John Pilger on 9/11, LIHOP and its role in the new cold war

Journalist and Filmmaker John Pilger on 9/11
911blogger.com...

Pilger's answer to a question at the Anarchist Bookfair 2010 held in London.
Audience Question: "I would like to ask your views or theory that the US government was complicit in or even perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 to gain support for criminal [inaudible] Afghanistan and Iraq?"

John Pilger: "I think there is a lot of evidence that certain elements in the Bush administration, whether by intent or by or by their own arrogant incompetence, I don't know, let things happen."

So he is saying the evidence points to the US government of either being incompetent or somewhere down the line helping the attacks by not stopping them. The sound quality on the clip is not great but Pilger mentions Cheney and NORAD's actions as suspect or rather part of the evidence. One blogger on the site notes that a Let It Happen On Purpose verdict still amounts to being an accessory after the fact but we all know the way lawyers work and Pilger gets himself off the hook by not committing himself to a final position.

Pilger goes on "There is no doubt that 9/11 became the opportunity for a new "Cold War" basically, only called the "War on Terror"". It seems Pilger here is quite clear and maybe feels on safe ground because of all the evidence to back this aspect up, surely no one would disagree that 9/11 was the reason the US could launch its new cold war, a war that has only been a benefit to a few. But so few seems to notice this.

More from Pilger
video.google.com...#
Palestine is Still the Issue, video.google.com...#
Breaking the silence - Truth and lies in the war on terror, video.google.ca...#
www.johnpilger.com...

...but that necessarily means that the 9/11 attack genuinely was an attack by Islamic fundamentalists, the fires genuinely did bring the WTC down, and that cell phones genuinely can be used from airplanes. The difference is that Bush allowed it to happen, rather than invented all that himself.

Believe it or not, you can expect to be pigeon holed into the same box as us "the gov'ts incompetence let the 9/11 attack to succeed" theorists- the rank and file conspiracy theorists will completely ignore your theory simply becuase even though technically it's a conspriacy, it isn't sinister sounding enough to placate anyone's abject paranoia.

The Let It Happen theory assumes that it is possible for an airliner weighing less than 200 tons to totally destroy a skyscraper weighing over 400,000 tons in less than 2 hours even though such buildings MUST be designed to hold themselves up and withstand the wind.

When has it been PROVEN that an airliner can do that? Apparently we can't even be told the tons of steel on the 80th, 81st and 82nd stories of the south tower where the plane hit.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
When has it been PROVEN that an airliner can do that?

Apparently we can't even be told the tons of steel on the 80th, 81st and 82nd stories of the south tower where the plane hit.

psik

Apparently, the events of 911 showed that large commercial aircraft travelling at high speed can cause severe enough structural damage to WTC structures that uncontrolled fires will subsequently bring them down.

What does your second sentence mean?

Originally posted by pteridine
Apparently, the events of 911 showed that large commercial aircraft travelling at high speed can cause severe enough structural damage to WTC structures that uncontrolled fires will subsequently bring them down.

What does your second sentence mean?

It means that the people who believe in obvious rubbish don't need to ask for details.

The fuselage of the aircraft hit the south tower at the 81st floor. But since it was 17 feet in diameter and the floors were 12 feet apart at least two levels were seriously impacted. That means there had to be enough steel there to support the weight of another 29 stories. The plane impacted at 550 mph but the building only deflected 15 inches and oscillated for four minutes. Doesn't sound too feeble to me. So how did that much steel weaken in less than one hour and yet in NINE YEARS we can't be told the tons of steel on each level.

So if people BELIEVE in the 9/11 Religion then their FAITH sustains them and precludes the need to ask obvious questions. LOL

psik

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


Starred and flagged for the the Pilger content, afaik this is his most, hmm, supportive mention of any of the 911 events, though I will admit I haven't looked at his site or looked elsewhere for his work for a good few years, but he's still a very clever well connected good guy with awesome research skills, I await more

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It means that the people who believe in obvious rubbish don't need to ask for details.

The fuselage of the aircraft hit the south tower at the 81st floor. But since it was 17 feet in diameter and the floors were 12 feet apart at least two levels were seriously impacted. That means there had to be enough steel there to support the weight of another 29 stories. The plane impacted at 550 mph but the building only deflected 15 inches and oscillated for four minutes. Doesn't sound too feeble to me. So how did that much steel weaken in less than one hour and yet in NINE YEARS we can't be told the tons of steel on each level.

