martha Stewart's Chocolate
Chestnut Wedding Cake

Chocolate Chestnut Wedding Cake

Serves 100 generously

for 1 batch of the chocolate-chestnut cake layers
1 cup
(4 1/4 ounces) whole hazelnuts

8 tablespoons (1 stick) unsalted butter, cut into small pieces,
plus more for pans

1 cup all-purpose flour, plus more for pans

4 ounces best-quality semisweet chocolate, chopped

1 1/2 cups sugar

2 tablespoons heavy cream

2 tablespoons pure vanilla extract

1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder

1 1/2 teaspoons baking soda

1/2 teaspoon baking powder

1/2 teaspoon salt

9 ounces vacuum-packed chestnuts, ground

2 large eggs

for the ganache
3 pounds best-quality bittersweet or semisweet
chocolate

2 cups heavy cream

8 tablespoons (1 stick) unsalted butter

2/3 cup sour cream

for the sugared fruit and laurel leaves
Fresh or powdered egg
whites

Small pieces of fruit(about 40), such as Seckel pears, lady apples,
and grapes

Superfine sugar

10 to 14 marrons glacés(candied chestnuts)

Fresh, unsprayed laurel leaves(about 50)

To make cake layers: You will need two 4-inch
square layers, two 6-inch square layers, two 9-inch square layers,
and three 16-inch round layers. A half-batch of batter makes one
4-inch and one 6-inch layer; 1 1/2 batches makes two 9-inch layers;
1 batch makes one 16-inch layer.

Heat oven to 350°. Toast hazelnuts for 8 minutes;
rub them in a kitchen towel to remove as much skin as possible. When
cool, process in food processor until finely ground, about 30
seconds.

Heat oven to 325°. Brush baking pans with butter.
Line bottom of pans with parchment, brush with butter again, and
dust with flour, shaking out excess.

Combine chocolate, butter, and 1 cup hot water in
a double boiler; melt over low heat, about 5 minutes. Transfer
chocolate mixture to an electric mixer.

Stir sugar into chocolate mixture. Let cool to
room temperature, about 10 minutes. Add cream and vanilla; stir with
a rubber spatula.

Sift together flour, cocoa powder, baking soda,
baking powder, and salt. Add ground chestnuts, hazelnuts, and dry
ingredients to chocolate mixture. Beat on low speed for 30 seconds
to combine. Add eggs one at a time, mixing 30 seconds and scraping
sides of bowl after each addition.

Pour batter into prepared pans (filling 4-inch
and 6-inch pans 1/2 inch full, 9-inch pans 3/4 inch full, and
16-inch pans with all the batter). Bake 4-inch, 6-inch, and 16-inch
layers for about 35 minutes, 9-inch layers about 45 minutes; cakes
are done when a toothpick inserted in center comes out
clean.

Let cool completely on a rack. Invert onto an
appropriate-size cardboard round or square, remove parchment, and
immediately reinvert onto another round so cakes are right side up.
Wrap with plastic wrap; store at room temperature.

To make ganache: You will need three batches for
the filling and one for the glaze (the batch for the glaze should be
made just before using). Chop chocolate into small pieces. Melt
chocolate with cream in a double boiler over medium heat. Transfer
to a stainless-steel bowl. Immediately add butter; stir until butter
is melted.

Fold in sour cream until completely
incorporated. If not using within 2 hours, cover with plastic wrap,
pressing it directly on surface, and refrigerate.

To make sugared fruit: Beat 4 egg whites (or
more as needed; use powdered whites if concerned about consuming raw
eggs) a few times with a fork. Brush apples and pears with whites
and roll in sugar; shake off excess. Let dry on parchment-covered
sheet pans. Store at room temperature in a non-humid environment for
up to 24 hours. Sugar the grapes, chestnuts, and laurel leaves
(paint leaves only halfway; leave the stem end plain) just before
using.

To assemble cake: Make three batches of ganache;
place over a large bowl of ice and water to cool, whisking
continuously; do not let it solidify. Transfer to an electric mixer
fitted with the whisk attachment. Whip until soft peaks
form.

Spread 1/4 cup ganache on one 4-inch cake layer
(on cardboard); place other 4-inch layer (without cardboard) on top.
Repeat with other sizes, using 1 cup ganache between 6-inch layers,
2 cups between 9-inch layers, and 5 cups between 16-inch layers. Use
an icing spatula to apply a thin coating of ganache to each tier.
Refrigerate tiers until firm, at least 1 hour or overnight.

Make one batch of ganache for glazing; it should
be warm to the touch (125° on an instant-read thermometer).

Place 16-inch tier on a wire rack over a baking
sheet with edges (so excess ganache can be reused). Ladle 16 to 18
ounces ganache on top of tier; spread with an offset spatula,
pushing ganache over edges. Pour more ganache over bare spots. Set
that tier aside. Repeat process for remaining tiers, using 4 to 6
ounces for 4-inch tier, 8 to 10 ounces for 6-inch tier, and 10 to 12
ounces for 9-inch tier.

Place a masonite board on cake turn table. Smear
board with 2 tablespoons ganache; place 16-inch tier on top. Insert
a 1/4-inch-diameter wooden dowel into cake; mark where dowel is
flush with glaze; cut five pieces to that length. Insert four dowels
in a square pattern, and one in center.

Place 9-inch tier, on cardboard, on top,
centered over cake. Repeat dowel procedure with 9-inch tier; place
6-inch tier on top. Repeat procedure; place 4-inch tier on
top.

Decorate as desired with sugared fruits and
leaves.

Note: Raw eggs should not be used in food prepared for pregnant
women, babies, young children, or anyone else whose health is
compromised.

Photograph by: Anita Calero

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled
with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

by Bouwerie
Boy on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 12:15:00 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

copyright infringement added to
your rap, BB (0
/ 0)

please stick to the terms of use.

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:35:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

thanks for saying what's been on my
mind (10+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

rjo, JenThinks, bebacker, ej25, blueoasis, free speach 07, TalkieToaster, elocutionary, pkbarbiedoll, Jay Esbe

i'm not a conspiracy nut. i didn't want to hear it, but then a friend told
me to look at how building seven collapsed.  i didn't even know there was
a building seven.  it was a classic demolition job, as were the twin
towers.  the question is, now what?

by zorthron
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 05:27:40 PM PDT

it was fire man! (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, Friend of the court

Fire is a dangerous thing. I'm afraid to turn on my oven now, because,
after 9/11, I'm convinced it will collapse before my food is done cooking.
As long as I cook something that takes less than 45 minutes I should be ok,
but I don't want to risk it. I don't have quite the insurance policy that
MR. Silverstein had.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 05:40:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

And you wonder why (13+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, tlh lib, hrh, AnonymousArmy, Bouwerie Boy, Arken, sofia, Geekesque, tvb, lazybum, Mia Dolan

we laugh at people like you.

"I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat.
When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young.
Mideast Vacation.

by Mike S
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 05:46:28 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

right on cue. actually, a
little late. (4+
/ 4-)

Recommended by:

bewert, sidewinder, blueoasis, hypersphere01

Trollrated by:

Eternal Hope,
tlh lib, AnonymousArmy, slouise217

but still bringing less than nothing to the table.

Why bother?  Most people will let a zillion diaries just scroll
off without a word, but some can't resist a 9/11 diary, and it always
provokes aggression.  Why?

These issues belong to you, not the diarist.

by Compound
F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 05:54:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

heh (12+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Paulie200, Eternal Hope, tlh lib, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, sofia, Geekesque, tvb, Opakapaka, lazybum, Mia Dolan

Trollrated by:

theyrereal

Issues? Nah. Just no patience for idiots.

"I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat.
When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil
Young. Mideast Vacation.

by Mike
S on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:14:19 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

nope mike, you have
issues (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

LEGAL issues, you troll.

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:38:51 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Huh? (0
/ 0)

You must have been banned and enraged during the 24 hr waiting
period. Is this the best you could come up with in that time?

More proof you guys are idiots.

"I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the
beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was
complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

by Mike
S on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 10:18:32 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

User #66789 (6+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Paulie200, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, tvb, Mia Dolan

Trollrated by:

sidewinder

Thanks for disrespecting the community that you JUST joined along
with a longtime respected user who is right on point.

Have a 0.

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh
lib on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:36:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

your oven (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

I think maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and by that I mean
pull your dinner out of it and bring it down yourself.

-Larry Silverware

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:37:40 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Demolition and unintended collapse
look similar. (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, SeattleLiberal, slouise217, lazybum

Please see my comment below.

It doesn't look like how you imagine it, trained
by countless images
from Hollywood special effects.

Think of a huge mushroom cloud.  You think "nuclear bomb",
right?

Of course it's an iconic image, but the mushroom cloud has nothing to do
with the nuclear nature of the detonation, and everything to do with the
physics of the atmosphere.

Big conventional explosions look similar in the atmosphere.

A nuclear explosion in space looks completely different (a flash and
little fireball except the expanding remains of the bomb itself).

Fascism is indistinguishable from any parody thereof.

by mbkennel
on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:04:17 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

not necessarily true.
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

pkbarbiedoll

You outlined a reason why it is possible that an
unintended collapse could resemble an intended collapse, not that they
must resemble one another.

why the symmetrical collapse in WTC7 that had very asymmetrical damage
due to very asymmetrical fires?

by Compound
F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:20:10 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

care to prove that? (0
/ 0)

Not the part about the mushroom cloud, everybody knows that.

The part where a controlled demolition and a natural collapse look
alike.

I'd like to see an example.  Is that too much to ask?