So if people BELIEVE in the 9/11 Religion then their FAITH sustains them and precludes the need to ask obvious questions. LOL

Dear LOL,
There was enough steel there to support the weight of 29 stories until it was weakened by fire. How did that much steel weaken? Because that much steel was exposed to fire after the impact had removed the fireproofing. As to tons of steel on each level, that should be readly estimated from the building plans. Previously, you were complaining about not being provided the weight of each floor and it was explained to you that the amount of interior drywall partitions and office furnishings were unknown and, hence, the weights of individual floors were unknown.
I hope your faith continues to sustain you.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It means that the people who believe in obvious rubbish don't need to ask for details.

The fuselage of the aircraft hit the south tower at the 81st floor. But since it was 17 feet in diameter and the floors were 12 feet apart at least two levels were seriously impacted. That means there had to be enough steel there to support the weight of another 29 stories. The plane impacted at 550 mph but the building only deflected 15 inches and oscillated for four minutes. Doesn't sound too feeble to me. So how did that much steel weaken in less than one hour and yet in NINE YEARS we can't be told the tons of steel on each level.

So if people BELIEVE in the 9/11 Religion then their FAITH sustains them and precludes the need to ask obvious questions. LOL

Dear LOL,
There was enough steel there to support the weight of 29 stories until it was weakened by fire. How did that much steel weaken? Because that much steel was exposed to fire after the impact had removed the fireproofing. As to tons of steel on each level, that should be readly estimated from the building plans. Previously, you were complaining about not being provided the weight of each floor and it was explained to you that the amount of interior drywall partitions and office furnishings were unknown and, hence, the weights of individual floors were unknown.
I hope your faith continues to sustain you.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It means that the people who believe in obvious rubbish don't need to ask for details.

The fuselage of the aircraft hit the south tower at the 81st floor. But since it was 17 feet in diameter and the floors were 12 feet apart at least two levels were seriously impacted. That means there had to be enough steel there to support the weight of another 29 stories. The plane impacted at 550 mph but the building only deflected 15 inches and oscillated for four minutes. Doesn't sound too feeble to me. So how did that much steel weaken in less than one hour and yet in NINE YEARS we can't be told the tons of steel on each level.

So if people BELIEVE in the 9/11 Religion then their FAITH sustains them and precludes the need to ask obvious questions. LOL

Dear LOL,
There was enough steel there to support the weight of 29 stories until it was weakened by fire. How did that much steel weaken? Because that much steel was exposed to fire after the impact had removed the fireproofing. As to tons of steel on each level, that should be readly estimated from the building plans. Previously, you were complaining about not being provided the weight of each floor and it was explained to you that the amount of interior drywall partitions and office furnishings were unknown and, hence, the weights of individual floors were unknown.
I hope your faith continues to sustain you.

I make a point of distinguishing between floor and LEVEL. The floor outside the core was about 600 tons of concrete. I have never seen the tons to steel specified for the corrugated pans and trusses. My estimate is somewhat less than 200 tons. But the amount of steel in the core columns and horizontal beams and perimeter columns varied because that is what supported the weight all of the way down the building. The core columns were not evenly spaced and I have never seen a floor plane that described how the horizontal beams in the core were arranged. The people claiming all this stuff is in the floor plans are talking complete rubbish. The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers even though in two places they admit that the distribution of mass for the bu8lding must be known to analyze the airliner impact.

So this CLAIM that all of the fireproofing was knocked off is only that, A CLAIM. Believers don't need facts. Even if the fireproofing were knocked off it still takes TIME for steel to rise to a sufficient temperature to weaken. How much time depends on the temperature applied and the QUANTITY OF STEEL. There was no one there measuring the temperature and the paint deformation tests that the NIST did say the temperature was TOO LOW. So data that we should be able to get is the QUANTITY OF STEEL which should not have changed in the previous 30 years.

So why don't we have it after NINE YEARS and why aren't most experts saying it is important?

Curious that the nation that put men on the Moon can't supply something that simple.

But BELIEVERS in the HOCT don't need accurate data.

Holey Official Conspiracy Theory

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The time to heat some quantity of steel to a given temperature would depend on the heat produced by the fires, the Cp of the steel, and transfer coefficients. Heat could be transferred convectively and radiatively and would be different for insulated steel and uninsuated steel. You also seem to be assuming that all steel must be heated and that the fires are homogenously distributed.
These unknowns and the unknown amount of fuel available to the fires will make this a complicated calculation that will require a good deal of estimation which, in itself, may actually dictate the answer you get.

reply to post by pteridine

Apparently, the events of 911 showed that large commercial aircraft travelling at high speed can cause severe enough structural damage to WTC structures that uncontrolled fires will subsequently bring them down.

That has “never been proven” and if you want to cling to the NIST report, that has already been debunked.
This also proves that some people will believe in anything as long as the government says it.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The time to heat some quantity of steel to a given temperature would depend on the heat produced by the fires, the Cp of the steel, and transfer coefficients. Heat could be transferred convectively and radiatively and would be different for insulated steel and uninsuated steel. You also seem to be assuming that all steel must be heated and that the fires are homogenously distributed.
These unknowns and the unknown amount of fuel available to the fires will make this a complicated calculation that will require a good deal of estimation which, in itself, may actually dictate the answer you get.

So you are claiming that the QUANTITY OF STEEL has no effect on the time it take to raise its temperature?

You are saying that if all other factors remain constant that raising the temperature of 100 tons of steel 10 degrees C would take the same time as raising that of 10 tons of steel or 500 tons of steel?

[B]RIDICULOUS![/B]

Ask a cook if it takes the same amount of time to cook a turkey regardless of the size of the turkey.

LOL

So this BS being dragged on into the tenth year is the result of intellectual absurdity of vast proportions. Too many people want to believe bull#. Why so many people are helping them believe it is a more complicated issue.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So you are claiming that the QUANTITY OF STEEL has no effect on the time it take to raise its temperature?

You are saying that if all other factors remain constant that raising the temperature of 100 tons of steel 10 degrees C would take the same time as raising that of 10 tons of steel or 500 tons of steel?

[B]RIDICULOUS![/B]

Ask a cook if it takes the same amount of time to cook a turkey regardless of the size of the turkey.

That is not what I said at all. The fires may not have been homogenous and they may not have heated all of the steel; only enough to cause failure.There will have to be a lot of assumptions on your part and the assumptions that you must make may determine the outcome.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So you are claiming that the QUANTITY OF STEEL has no effect on the time it take to raise its temperature?

You are saying that if all other factors remain constant that raising the temperature of 100 tons of steel 10 degrees C would take the same time as raising that of 10 tons of steel or 500 tons of steel?

RIDICULOUS!

Ask a cook if it takes the same amount of time to cook a turkey regardless of the size of the turkey.

That is not what I said at all. The fires may not have been homogenous and they may not have heated all of the steel; only enough to cause failure.There will have to be a lot of assumptions on your part and the assumptions that you must make may determine the outcome.

What ASSUMPTION am I making by saying we don't know the amount of steel on every level and that we should know that to analyze this incident?

You are operating in a logical circle of ignorance. If we just BELIEVE enough steel could get hot enough to cause total failures in 56 minutes and 102 minutes then we don't need to know how much steel was there to be weakened or how it could have conducted heat away from the fire. YEAH RIGHT!

Why weren't the experts demanding to know the distributions of steel and concrete within weeks of 9/11? The trouble is if they say that information is important and demand it now then they will look pretty stupid for not having done so 9 years ago.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

What ASSUMPTION am I making by saying we don't know the amount of steel on every level and that we should know that to analyze this incident?

You are operating in a logical circle of ignorance. If we just BELIEVE enough steel could get hot enough to cause total failures in 56 minutes and 102 minutes then we don't need to know how much steel was there to be weakened or how it could have conducted heat away from the fire. YEAH RIGHT!

Why weren't the experts demanding to know the distributions of steel and concrete within weeks of 9/11? The trouble is if they say that information is important and demand it now then they will look pretty stupid for not having done so 9 years ago.

Your outrage is noted. You want to know how much steel was on each level. You aren't making any assumptions yet, other than your implication that all steel was heated to the same temperature by homogenous fires. To do any sort of calculations, you will have to make some assumptions regarding the amount of fuel available and the distributions of the fuel on the levels in question. If you assume that there was enough fuel to burn for two hours and that all steel was heated to 1000 F, you may be able to do some calculations but what would they prove? The structure was compromised, you can count the damaged columns. Some insulation was probably removed during the impact but you don't know how much. The core column damage is not known. Your assumptions for your calculation will dictate the outcome. If you say all the insulation was removed or none of the insulation was removed, it will make a difference in the time to failure. As I see it, about all you could do would be a sensitivity study using various scenarios and then try to match them to the visual evidence. Unfortunately, you really don't have enough information to prove anything one way or the other with your calculations. My bet is that the data is just not available.