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a
little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:04:56 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I've tried (0
/ 0)

I made many honest attempts to find anything resembling a natural
collapse that looked anything like the wtc collapses. You'd think they
must be present somewhere in nature all around us. But no. When trees
fall they fall over, they do not collapse on themselves. When I drop my
cellphone it does not shatter into dust. Even glaciers and avalanches
obey the basic laws of physics.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:32:22 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Funny (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Paulie200, SeattleLiberal, slouise217, lazybum

that not one single structual engineer seems to think there is a
problem with the laws of physics here.  But maybe your cellphone
dropping reserach trumps that.

by Mia
Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:36:32 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Yeah, most structural
engineers are silent ... (0
/ 0)

about the topic one way or the other. And the ones who support
the official story do not offer compelling evidence or analysis.

But the research that IS available is clear - NO steel frame
building has collapsed due to fire before or since.

All examples of natural collapse show only partial collapse. The
evidence is for the official story is weak , the evidence of
cover-up (for whatever reason) is strong.

by sidewinder on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:49:07 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Actually (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
Paulie200,
slouise217,
Bouwerie
Boy

But there were a number of structrual engineers who worked on
the NIST report, and structural engineers at  number of
places (Purdue, MIT) have analyzed it as well and have agreed with
the official story.  The tinfoilers are claiming that the
official explanation violates the laws of physics.  If that
were true, don't you think at least one structual engineer would
speak up?

For what its worth at least one other steel building has
collapsed due to fire.   The link can be found downthread.
That is just another one of the lies parroted by the "truth"
advocates.

by Mia Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:21:28 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You mean the Windsor
Towers?? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Jay
Esbe

That's the only link I've seen - it specifically DID NOT
collapse, after burning at high temperature for something like
18 hours.

See here: Fire
Case Studies

by sidewinder on
Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 10:07:39 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

This is not true, AT
ALL (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
Bouwerie
Boy, Mia
Dolan

Yeah, most structural engineers are silent ... about the
topic one way or the other. And the ones who support the
official story do not offer compelling evidence or analysis.

But the research that IS available is clear - NO steel frame
building has collapsed due to fire before or since.
All
examples of natural collapse show only partial collapse. The
evidence is for the official story is weak , the evidence of
cover-up (for whatever reason) is strong.

Most structural engineers are NOT interviewed about this, of
course. That's life. Those that WERE involved, and that KNOW the
facts, are ALL in agreement that, like Mia said, the building
collapses make perfect sense.

The ones that support the official story DO present compelling
evidence. This is the pancaking of tons of weight onto floor after
floor after floor.

This steel-frame building did not collapse because of fire
either. You are right about the fact that none have fallen from
fire before or since. But it's irrelevant, because this one didn't
either!

How many other instances of natural collapse have you seen on a
100 story building with significant structural damage AND
significant fire 3/4 of the way up the building?

And so what "examples" are you speaking of?

Yeah, that's right - facts ARE a wonderful thing.

And that's why conspiracy theories are NOT supposed to happen
here. Because they abuse the facts. Which discredits the
site.

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 03:36:55 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

yeah, you'd think
(0
/ 0)

there'd be a few examples from some big earthquakes.
Say, the one in Kobe a while back.    All the ones
I've seen, they sorta slide to one side, or partially collapse.

The Fire Engineering magazine article is the one that the attack
dogs like to ignore.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes
a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:16:31 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

The Fire Engineering
article (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

was written within months after 9/11, before the NIST
investigation was done.

by Mia
Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:33:14 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

and your point is
....? (0
/ 0)

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional
takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 10:57:28 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

That it didn't know all
the facts maybe? (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
Bouwerie
Boy, Mia
Dolan

That the NIST report provided unknown detail?

That the scientific method means that AS SOON AS a single
piece of evidence disproves your theory, it's disproven.

And their theories were disproven early on.

Sure, they HAD a theory.

It was debunked.

What part of this do YOU not understand?

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on
Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 03:39:22 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

That's my point
n/t (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

by Mia Dolan on
Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 07:32:34 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

The NIST
report (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

free
speach 07, Iconoclast421

proved nothing.

Except that extraordinary things must have happened in
order for the buildings to have collapsed due to the jets
hitting the buildings.

Their job was to explain how and why the buildings COULD
HAVE collapsed based on the jets hitting them.

If you actually read the report, you see they go to absurd
lengths to "explain" this.

Also, they don't deal with WTC7 whatsoever.  In fact
they basically admit that they can't explain why it
collapsed.

The NIST's job was to do exactly what we wanted it to do --
it was to come up with unprovable and untestable hypotheses to
"explain away" the buildings collapse.

The illegal we do immediately. The
unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal
on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 09:10:14 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

they don't expect
you to actually READ it! (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike
S

because yes, the NIST report is about as glaring as you
can get for evidence of controlled demolition.

by radwhitenblu
on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:41:24 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

In fact, WTC 1&2 collapse
don't look like a CD (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, SeattleLiberal, Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan

They have similarities, but many differences.

Controlled demolitions do NOT begin in the middle of buildings.

Controlled demolitions do not begin with walls bowing out, and floors
bowing downward for MINUTES before the buildings fall.

Controlled demolitions do attack ALL the parts of the support
structure, not just one part. In these towers, ONE began with the
outside walls failing, because the floor connections failed, and then
that caused the central core to fail, and in the other tower, the
central core failed, because the floor failed, and that brought down the
outer walls.

Those are just the top reasons why the WTC 1 and WTC 2 tower
collapsed don't look like controlled demolitions.

WTC 7 DOES look like a controlled demolition. It collapsed in on
itself. But that's because it was damaged on the outside, and that
caused interior support structures to have additional stresses, and
eventually they were unable to support the weight of the building.

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 03:17:48 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

wow, where did you get that
on WTC7 (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

and why hasn't any structural engineer said as much?  um,
because it's absurd to suggest that the damage to the outside caused
any additional stress on the central, untouched, weight-bearing
columns.  why do you persist in helping the murderers cover their
tracks?  don't you have anything else to write about on this
site?  remember--no statute of limitations, and you are being an
accessory after the fact.  basically if we find you, you'll be
tried for treason.

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:44:34 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You are a delusional
person (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope

Of COURSE the way these buildings are built, if ONE structural
member fails, or if a few structural members fail, the weight that
the failed structural members held is transferred to other
structural members. And that puts ADDITIONAL stress on them.

This is not rocket science.

ANY structural engineer worth his degree will tell you this!

This building had weight-bearing columns throughout.

You think that the structural members damaged in WTC 7 didn't
perform any weight-bearing?

Delusional.

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 02:59:31 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

You know, in my observation...
(16+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, tlh lib, SeattleLiberal, mbkennel, AnonymousArmy, vansterdam, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, Geekesque, tvb, Muwarr90, lazybum, Mia Dolan

it is generally those of us criticizing the 9/11 Truth Movement who get
attacked in these diaries. We're called idiots, ignorant, closed-minded,
closet Republicans, etc. after asking very civil, but critical,
questions.

Please give me a job.
I'm talented.

by Arken on
Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 05:36:14 PM PDT

it might (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Paulie200, blueoasis, pkbarbiedoll

have something to do with your definition of "civil, but critical,
questions". IMO a question like "so what happened to the plane if it didn't
crash into the pentagon?" Is neither civil nor critical, and yet I've seen
that question pop up more than any other. Why? Because it is unanswerable
without falling into a "conspiracy trap." It's a baiting question. I'm not
saying you're one who asks those types of questions, but if you do then I
can't think of a polite way to respond. After 5 years anyone who does it is
most likely being disingenuous.

Now on the other hand if you were to ask a question like this: "The WTC 1
& 2 collapses did not look like controlled demolition. If it was
controlled demolition, then wouldn't the collapses have started at the
ground floor??" Now that's an intelligent question and if people stuck to
questions like that then I believe the 9/11 truth movement would be a lot
further along than it is. But most people are afraid to even ask questions
like the one I just posed.

Why? I dont know, but if I had to guess... it's because the answer might
make too much sense.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 05:55:15 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

So... (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, SeattleLiberal, slouise217, tvb

IMO a question like "so what happened to the plane if it didn't crash
into the pentagon?" Is neither civil nor critical, and yet I've seen
that question pop up more than any other.

If that's neither civil nor critical, I'd guess that the list of
allowed questions is pretty small.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.
-Philo of Alexandria

by vansterdam on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:11:43 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

only questions (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, tlh lib, SeattleLiberal, vansterdam, Mia Dolan

That don't point out the obvious slant, inconsistencies, or those in
agreement are proper for tin foil modeling, Vansterdam, you silly
non-believer. Come on, dude, get with the program already and just shake
your head up and down while being careful to not displace your headgear.
Bad things happen when you do.

by tvb
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:18:26 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

no (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, pkbarbiedoll

I explained exactly why the question was "neither civil nor
critical". I went through great pains to do so and yet you still chose
to focus on it. I knew someone would.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:55:14 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You've also gone to great
pains to ignore (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC,
Avila, slouise217, Mia Dolan

the fact that the diary rules state that extraordinary claims must
be backed by extraordinary evidence.

When you're ready to provide the evidence that proves something
then let us know.   Until then, you're simply making a mockery of
our goals as Dems to get Dems elected because a tiny percentage of
this population thinks that the official report is untrue.   If
you think that helps us by turning this site into something to appeal
to those who think you're crazy then I guess more power to ya but I
couldnt imagine anything more trollish.

I guess the more new people we have joining the more tinfoilers are
gonna have to learn to adhere to the rules.   It's rather
pathetic how often this is happening but I guess it's a bit much to
ask Rensers and ConspiracyPlaneters to give a shit about the rules of
DailyKos.

Lame.

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh
lib on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:43:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I view these diaries as
attempts ... (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis

to harness brain-power, to get many minds working on this, to try
to discern - from the precious little evidence available - what
actually happened.

by sidewinder on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:54:24 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Very well. (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
SeattleLiberal,
slouise217,
Mia Dolan,
Eternal
Dope

By your own admission, you have no case.

Iraq War
news and comment.

by Eternal Hope on
Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 12:33:35 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Why the troll rating tlh
lib? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Jay Esbe

As a trusted user who had handed out only 1 troll
rating, I do not understand what you see in my post that called for
a troll rating.

I responded to your assertion that "a tiny percentage of this
population thinks that the official report is untrue"

Here is the link to the poll that is referenced in the
video:
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Along these lines the last large 9/11 poll that I am aware of on
dailykos is here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/25/154011/415

Who orchestrated 9/11?

# Neoconservatives (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove,
Perle, et al.)
35%
# Al Qaeda (Osama bin
Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, et al.)
21%
#
Both Neoconservatives and Al Qaeda working
together
40%
# Some other
group
2%

Votes: 546

Please justify your troll rating or rescind it.

Thanks.

Peace.

by free
speach 07 on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:32:47 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

the only (0
/ 0)

extraordinary claim I am making in this diary is that people go
out of their way to attack conspiracy theorists with ad hominem and
every other type of fallcy ever conceived. And the proof is
extraordinary as well. One only needs to looks at all the recipes
that have been posted so far.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on
Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 09:08:55 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

thl lib, where are you
helping dems? (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

or is your only role here to defend and protect the murderers who
brought buildings down on firefighters?

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:45:44 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Well (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Paulie200, Mia Dolan

I wouldn't ask the question, "The WTC 1 & 2 collapses did not look
like controlled demolition. If it was controlled demolition, then wouldn't
the collapses have started at the ground floor?" because I wouldn't wonder
that. In a controlled demolition they set off explosives in the upper
floors - to make them fall just like the towers, where not coincidentally,
the majority of damage took place.

So, I would expect a "controlled demolition" to look very similar to
the collapse of the towers. The upper floors going first makes the
building fall into its footprint.

The reason people don't seem polite is that they have answered the same
questions hundreds of times - to no avail.

It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to
rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. - Douglas
Adams

by SeattleLiberal on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 10:32:17 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

lol (0
/ 0)

In a controlled demolition they set off explosives in the upper
floors - to make them fall just like the towers, where not
coincidentally, the majority of damage took place.

wow. nuff said

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 05:09:36 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

The new grassy knoll (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, SeattleLiberal, Arken, lazybum

If only you folks could put as much time into organizing for the next
election.

And hopefully not for Lyndon LaRouche.

live carfree!

by greendem on
Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 05:42:23 PM PDT

I would prefer you not do anything
exept (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, blueoasis

organize for the next election. What are you doing posting on DKos? Get
out and organize! Why are you not organizing? Oh, you can do alot of things
at once. Strange. I am able to pay attention to Karly Rove, watch Olbermann
and gamecast the Yankee game plus prepare dinner AND question my
government!

"How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you
realize they're fucking you?"- Bill Hicks -7.88, -7.13

by bebacker
on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 05:47:35 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Moore (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

rjo, blueoasis, free speach 07, elocutionary, pkbarbiedoll

The whole time I was reading your article, I was remembering the footage
from Micheal Moore's movie "911" of the president reading to the school
children.  In the movie, M's dialogue is that "without being told what to
do, the President didn't know what to do...so he kept on reading"  (I'm
paraphrasing).

But...the fact is...he looked GUILTY.

Like a very naughty little boy that knew damn well what was going
down.

The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted
freely to be expressed. Thomas Jefferson

by Thea VA on
Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 05:43:03 PM PDT

I'm really curious as to
why... (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, blueoasis, hypersphere01

....the Secret Service didn't intervene immediately once it became
apparant it was an organized attack.  Bush's appearance at the school
wasn't secret. It was written about on MSN's calendar of events, and
publicized locally in advance.

by BornUnderPunches on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:15:30 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

agreed (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, slouise217, pkbarbiedoll

What's worse scaring children or putting them in harm's way

Let's make rope.

by AnonymousArmy on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:59:35 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I never thought of that
(2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Mia Dolan

Good point, AA.

I guess they figured he wasn't in harm's way there, but not sure why
they would have concluded that.

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 03:49:51 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

well (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

Bush's excuse later that day for being awol was credible
intelligence that he and air force one were targets.

If his stop at the school was publicized it stands to reason the SS
was immediately concerned about this once the second plane hit or even
sooner when the faa realized planes were missing.

Yet Andy Card was the only person to tell the prez anything in the
time he sat there for history to record.

Was he wired being fed constant info? Was he getting signals from
Ari or his security chief?

Or, was he just left to sit there while everyone hoped the school
wasn't the next target?

Let's make rope.

by AnonymousArmy on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 08:48:37 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

they knew because they were
the targeters n/t (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:46:45 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Well I say we go ahead and convict
him then (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, slouise217, Mia Dolan

Sure he looked either like a deer in headlights moron or someone who knew
that shit was over his head....

Doesnt excuse the fact that people are posting diaries in violation of
community standards that they can't back up to save their lives.

This isn't fuckin RENSE or Conspiracy Planet.  This is DailyKos.
The newbies comin here thinkin they're gonna be posting this shit
need to settle in and realize that it is not acceptable to post claims that
cannot be proven or they WILL be called out on the shit.   If they want
otherwise then they can go right hte fuck back to RENSE.

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh lib
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:52:42 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Our times grassy knoll (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, rjo, Thea VA

It's probably one of those things we will never know for sure. I find it
hard to believe that even if, say the FBI found out it was a plot, that it
would ever be released to the public. One of those, " for the sake of the
nation" things. I myself, tried to watch that film and had to shut it off, I'm
not even sure I want to know the truth.

-8.63 -7.28 Vote+$.01 I will vote Dem., but in protest and
support.

by OneCrankyDom on Thu Apr 27,
2006 at 05:43:32 PM PDT

It's OK to b e skeptical.
(11+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, tlh lib, SeattleLiberal, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, Arken, Thea VA, tvb, lazybum

But being skeptical about skeptical is also necessary.

The idea that a collapsed building of that enormous size will fall at
anything other than close to free fall speed is erroneous.

The fact that it also occurs with controlled detonations has no bearing on
whether that means it was done by explosives.   It falls that fast
because it is heavy and there is nothing strong enough to keep it up.

The apparently popular "folk physics" that a collapse happens like one
layer of collapse hitting the next one down, and all the building remaining
undamaged below that, like in a slow-motion chain of dominos is incorrect.

What really happens is that once you overload something high up with a
sharp collapse is that the shock wave travels down the structural elements at
the speed of sound (in steel) and you get failures all throughout the length
of the structure.

Since the lower levels have more of the weight of the building on them it
is more likely they will fail first due to the extra load.

As the building is damned heavy it starts falling everywhere and with
enough force and entropy to rip apart all the structural elements, and so it
pretty soon is not much different from a concrete waterfall.

This the physics of building collapse.  Do not believe that how things
look in special effects on TV (stuff flying everywhere) is realistic.

Another set of facts about the fire:  that jet fuel ignites burns in
normal air conditions at a certain temperature does not preclude it from
burning at higher temperatures, especially in a confined space.   Also,
multiple materials other than jet fuel would have been ignited.  The fact
that black smoke was produced in quantity, signifying a lower temperature
flame only means that some of the burning fuel was at that low temperature and
does not preclude the presence of burning at higher temperatures.

The idea that it was a "controlled explosive demolition" like construction
work is apparently belied by the significant collateral damage to nearby
structures.

Yes, I am a physicist, and no I am not a structural engineer.

Fascism is indistinguishable from any parody thereof.

by mbkennel
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 05:44:22 PM PDT

wouldn't these possibilities have
been better (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Thea VA

understood by an actual investigation of the debris?

by Compound
F on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:02:42 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

yes, and? (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, tlh lib, Bouwerie Boy, tvb, lazybum

If you think it was explosives, then you would need

(1) unambiguous evidence of explosive material and control systems
and

(2) testimony from people who observed significant structural
"maintenance" activity prior to detonation consistent with the needs of a
preparation for a large scale detonation in line with demolition
practices.

And then you'd have to ask, "why the planes?"

Why risk having a finely controlled detonation system ripped apart
(cables, power, etc) by a plane crash?

Why not just blow them both up at once?

Fascism is indistinguishable from any parody
thereof.

by mbkennel on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:08:45 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

see above a reply to your
post (0
/ 0)

basically a LIHOP answer

by Compound
F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:23:26 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

as for the demolition
system (0
/ 0)

the planes crashed pretty high.  Maybe it was not a
high risk.

Also, the top chunk of the first tower actually fell like a chunk.
maybe those cables were damaged, which is why it didn't pulverize.

by Compound
F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:35:15 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

The collapse began RIGHT
where the planes hit (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan

See my other posts on this thread for more detail.

The controlled demolition explosives would have had to have been
set on the exact floors that the planes hit, and the planes would have
had to have made an exact hit while travelling at 500 mph+, without
destroying the pre-set explosives.

Not possible.

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 03:55:44 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

not true (0
/ 0)

I've posted video
which shows evidence of a pre-collapse explosion or disturbance
which could NOT have originated at the point of impact. No one has
even attempted to debate or debunk it

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on
Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 09:14:54 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

OK (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

The building started to come apart before it collapsed.
It was on fire and had significant structural damage,
remember?  Beams started to come loose, but it wasn't until
enough of them did that the buildings collapsed.

by Mia Dolan on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 11:48:35 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

they tried that in 93
(0
/ 0)

The use of planes made people immediately think of Al Qaida.  At
least I did.

by fourtytwo on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:08:10 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

gonna threaten to kill anyone
today, forty-two? (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal
Hope, tlh
lib, sooner, slouise217, tvb, Mia Dolan

All difficult things have their origin in that which is
easy, and great things in that which is small. --Lao-Tzu

by Avila on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:21:06 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

The use of your user name to
post (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, slouise217, tvb, lazybum, Mia Dolan

made me remember that you
stated you were going to kill me last night.