Originally posted by pteridine
You aren't making any assumptions yet, other than your implication that all steel was heated to the same temperature by homogenous fires. To do any sort of calculations, you will have to make some assumptions regarding the amount of fuel available and the distributions of the fuel on the levels in question. If you assume that there was enough fuel to burn for two hours and that all steel was heated to 1000 F, you may be able to do some calculations but what would they prove?

I never implied any such thing.

How can there be any such thing as a homogeneous fire except under deliberate artificially created conditions?

Column sections were 36 feet long. The ends were connected to other columns and beams. Heat would be conducted away from the fire under almost any circumstances. But the amount of TIME required to heat the steel to the point of weakening would be affected by the amount of steel no matter what.

So why isn't such an obvious fact mentioned and explained in NINE YEARS?

Someone did a calculation long ago with various simplifying assumptions. But the conclusion is not gratifying to believers in a fire induced collapse.

911research.wtc7.net...

One would think it would be possible to compute the amount of energy required if the quantity of steel were known and then calculate the fuel requirements. If those fuel requirements turned out to be obviously ridiculous then....

But most people seem to be operating on the BELIEVE THE FORE COULD SO IT and let it go at that.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I never implied any such thing.

How can there be any such thing as a homogeneous fire except under deliberate artificially created conditions?

Column sections were 36 feet long. The ends were connected to other columns and beams. Heat would be conducted away from the fire under almost any circumstances. But the amount of TIME required to heat the steel to the point of weakening would be affected by the amount of steel no matter what.

So why isn't such an obvious fact mentioned and explained in NINE YEARS?

Someone did a calculation long ago with various simplifying assumptions. But the conclusion is not gratifying to believers in a fire induced collapse.
One would think it would be possible to compute the amount of energy required if the quantity of steel were known and then calculate the fuel requirements. If those fuel requirements turned out to be obviously ridiculous then....

But most people seem to be operating on the BELIEVE THE FORE COULD SO IT and let it go at that.

psik

How will you deal with the distribution of fuel within the fire? As the fires burned from the impacts to the collapses, there was enough fuel present. If there was enough fuel present for a continuous burn, how would you estimate temperatures of individual components?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I never implied any such thing.

How can there be any such thing as a homogeneous fire except under deliberate artificially created conditions?

Column sections were 36 feet long. The ends were connected to other columns and beams. Heat would be conducted away from the fire under almost any circumstances. But the amount of TIME required to heat the steel to the point of weakening would be affected by the amount of steel no matter what.

So why isn't such an obvious fact mentioned and explained in NINE YEARS?

Someone did a calculation long ago with various simplifying assumptions. But the conclusion is not gratifying to believers in a fire induced collapse.
One would think it would be possible to compute the amount of energy required if the quantity of steel were known and then calculate the fuel requirements. If those fuel requirements turned out to be obviously ridiculous then....

But most people seem to be operating on the BELIEVE THE FORE COULD SO IT and let it go at that.

psik

How will you deal with the distribution of fuel within the fire? As the fires burned from the impacts to the collapses, there was enough fuel present. If there was enough fuel present for a continuous burn, how would you estimate temperatures of individual components?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I never implied any such thing.

How can there be any such thing as a homogeneous fire except under deliberate artificially created conditions?

Column sections were 36 feet long. The ends were connected to other columns and beams. Heat would be conducted away from the fire under almost any circumstances. But the amount of TIME required to heat the steel to the point of weakening would be affected by the amount of steel no matter what.

So why isn't such an obvious fact mentioned and explained in NINE YEARS?

Someone did a calculation long ago with various simplifying assumptions. But the conclusion is not gratifying to believers in a fire induced collapse.
One would think it would be possible to compute the amount of energy required if the quantity of steel were known and then calculate the fuel requirements. If those fuel requirements turned out to be obviously ridiculous then....

But most people seem to be operating on the BELIEVE THE FORE COULD SO IT and let it go at that.

psik

How will you deal with the distribution of fuel within the fire? As the fires burned from the impacts to the collapses, there was enough fuel present. If there was enough fuel present for a continuous burn, how would you estimate temperatures of individual components?

The NIST already did the with paint deformation tests. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD years ago.

www.youtube.com...

This entire event is already ridiculous based on existing data. We just have lots of people eager to believe obvious nonsense as long as someone will tell them what they want to hear.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The NIST already did the with paint deformation tests. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD years ago.

This entire event is already ridiculous based on existing data. We just have lots of people eager to believe obvious nonsense as long as someone will tell them what they want to hear.

psik

Would that be the red paint that Steven Jones desperately wants to be thermite?

"We just have lots of people eager to believe obvious nonsense as long as someone will tell them what they want to hear."