You're still posting here?  After you
issued a death threat to somebody who had never spoken to you?
You're a fucking waaaaackjob.

Yeah...you've got credibility.   :-)

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh
lib on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:45:47 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

What I think is
funny (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Mia Dolan

Is that he didn't even spell his own screen name right!

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 03:56:41 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

they DID look at the
debris (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Mia Dolan

It's an urban legend spread by conspiracy theorists that they did NOT
have detailed investigation of the debris.

They saved over 250 pieces of steel - they looked at all the steel from
WTC 1&2.

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 03:53:19 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

what indeed (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

fourtytwo, free speach 07, pkbarbiedoll

The idea that a collapsed building of that enormous size will fall at
anything other than close to free fall speed is erroneous.

I do not agree with this. Here's a though experiment. Lets say you have a
telephone pole shaped tree next to a building. You could make a sharp cut
across the trunk of that tree, yet still stand on the roof and reach out and
hold the tree up with one hand. If you let the thing start to tip yes it
will eventually reach a speed where you cannot stop it from falling. But
would one floor collapsing onto another be enough to gain such momentum?

The fact that it also occurs with controlled detonations has no bearing
on whether that means it was done by explosives.   It falls that fast
because it is heavy and there is nothing strong enough to keep it up.

Nothing except 47 steel colums. Look at them. http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2006/240406thermite1.jpg
These things are huge. And yet you must believe that they all somehow
were broken early on in the collapse. Very early on. Why? Because we see in
one of the videos that the top spire of the building also dropped, which was
supported by these columns. Look at this video: http://www.zippyvideos.com/2781159192568126/shaking_before_wtc-1_collapse/

In it you can see that the antenna on top of the building fell right
along with the rest of the top. I don't understand why this happened. All
the vertical support columns would have to have been severed in order for
that to happen. I would have expected the central part of the tower to
remain standing at least some measurable amount of time after the initial
"pancaking" of the first few floor slabs.

Also, notice that in that video the collapse begins at 0:31, and yet
there was a noticable shaking at 0:17 which has not been explained by the
official story. It seems obvious to me that the collapse was related to that
shake.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:28:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Here's a thought
experiment (8+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, tlh lib, SeattleLiberal, slouise217, tvb, lazybum, Mia Dolan

Let's say you have a head that is roughly the size of a large
cantaloupe. You lean backwards, arching your body to an extreme degree,
until your head is poised near the anal orifice of your own body. Pressing
onward, you push your head deeper into the crevice of your buttocks, and
eventually past your own resistant sphincter.

Now, under ordinary circumstances you could not survive such a
stressful posture, not to mention the toxic atmosphere of the environment
in which your head now finds itself. And yet, you survive. Not only are
you alive, but you are blogging simultaneously while maintaining this
position. How is this possible? Glad you asked.

Since you should by all rights have expired long ago, there can be only
one explanation: Daily training, exhaustive calisthenics, and extensive
sensory deprivation have left you with the ability to survive for extended
periods bent over backwards with your head up your ass.

Wasn't that easy?

"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." --
William James

by BobzCat on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:01:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

a fine example of attack dog
movement (3+
/ 2-)

Recommended by:

sidewinder,
blueoasis, Jay Esbe

Trollrated by:

tlh lib, slouise217

You mind if I use this as a showcase example of how ad hominem
works?

Do you really think 1 or even 1000 posts like that are going to have
any effect on me? You only think so because you're not sure of your
position. If you were you wouldn't need to resort to nonsensical
personal attacks.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:39:27 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You mind joining our
community in (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Mia Dolan

posting shit that adheres to the published and REQUIRED
standards?

You have posted a claim as part of a conspiracy that you cannot
prove.

There is ad hominem attack because you are being a fuckin asshole
in participating in a community while at the same time violating the
accepted standards.

What do you not understand about that?  If you don't think 1
or 1000 posts will have any effect on you, how about "do the community
standards have any effect on you"?  If not, then why the fuck are
you here?

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh
lib on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:02:07 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

again (0
/ 0)

this is about intolerance, not about conspiracy theories. I have
not posted any which have not been backed up by strong logic or
solid evidence. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? A
common mistake among the most intolerant of our species.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on
Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 09:19:03 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

explain this,
please? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

tlh lib

this is about intolerance, not about conspiracy theories. I
have not posted any which have not been backed up by strong
logic or solid evidence.

one of these things is not like the other . . .

They picked and chose which debris they wanted to save. You
are attempting to cover up their destruction of evidence at a
crime scene... the biggest crime scene in history.

All difficult things have their origin in that which
is easy, and great things in that which is small. --Lao-Tzu

by Avila on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 11:38:51 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

you're not making any
sense (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Avila

They hauled away the steel and shipped it off to China. The
steel was from a crime scene. Are you denying any of these
facts?

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421
on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 09:39:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Yes (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

that's not a fact.  That's bullshit.   The
examined everything before it was desposed of.

by Mia Dolan on
Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 11:49:52 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

how precious
(2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

tlh
lib, diplomatic

you're not making any sense.

good of you to admit it.  then again, it'd be hard to
deny when your own words are blockquoted together as proof
that you aren't making sense.  work on pronouns next,
mmmkay?

They

they who?

hauled away the steel and shipped it off to China.

nope.

The steel was from a crime scene.

shiny.  I'll go with scene of mass murder by al-Qaeda,
Alex.  prove me wrong.

Are you denying any of these facts?

got facts? when did you get 'em and where?  you didn't
present any facts for me to deny.

why?  'cuz . . .

facts don't do what you want 'em to do.

All difficult things have their origin in that
which is easy, and great things in that which is small.
--Lao-Tzu

by Avila on Sat
Apr 29, 2006 at 05:29:34 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

And the
winner..... (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, diplomatic

by a knockout.....

The Pony Princess!

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh lib on
Sat
Apr 29, 2006 at 03:19:58 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

...And now for
the Runner-up (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
tlh
lib, nonnie9999

Hey, that wasn't very...

by diplomatic
on Sat
Apr 29, 2006 at 03:28:01 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

That poor pony
lol (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
diplomatic,
nonnie9999

What did it ever do to deserve that.

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh
lib on Sat
Apr 29, 2006 at 03:33:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

there are
many theories... (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
tlh
lib, nonnie9999

and they all point back to one Buhdydharma.

I guess he likes blondes! ewwwwness

Hey, that wasn't very...

by diplomatic
on Sat
Apr 29, 2006 at 07:12:43 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

tlh lib why don't you
patrol other diaries? (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

or is there a special reason you only pick 9-11 diaries to
patrol.  let me repeat, you are acting as an accesory to
murder.  there are and will be penalties for what you and
others are doing here.  don't say you weren't warned, or were
deceived,  justice has a looooong memory, and so do servers.
:)

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:51:17 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

It was a hypothetical
(4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, SeattleLiberal, slouise217, Mia Dolan

unless you have evidence to the contrary. Are you suggesting it was
an accurate description of your current position?

In that case please provide links to corroborating websites along
with documentary footage underwritten by fringe organizations seeking
to capitalize on legitimate areas of inquiry by inflaming the
desperation of individuals to belong to a group with insider knowledge
and an air of self-certain outrage, and one which carries only the
carry-on baggage of speculation and not the gravity of evidence or
proof, and is also not weighed down by logic or practicality.

Or, for that matter, respect for the host of the website at
which you are a guest, and whose purpose your particular
obsession has been deemed by popular opinion (including the site's
owner) to be counter-productive to the stated purpose of this
community.

Don't you fucking get it? Are you planning to get it any time in
the near future?

"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." --
William James

by BobzCat on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 10:09:55 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Ignoring Obvious Non-conspiracy
Issues (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis

Look, if someone rolls over and spills the beans, there you have it.

But that is separate from the GOP exploitation of victims, soldiers,
firemen, and this is an issue where the GOP should be thrashed

So here is a diary pimp regarding something that has been pretty much
ignored by the media and 9/11 skeptics alike - the obvious carnival aspects of
the Mousauui trial:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/20/173558/329

by bernardpliers on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 05:44:44 PM PDT

Well, a scapegoat is needed
... (0
/ 0)

& Moussaui is just the ticket.

Kangaroo courts seem to be all the rage these days.

by sidewinder on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:02:51 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

True masterminds are in secret
prisons (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

AnonymousArmy, blueoasis

C'mon you know the names, don't make me try to spell them. Several of the
senior conspirators were caught pretty early and stashed in secret locations
(not Gitmo). Pursue that, and you've got a fact-based line of inquiry that is
striaght from the headlines (Moussaui show trial, and the CIA
firing).

by bernardpliers on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:01:24 PM PDT

agreed (5+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

Avila, berns19, JenThinks, tvb, pkbarbiedoll

Trollrated by:

Compound F

The "how" conspiracy theorists are clouding the issue and making any real
dissection of the conspiracy impossible, you know the controlled demo, "pull
it", pod missiles, no plane pentagon attack, 93 shot down crowds.

It's all about "who".

As you point out the bbc reported that several of the initial suspected
hijackers were seen alive and well.

Redactions about Saudi Arabia out number the explanations given for the
living hijackers in the 9/11 investigation.

If we continue to let the "How" crowd dominate the debate Bushco will
continue to have the smoke screen it needs to avoid answering real
questions.

I'm convinced a few of these mad cows pushing the wildest theories are in
fact disinfo plants. I mean Bush himself told the world to ignore conspiracy
theories before there were any.

Let's make rope.

by AnonymousArmy on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:07:00 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

reposted from 3rd 9/11 thread
today (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tvb

Let's make rope.

by AnonymousArmy on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:08:06 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

why don't you spell them?
(3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, tvb

Who are the true masterminds?

Fascism is indistinguishable from any parody thereof.

by mbkennel
on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:10:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

OK here's list of CIA
'extra-judicial prisoners' (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis

Wow, this saved me the trouble of looking them up. Thank you
Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_prisoners_of_the_United_States

We've had some of the top Al Queda people stashed in CIA secret sites
for years. You know, the sites that were revealed in the WaPo and got
Priest the Pulitzer and got Mary McCarthy fired from the CIA? That's what
I mean, this is stuff really in the papers, not the "implosion"
speculation.

by bernardpliers on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:41:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Pentagonresearch.com (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

sidewinder, JenThinks, fourtytwo, blueoasis

Check out Russell Pickering's Pentagon Research website
(pentagonresearch.com).  Very well done.  He presents six
possibilities, with pros and cons for each.

Great source of information, many questions, and lots of photos.
Highly recommended.

Mr. Pickering writes:

When 9/11 happened I was a firefighter for the City of Seattle in my 8th
year. I was shaken by the loss of firefighters in N.Y.. Some of my friends
on the USSAR team went to N.Y. and came back with some horrible stories. I
thought we should just go kick ass and cheered the troops on.

Later in a respectable Fire Service magazine called Fire Engineering I
came across this quote, "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that
the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society
of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce..... (Fire Engineering magazine)."
I made note of this as unusual.

Then one day I was reading an article on another website. In the sidebar
there I saw something on 9/11. When I clicked on it the first thing I saw
was a photo of the front of the Pentagon. I was astounded that there was no
significant plane wreckage there and that people had many solid unanswered
questions about what had happened. Who had the answers? That's when I
discovered that the FBI and the Pentagon had security video of what hit the
Pentagon and refuse to release it to the American people.

I found it very hard to consider that maybe we hadn't been told the truth
and for some reason the government was withholding information. I didn't
know what to think because the official story was all I knew. But something
felt wrong and I began to look for answers. The next site I ended up on was
Jim Hoffman's 9-11 Research website. I liked his logical style and the fact
that it wasn't a "conspiratorial" site. From there my questions continued to
grow.

He presents his material in a very measured, logical way.

This is a refreshing change from some of the other websites dealing with
the attack on the Pentagon.

by awakentech
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:18:54 PM PDT

What most people don't
understand (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, tvb, Mia Dolan

Is that the Pentagon was a hardened building.

And when a plane hits a hardened building, or anything else hard like
that, and hits it head on, not much is left.

But they did find body parts and DNA from almost all of the passengers on
that plane - how did THAT happen if the plane didn't hit the building?

They did find a wheel, and an engine, and fuselage parts. How did that
happen?

Hundreds of people driving to work saw it happen.

How do you explain that?

Facts. They are wonderful things.

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 04:07:24 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

9/11 Truth... (8+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, Ahianne, Bouwerie Boy, tvb, Muwarr90, lazybum, Mia Dolan

...is criticized and mocked (least of all by me) because it's almost always
based on either faulty science, convoluted logic, or vague speculation.
And until the "9/11 Truth movement" can get a majority of scientists and
structural engineers to not dismiss your theories because of those, I will
remain unconvinced.

We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of the
realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25, -7.18)

by DH from MD
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:19:55 PM PDT

duh, you mean like.. (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, Ahianne, slouise217, tvb, BobzCat, lazybum

"steel doesn't melt in fire" (no, but bolts holding steel together DO
fail in prolonged, intense heat)

"there were no CHAIRS found after the trade center collapse"  oh
WOW!!! i am SOOOOOO impressed!!!!  [thank you dr. of philosophy prof
griffith (or whatEVER your name is) for that pearly bit of wisdom!!!! - like
a chair will survive being crushed by 100+ stories of steel, concrete,
etc.....

"the hijackers have been SEEN since the bombings" - yeah, samba'ing the
night away in rio de janeiro?

"no plane hit the pentagon..." so, all those with tickets are living on
an isolated island with plenty of drugs and booze and guards to keep anyone
from hearing from them......

i am sick to death of illogical, faulty (un)reasoning from those who are
willing to be REALLY ignorant instead of doing some REAL research into the
attacks.

give me the facts backed up with credible cites and i
might be more receptive, but for those "gut feelings" often professed -
well, we ALL know what "gut sounds" lead to, right?  flatulence.

hot air.  smelly wind.

[hitting myself in forehead for posting on yet ANOTHER one of these
stupid threads....]

Russ Feingold for
President, 2008

by edrie on
Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:39:36 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

there you go (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, pkbarbiedoll

Why do you criticize dr griffin? He just repeated what some
firefighters said. It was the firefighters who first thought it odd that
nothing bigger than "half a telephone keypad" survived the
collapses.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:06:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Well, if HE cannot figure it
out (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Mia Dolan

Yet wants to promote himself as someone who HAS fairly examined the
evidence....

Just because someone is surprised that nothing big survived doesn't
change the fact that nothing  big survived.

Given that TONS of material fell onto floor after floor, it is NOT
shocking that everything was pulverized. It would be shocking if
everything wasn't pulverized!

So, if he is surprised like the undereducated firemen who were
surprised, then it doesn't say much for his investigative skills or his
respect for the truth.

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 04:11:41 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

vague speculation (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

pkbarbiedoll

19 arab hijackers with box cutters taking over 4 jets on the same day we
were running drills which crippled our air defense systems. THAT is vague
speculation. It just happens to be supported by a great deal of the faulty
science and convoluted logic you mentioned.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:03:34 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

So... (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Bouwerie Boy, lazybum, Mia Dolan

Nineteen men on terrorist watchlists just happened to float to Mars
never to be seen again?  And don't cite that story which floated
around a week after the attacks claiming that several of them were alive.
The hijackers wouldn't have used their real names to get plane
tickets.

We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of
the realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25,
-7.18)

by DH from
MD on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:20:21 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

What names did they use?
(0+
/ 0-)

John Bigbooty? John Yayas?

by sidewinder on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:21:06 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I wonder if this has anything to do
with my diary (6+
/ 3-)

Recommended by:

obgynlover, sidewinder, fourtytwo, blueoasis, hypersphere01, MacheteJames

Trollrated by:

Avila, tlh lib, slouise217

I posted a diary the other day.  It wasn't a conspiracy theory.
It was a request that we stop arguing over the details of how the
attacks were carried out, and focus on what we know: That the government's
story is absurd on it's face.  I trust that if a serious independant
investigation of 9-11 is ever allowed, the details could emerge.

I was immediately met with pictures of ponies, and candy, and all kinds of
stuff that made absolutely no sense to me as a new member.

I've gotta say, first, thanks for this diary.  Mine disappeared from
public view almost immediately despite more than a hundred replies.  My
attempts to defend myself were also met with obscenities and insults, and then
apparently deletion of one of my replies.

I've been reading KOS for more than two years.  I never expected to be
treated with such instant contempt and smug sarcasm here.  It's never
happened anywhere else.

The whole thing has only reminded me that as South Park parodied, there
probably are people who enjoy sniffing their own farts.

I don't know if I'll even stay here at this point. Some of the people just
SUCK.

by Jay Esbe
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:23:13 PM PDT

yes. if there were an
independent (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Jay Esbe

investigation, that could clear a lot of things up.  As
it stands now, it's unacceptable, as a theory or as an investigation.

by Compound
F on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:29:46 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

As an observer (11+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, tlh lib, SeattleLiberal, AnonymousArmy, vansterdam, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, tvb, lazybum, Mia Dolan

I observed that you responded in kind, with obscenities and insults. And
are continuing to do so.

"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." -- William
James

by BobzCat
on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 06:42:52 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

What were you expecting ?
... (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

hypersphere01

to be greeted with Rumsfeldian rose-petals?

by sidewinder on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:45:08 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

because we need more smoking
guns (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, pkbarbiedoll, Jay Esbe

We already know this administration is guilty. But how much gets fixed vs
how much gets whitewashed is what's at stake. Right now it's looking like
whitewash will win and therefore nothing will really change. The dems cannot
take control of the house or senate because Bush's base, while dwindling, is
still large enough to hold enough seats. (Thanks in part to diebold, and in
bigger part to the jigsaw puzzles that are our congressional district
maps.)

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:10:40 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

The ponies and candy (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tlh lib, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, tvb, lazybum

were more relevant to 9/11 then any of the conspiracy garbage you were
spouting.

by Mia
Dolan on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:19:23 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Happened to me right after the
2004 (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, pkbarbiedoll

election. I couldn't get back in to post after my 9-11 post and all I did
was quote a lot from Afeez Ahmed's book about it:The War On Freedom.

My very first thought when I heard about 9-11 was that they
allowed it to happen. Now I think they were in cahoots.
Just too many things going on that it appears overdetermined,as a Freudian
would say.

Also there now seems that there was a bullet fired from the grassy knoll
but I don't know where I read it.

The part of the Pentagon that was hit did not contain the higher up
brass. My friend was a colonel there and told me that.

Too many coincidences,too many. If you were watching it in a movie or on
TV you wouldn't beelieve the official story either if it were
fiction.

by abbeysbooks on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:34:03 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You are a liar (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, ek hornbeck

as your own diary attests to.

je t'aime, aja.

by tlh lib
on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 11:36:53 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Personally (12+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, Ahianne, seanleckey, vansterdam, Bouwerie Boy, sofia, tvb, begone, BobzCat, lazybum, Mia Dolan

this is what bothers me about the 9/11 tinfoil hatters.

To me, this kind of conspiracy mongering is a form of ego-boosting game
playing.  You get to be a very important person, because the you know
something the whole world doesn't know.  You get to be the hero, the one
person smart enough to figure out what all those they-think-they're-so-smart
people can't see.

Speculation is always fun, and I find pretty few things off limits for
having fun.  But, alas, having watched the north tower burn this is one
of them.  It offends me to have people play ego gratifying games with the
deaths of 2,900 of my neighbors.

Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

by LarryInNYC
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 06:53:08 PM PDT

I have never percieved tin foiling
as ego (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, free speach 07, pkbarbiedoll, Jay Esbe

gratification.  It strikes me more as an "alarm
reaction," which is "rational," if you are not dissuaded by counter-claiims.

by Compound
F on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:14:47 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

really? (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

pkbarbiedoll, Jay Esbe

It may offend you to "have people play ego gratifying games with the
deaths of 2,900 of your neighbors" but it offends me to see memories of
those people used to exploit the rest of us into an age of tyranny.

Look, even if you believe it was Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda alone that was
responsible for all that happened on 9/11, how does it explain the fact that
we were already poised to invade Afghanistan before 9/11?

The simple fact is that people like Bush are the reason we are not
attacked by terrorists more often. Terrorism helps the extreme right gain
power. It always has and it always will. If we are attacked again Bush's
approval rating will skyrocket within 2 months.

Given the choice between "conspiracy-mongering" and war-mongering... umm
I think it's a no brainer.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:35:31 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

There is no choice (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, seanleckey, Bouwerie Boy, tvb, BobzCat, Mia Dolan

between conspiracy-mongering and war-mongering.

I'm offended both by conspiracy-mongers using 9/11 to play their ego
games and by the PNACers using 9/11 to play their ego
games.

There's not that much difference between the two groups, if you ask
me.

Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

by LarryInNYC on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:54:20 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

well Larry, how did building 7
fall? (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

Because, you ARE Larry Silverstein right?

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:54:57 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

you need to learn about
PSYOPS (2+
/ 4-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, Jay Esbe

Trollrated by:

Rita in DC, Avila, slouise217, BobzCat

Here's one place where it's gone corporate:

http://www.scl.cc/article.php?id=12

Tell me that's not just scary as all hell.

Here's another dandy collection of links, many of them official
government psyops links:

http://www.psywarrior.com/links.html

And here's a Washington Post story about Psyops, and the use of
artificially synthesized voices:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb.
1, 1999

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going
to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being
delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special
Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology
developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice,
scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech
patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he
asked for a copy of the tape.

Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun's
team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality
recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One
of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating "I am being treated well by
my captors."

"They chose to have him say something he would never otherwise have
said," chuckled one of Papcun's colleagues."

SNIP

"For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S.
military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

"Once you can take any kind of information and reduce it into ones and
zeros, you can do some pretty interesting things," says Daniel T. Kuehl,
chairman of the Information Operations department of the National Defense
University in Washington, the military's school for information warfare.

Digital morphing -- voice, video, and photo -- has come of age,
available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military
calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments,
militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield
objectives.

To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping
and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists,
it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture
convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a
successful military operation or coup.

Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of
creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing
other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation.
The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab
world.

The tape war never proceeded, killed, participants say, by bureaucratic
fights over jurisdiction, skepticism over the technology, and concerns
raised by Arab coalition partners."

And don't think these Pentagon types don't have a wild imagination:

"But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S.
projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the
Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force
officer asked in 1990?

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the
hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large,
three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over
Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take
a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and
power sources.

And besides, investigators came back, what does Allah look like?

The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case
that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was
established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application.
The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force
document as a system to "project information power from space ... for
special operations deception missions." "

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a
little longer -- Henry Kissinger

by theyrereal on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:49:33 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

No sale. (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, SeattleLiberal, Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan, Eternal Dope

None of this is proof of any kind of Bush complicity in the 9/11
attacks. All this is is a bunch of war projects that the Pentagon
develops. None of this is relevant to the discussion.

Iraq War news and
comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 12:05:17 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

A deal. . . (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, SeattleLiberal

If I learn about PsyOps, will you learn about copyright law?

Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

by LarryInNYC on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 10:49:39 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Hey, I bet you like
fruitcakes (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, musing85, Avila, Mia Dolan

Here is Alton Brown's recipe
for Free
Range Fruitcake...

1 cup golden raisins
1 cup currants
1/2 cup sun dried
cranberries
1/2 cup sun dried blueberries
1/2 cup sun dried
cherries
1/2 cup dried apricots, chopped
Zest of one lemon,
chopped coarsely
Zest of one orange, chopped coarsely
1/4 cup
candied ginger, chopped
1 cup gold rum
1 cup sugar
5 ounces
unsalted butter (1 1/4 sticks)
1 cup unfiltered apple juice
4
whole cloves, ground
6 allspice berries, ground
1 teaspoon
ground cinnamon
1 teaspoon ground ginger
1 3/4 cups all purpose
flour
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon
baking powder
2 eggs
1/4 to 1/2 cup toasted pecans, broken

Brandy for basting and/or spritzing

Combine dried fruits, candied ginger and
both zests. Add rum and macerate overnight, or microwave for 5 minutes
to re-hydrate fruit.
Place fruit and liquid in a non-reactive pot
with the sugar, butter, apple juice and spices. Bring mixture to a boil
stirring often, then reduce heat and simmer for 5 to 10 minutes. Remove
from heat and cool for at least 15 minutes. (Batter can be completed up
to this point, then covered and refrigerated for up to 2 days. Bring to
room temperature before completing cake.)

Heat oven to 325 degrees.

Combine dry ingredients and sift into fruit mixture. Quickly bring
batter together with a large wooden spoon, then stir in eggs one at a
time until completely integrated, then fold in nuts. Spoon into a
10-inch non-stick loaf pan and bake for 1 hour. Check for doneness by
inserting toothpick into the middle of the cake. If it comes out clean,
it's done. If not, bake another 10 minutes, and check again.

Remove cake from oven and place on cooling rack or trivet. Baste or
spritz top with brandy and allow to cool completely before turning out
from pan.

When cake is completely cooled, seal in a tight sealing, food safe
container. Every 2 to 3 days, feel the cake and if dry, spritz with
brandy. The cake's flavor will enhance considerably over the next two
weeks. If you decide to give the cake as a gift, be sure to tell the
recipient that they are very lucky indeed.

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with
the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

by Bouwerie
Boy on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 01:42:33 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Where do I start (8+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Mike S, Rita in DC, Avila, Ahianne, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, Muwarr90, lazybum

Lets talk about your facts.

Molten Steel?  Funny how nobody has a picture of the molten steel.
Why don't you see if you can dig one up.

No steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire?  That's not a
fact, that's actually a lie, because other steel frame buildings have, in
fact, collapsed from fire.

The DNA records?   You can test DNA remains by testing relatives.
That's how they do paternity tests.  Please please please please
tell me you are really not that stupid.

The put options, the living terrorists, etc. -- all this shit has been
explained and debunked many, many times.  The indisputable facts that you
cite are actually mostly bullshit.

Lets talk about your reserachers then

Who exactly do you think the credible reseachers are?  I see you cite
Stephen Jones, the man who did a fake peer review and who was condemned by his
own university for his 9/11 article.  And whose last great research
project was proving that Jesus lived in North America.  Is he one of the
credible ones?

How about David Ray Giffin, the theology professor.  He actually
believes that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.  His writing manages to
exclude the fact that hundreds of witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
Is he one of the credible ones?

You know what would make my day?  If just one of the thousands of
structural engineers in this country came out in support of the controlled
demolition theory.  But none have.  Zero.  Zilch. Nada.
Not a single one.

So, as I previously stated (and you quoted) "their facts are wrong and
their science is bad."  And its embarassing that so many so-called
progressives get caught up in this bullshit.

by Mia Dolan
on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:13:00 PM PDT

I'll save Compound F the
work (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, slouise217, Compound F, elocutionary, Mia Dolan

Hi Mia,

right on cue. actually, a little late. (1+ / 1-)
but still
bringing less than nothing to the table.

Why bother?  Most people will let a zillion diaries just scroll
off without a word, but some can't resist a 9/11 diary, and it always
provokes aggression.  Why?

These issues belong to you, not the diarist.

I feel so left out, btw.

by tvb on
Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:22:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

there is kindness in
humor. (0
/ 0)

by Compound
F on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:31:15 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

fraud (3+
/ 4-)

Recommended by:

sidewinder, free speach 07, Jay Esbe

Trollrated by:

Rita in DC, Avila, Eternal Hope, BobzCat

Molten Steel?  Funny how nobody has a picture of the molten steel.
Why don't you see if you can dig one up.

Heh it's funny how you like to Bash Jones when he provides pictures and
an accompanying analysis in his own paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Also there are the satellite images which clearly show thermal hotspots
which persisted for weeks after the collapse. Do I really need to link to
those? Also, again I must point out that Jones isn't the one who came up
with these wild ideas. Watch this video: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv

More from http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=23&t=23

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue
witnessed "Fires burn[ing] and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins
still settling beneath her feet." http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects
of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very
intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten
steel." http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12,
said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded
him of a volcano.
<http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html>

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense
they encountered rivers of molten steel." http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition,
excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it
was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from
Building 6." http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of
an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to
bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain
steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY
EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D9404482
(pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a
gas http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67;
so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high
enough to melt and evaporate them.

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended
deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and
steel flowed in molten streams." http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm

The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that
leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the
foundation hole." http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QKI/qid=1133995198/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/104-4327082-0495169?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
(pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural
Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten
metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event." http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/http://www.istructe.org.uk/about/files/president/Tour-2002-NewYork.pdf

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade
Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still
burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it
looked like a vat of molten steel." http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC,
described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after
the attacks. http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing,
who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told
us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains.
Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained
intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade
centers six weeks after 9/11
<http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv>.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks
after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as
six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so
'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw
conclusions about it based on other fires."
<http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87451160.html?did=87451160&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Nov+1%2C+2001&author=GREG+GITTRICH+DAILY+NEWS+STAFF+WRITER&pub=New+York+Daily+News&desc=FIRE+MAY+SMOLDER+FOR+MONTHS>
(pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a
half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS
played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams
to human remains...." http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter
Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground
Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire
in history" http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634,
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html
and again on September 21, 2001 http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html,
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634,
and

"firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground
zero."Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was
pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters
Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were
creating a giant lake." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml

For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for
months after 9/11, see this paper. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

And yet you single out Jones as if he just pulled this out of thin air.
Fraud.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:50:00 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Hilarious (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, Ahianne, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, lazybum

You have just proved my point.

That's not a picture of molten steel.   Molten steel is, well,
molten.  That is just hot metal.   I love all of these other
people talking about seeing molten steel beams or molten steel coming off
beams.  If the steel is in beam form its not molten!  These
people don't know the definition of the word.  Yes, it was very hot
at the building site for a long time.  But there is no evidence of
actual molten steel.

By the way the plaguepuppy website is by Jeff King, one of the biggest
frauds of all.  He calls himself an MIT engineer, but he has not been
associated with MIT or practiced any kind of engineering for 25 years.
Even when he practice engineering, he was an electrical engineer,
which is a totally unrelated field.  King claims that he has been
practicing medicine in California, which is odd, because there is no Jeff
King with his background with a medical license.  Maybe he is curing
cancer with tinfoil hats or something.

by Mia
Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 07:59:42 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

' ..no evidence of actual
molten steel. ' (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Jay Esbe

Except all of that eyewitness testimony.

You rely heavily on eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon - yet
discount it at the WTC - why?

by sidewinder on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:04:10 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Read what they are
saying (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tlh lib, Bouwerie Boy

the eyewitnesses don't know what molten means.  They saw
molten steel beams.

by Mia
Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:07:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I showed her most of that stuff a
few weeks ago . (0
/ 0)

it didn't move her then & probably won't now - but good
try.

by sidewinder on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:01:17 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Yes (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, Eternal Hope, slouise217

And I am sure I pointed out to you that link proves just exactly how
stupid the tinfoil hatters are.  How are those molten steel beams
coming along?  What a joke.

by Mia
Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:05:48 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

by golly (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Jay Esbe

you're right!

No steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire?  That's not
a fact, that's actually a lie, because other steel frame buildings have,
in fact, collapsed from fire.

omg the Windsor tower, which burned to a crisp from top to bottom, DID in
fact partially collapse. http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/images_export/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/windsorDamaged.gif

So yeah 9/11 crackpots conspiracy theorists are lying!

...

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:01:22 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Molten steel, coming right
up... (0
/ 0)

and a chunk of said molten metal, after the fact:

by pkbarbiedoll on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:13:40 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Holy Shit (7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, slouise217, tvb, lazybum, Jay Esbe

You can't see me, but I am banging my head against the desk right
now.

I think we need mandatory science education at DailyKos.   That is
not molten steel.  That is hot (possibly steel) metal.  Molten
means the steel is in molten form.  M-O-L-T-E-N.

Those pictures have already been linked like three times already on
this thread.

by Mia
Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:31:36 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

actually...look again.
(0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

slouise217

You can't see me, but I am banging my head against the desk right
now.

I think we need mandatory science education at DailyKos.
That is not molten steel.  That is hot (possibly steel) metal.
Molten means the steel is in molten form.  M-O-L-T-E-N.

The end pulled out first, is orange hot.  The other end is
yellow/white  hot, and there is clearly molten material dripping
off in rather copious quantities.

Possibly steel?  I guess you were not aware that that's ALL they
use for structural beams like the one in the photo.

I'm not alleging anything here.  But the photo certainly does
show molten steel, right at the end of the beam last to be withdrawn
from the other rubble.

by Jay
Esbe on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:48:17 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Molten (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, slouise217, tvb, lazybum

Molten.  M-O-L-T-E-N.  I can keep spelling it.  That
is not "clearly" molten material dripping off the beam.  A beam
is not going to be in solid form but dripping on one end.  Sorry,
that's just retarded.

by Mia
Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 08:52:42 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You know what else
(3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, slouise217, lazybum

How can you even tell that's a support beam?  Seriously, it
could be anything.

by Mia
Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:29:22 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

support beam? (0
/ 0)

How can you even tell that's a support beam?  Seriously,
it could be anything.

I don't see why that's even a relevant question.  If it
wasn't a horizontal support, then it was vertical.  But it's
clearly a steel I beam.  What's your point?

by Jay
Esbe on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:56:30 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Really? (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
tlh lib, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy

How can you tell its a steel I beam?

by Mia Dolan on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 10:08:42 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Yeah, it could be a lump of
previously molten ... (0
/ 0)

steel, now cooled.

by sidewinder on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 09:57:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Or it could be
(0
/ 0)

a decroded piece of crap.

by Mia Dolan on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 07:33:52 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

that is so not molten
(2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Mia Dolan

Nor in the process of melting.  It would be pouring down like
water out of spigot if it were molten.

And the second photo...it's actually a chunk of compressed floors,
molten computers, and personal effects from the collapse.  It's
probably still in a hangar at JFK; the last plans I saw for it were to
include it in whatever memorial eventually gets built.

by tvb on Thu
Apr 27, 2006 at 10:44:00 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

why (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

free speach
07

why do you even bother arguing with Mia, a proven  fraud?
Look the shit is hot, ok? It could have melted the damn claw on that
crane and still you'd have apologists claiming that the crane was made
out of tin foil or something equally absurd.

To recap: http://www.parapolitics.info/...

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing] and molten steel flow[ing] in the
pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." http://www.sas.upenn.edu/...

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health
effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the
smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are
finding molten steel." http://www.jhsph.edu/...

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September
12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there
reminded him of a volcano.
<http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html>

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so
intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." http://www.nypost.com/...

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition,
excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero,
"Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the
sides of the wall from Building 6." http://www.globalsecurity.org/...

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A
combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might
have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But
that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear
to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures"
http://select.nytimes.com/...
(pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid
to a gas http://www.answers.com/... so
the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high
enough to melt and evaporate them.

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero
"descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires
still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." http://www.theatlantic.com/...

The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal
that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside
the foundation hole." http://www.amazon.com/...
(pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The
Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging
from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
http://web.archive.org/...

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the
Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was
still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot
that it looked like a vat of molten steel." http://www.thenewliberator.com/...

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC,
described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days
after the attacks. http://www.seau.org/...

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air
Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One
fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of
the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down
but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their
boots." http://www.findarticles.com/...

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the
trade centers six weeks after 9/11
<http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv>.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six
weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from
as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and
"the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly
impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."
<http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87451160.html?did=87451160&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Nov+1%2C+2001&author=GREG+GITTRICH+DAILY+NEWS+STAFF+WRITER&pub=New+York+Daily+News&desc=FIRE+MAY+SMOLDER+FOR+MONTHS>
(pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and
a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties,
NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten
steel beams to human remains...." http://wasteage.com/...

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002,
firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep
underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the
molten steel." http://www.fallenbrothers.com/...

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural
fire in history" http://www.newscientist.com/...
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 http://www.courttv.com/... and
again on September 21, 2001 http://www.wnbc.com/... and the
fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands http://www.newscientist.com/...
and

"firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground
zero."Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was
pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters
Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you
were creating a giant lake." http://www.cbsnews.com/...

For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground
zero for months after 9/11, see this paper. http://www.physics.byu.edu/...

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 10:37:05 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

All I can say is thank you....
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

pkbarbiedoll

The Moral Majority - all those Christian conservatives left on
Earth AFTER the Rapture....

by sp0t on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 07:25:57 PM PDT

David Ray Griffin: (7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Paulie200, cookiebear, slouise217, Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan, Eternal Dope

He is a theologian, not a scientist, foresnics expert, physicist, or
chemist. Therefore, what you are advancing is a faith-based argument. Now, you
are free to form your own religion based on this. It is a free country. You
can construct whatever myths you want in order to create meaning in your life.
But don't expect me to accept theories on 9/11 based solely on faith and not
on evidence.

Iraq War news and
comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Thu Apr
27, 2006 at 11:54:04 PM PDT

exactly so (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Paulie200, Eternal Hope, tlh lib, cookiebear, Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan

I mentioned The New Pearl Harbor only because it seems to be more
well-known than Gerald Posner's books or even the 9/11 Commission report.
I still haven't found a MIHOP-er or LIHOP-er who has read any
book on their pet goat subject. :p

All difficult things have their origin in that which is easy,
and great things in that which is small. --Lao-Tzu

by Avila on
Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 02:40:18 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

you haven't looked very hard
then (0
/ 0)

Stanley Hilton?
Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie?

Morgan Reynolds?
Mike Ruppert?
Sibel Edmunds?
Andreas von
Bulow?
Michel Chossudovsky?
William Rodriguez?
Cynthia
McKinney?
Dr. Robert M. Bowman,?
Kristin Breitweiser ?
Michael
Meacher ?
Paul Thompson ?

I could go on and on. Some of these people even served in the Bush
administration for chrissakes. And none of them have any significant
connection to David Ray Griffin. So what exactly is your
point???

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 04:56:55 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

He's starting his own
religion. (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

You are a follower.

Fine. No problem.

But I am going to treat it as a religious piece because it relies on
myth and narrative to make sense of 9/11.

Iraq War news
and comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 05:51:35 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

your religion is blame
muslims for everything (1+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

free speach
07

Trollrated by:

Mike S

with fake "evidence".  If you actually read Griffin's work
you'll note that all he does is point out inconsistencies in the
official account, in the words only of the official account (i.e.
testimony, etc.)

starting to feel the heat?

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 12:57:14 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Nonsense piled on top of
nonsense (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, cookiebear, Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan

When Griffin says the buildings collapsed at near free fall speeds,
that's a fact. When he says no other steel frame buildings have collapsed
from fire, that's a fact. When he talks about molten steel and unexplainable
thermal hotspots persisting for weeks after 9/11, it's fact. When he says
that if you drop a block of concrete 1000ft, it will not completely
pulverize into dust like we saw at the WTC, it's a fact. btw, I had already
known all these facts before I had even heard of Dr. Griffin. That's the
beauty of dealing with facts. Facts that are not even remotely subjective or
susceptible to manipulation. You see, once you remove all the "supposed
facts" regarding 9/11, and focus ONLY on what we know to be absolutely true
beyond a shadow of a doubt, you see that the official story has no solid
foundation.

Except the buildings DIDN'T fall at free fall speed, number one, and HE
grossly understates the time it took the buildings to collapse by about
half.

It's NOT a fact.

And except that THESE buildings didn't collapse from fire alone EITHER. It
IS a fact that no big building like this collapsed from fire. But it's totally
irrelevant, because these buildings didn't EITHER! So, it's a fact, but it
doesn't mean a thing with regard to 9/11!

And except for the fact that without a comparable event EVER happening
before, it's impossible to say that it's not reasonable for there to have been
molten metal (there's NO proof that it was molten steel) in the building, and
there is NO proof that the molten metal lasted for weeks, and there WAS a fire
that burned for days, and so seeing hot material days later was not
shocking.

So it's NOT a fact that there was molten steel. And it's NOT a fact that
those hot spots are unexplainable.

And it's NOT a fact that a 102 story building and a concrete block are
comparable. So the fact that a concrete block, dropped 1000 feet, won't
pulverize is NOT relevant to TONS of material, dropping upon floor upon floor
upon floor of structure below.

It makes total sense that that much material dropping onto floor after
floor after floor WOULD pulverize everything in its path.

So the strawman argument that a concrete block wouldn't pulverize means
NOTHING with regard to a big building collapsing.

And that IS the beauty of dealing with facts.

It's too bad that the diarist has so little respect for the facts that he
would present these bits of misinformation in this way, and present them as
facts.

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217
on Fri Apr
28, 2006 at 03:29:37 AM PDT

you are distorting (0
/ 0)

Except the buildings DIDN'T fall at free fall speed, number one, and HE
grossly understates the time it took the buildings to collapse by about
half.

It's NOT a fact.

He said "near free fall speeds" The difference is virtually
insignificant, since most people who have attempted to calculate the most
likely collpase times have concluded that it should have been many times
slower than free-fall speed. btw NIST made no attempt to calculate how fast
the buildings should have fallen in their own dubious scenario.

And except that THESE buildings didn't collapse from fire alone EITHER.
It IS a fact that no big building like this collapsed from fire. But it's
totally irrelevant, because these buildings didn't EITHER! So, it's a
fact, but it doesn't mean a thing with regard to 9/11!

You're probably correct. These buildings did not appear to collapse from
fire.

And except for the fact that without a comparable event EVER happening
before, it's impossible to say that it's not reasonable for there to have
been molten metal (there's NO proof that it was molten steel) in the
building, and there is NO proof that the molten metal lasted for weeks,
and there WAS a fire that burned for days, and so seeing hot material days
later was not shocking.

Are you saying planes have never crashed into buildings before? You're
doing a fine job of showing your level of knowledge on this subject. And yes
there is plenty of proof that the molten steel persisted for weeks. I've
already posted it. The multiple professional eyewitness accounts and
satellite thermal imagery constitutes conclusive evidence. And yes it was
molten steel, because it had to be steel. No other material existed in high
enough quantity to explain the duration of the extreme temperatures. It
could not have been molten aluminum. Remember bulding 7 was not hit by an
aircraft yet it showed the same thermal footprint.

So it's NOT a fact that there was molten steel. And it's NOT a fact
that those hot spots are unexplainable.

They certainly are explainable. I've heard one plausible explanation:
residual thermitic reactions.

And it's NOT a fact that a 102 story building and a concrete block are
comparable. So the fact that a concrete block, dropped 1000 feet, won't
pulverize is NOT relevant to TONS of material, dropping upon floor upon
floor upon floor of structure below.

If one floor drops onto the floor below it, it sacrifices inertia to do
work.... the work in this case being the pulverization of that floor. It's
called conservation of energy. The more energy that goes into pulverization,
the less energy remains to do other work. Since this was gravitational
energy at work, this means that the collapse would have had to progress
slowly or simply come to a stop.

It makes total sense that that much material dropping onto floor after
floor after floor WOULD pulverize everything in its path.

Actually it doesn't make sense, any more than a tree collapsing in on
itself would make sense. These were steel frame buildings with 47 of the
largest interior box columns ever constructed. The amount of energy it took
to break those columns would have and should have prevented a total
collapse. One canot attempt to explain this without examining the evidence
of pre-collapse explosions, which could have removed the load bearing
support from the base of the building, allowing the building to fall into
its own footprint.

So the strawman argument that a concrete block wouldn't pulverize means
NOTHING with regard to a big building collapsing.

First of all that's not a strawman argument. And if you can't make one
concrete block pulverize under the exact same amount of gravitational
energy, then you aren't going to make 1000 concrete blocks pulverize. It is
a well accepted fact that gravity affects all objects in the same way,
regardless of their size.

And that IS the beauty of dealing with facts.

It's too bad that the diarist has so little respect for the facts that
he would present these bits of misinformation in this way, and present
them as facts.

You have done nothing more than speculate as to what happened. Which is
not all that much different from what others have done. When dealing with
the FACTS, the facts we are 100% sure of, it is clear the official story
does not address all these facts. The evidence of pre collapse explosions is
willfully ignored and must be considered since they are clearly directly
related to the collapses themselves. And it's not just one piece of video.
Here
are two video clips superimposed which both show evidence of the same
massive pre-collapse explosion. On one you see the pre-collapse shake, and
on the other you see the white smoke appear at the base of the tower which
is clearly related to the shake. And this is all backed up by countless
specific eyewitness accounts of the explosions. I will not dismiss this
evidence simply because it doesn't mesh with the official version of
events.

Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

by Iconoclast421 on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 04:25:53 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

What a joke (0
/ 0)

The building was on fire and was on the verge of collapsing.  And
you are surprised that it was shaking?  That explosions were
occurring in a burning building?  I don't get it.

by Mia
Dolan on Fri
Apr 28, 2006 at 11:59:28 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

is Mia Dolan (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Mike S

seriously failing to understand here, or is Mia Dolan really part of
something a tad more sinister?

by radwhitenblu on Sun
Apr 30, 2006 at 01:00:19 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Hey Douchebag (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

Welcome to DailyKos.  Next time you come in and drop 20
comments on a thread, try one that isn't already three days old.
Then maybe people will read and respond to the noise from your
ass which you have shared with us.

by Mia
Dolan on Mon
May 01, 2006 at 07:44:47 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Jay Esbe (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, slouise217, Mia Dolan

I believe that this is his new uid after getting auto banned on
the 28th. There is a 24hr waiting period before you can
post.

"I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the
beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete."
Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

by Mike
S on Mon
May 01, 2006 at 10:41:27 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Its somebody who got
banned (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
slouise217

and who will get banned again soon.  See the post below.

by Mia Dolan on Mon
May 01, 2006 at 11:42:55 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

You have been reported
(3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rita in DC, Avila, Eternal Hope

As a serial Conspiracy Theorist.

The buildings didn't fall at freefall OR near freefall
speeds. And there are structural engineers who have said that the
building fell in about the EXACT amount of time that one would expect it
to have fallen. You're wrong.

You're a distorter. I said that the buildings didn't fall
from fire alone. Liar. They fell from fire combined with structural
damage combined with loss of fire protection on the steel.

I'm saying that no COMPARABLE event has ever happened
before. Because no comparable event has ever happened before. This was
not simply a building hit by a plane. This was NOT simply a high-rise on
fire. NO comparable event has ever happened before. Pretty simple. SO
how did YOU get confused by it?

There has NEVER been conclusive proof that molten metal of
ANY variety was found minutes, hours, days or weeks after the collapse.
Yet you claim that you provided conclusive evidence. What a loon. It's
always been speculation.

It's really lame that you don't/can't/won't understand the
difference between the force that tons of weight hitting a surface will
have different effects upon that surface and upon the things hitting
that surface than a much lighter thing hitting a surface. Lame.

Too bad every competent structural engineer understands that
once the structural members that held the floor to the core and the
outside walls failed, it is perfectly reasonable for the building to
come down. It was the connection between the core columns and the
outside skin that held the building up. Neither could do the work alone.
In one building, the floors caused the core to fail, then the outside,
and vice versa in the other.

You have no evidence to prove that I dismiss ANY evidence
because it doesn't mesh with the official story!

...but not your own facts.

by slouise217 on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 02:29:09 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

slouise (0
/ 0)

He needs to be reported specifically for the threats he made, as well
as for his sock puppeting. Are you willing to do that, if you haven't
already reported those things?

Dean Democrat

by Rita in
DC on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 11:11:09 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Permalink |
395 comments

tgs1952, wonkydonkey, obgynlover, sp0t, mikenlola, bee, abbeysbooks, JenThinks, Thea VA, kittania, ej25, fourtytwo, quinque, TalkieToaster, Wbythebay, zorthron, pkbarbiedoll, Friend of the court, procera

Navigation

Menu

Home

radwhitenblu's
Page

Diaries

dKosopedia

Search

Logout

wide narrow

Tools

Your Hotlist

Advertising

Support Bloggers' Rights!

Candidates

Netroots Endorsed

Combined fundraising
page

Jon Tester
Senate
Montana

Francine Busby
House
California 50th CD

Ned Lamont
Senate
Connecticut

Eric Massa
House
New York 29th CD

Joe Sestak
House
Pennsylvania 7th CD

Daily Kos homepage

© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose
without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Privacy Policy

Powered by Scoop.