Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« At the Dem Debate in New Hamps... | Fearless Leader »

Sunday, June 3, 2007

Clinton at Dem Debate

posted by on June 3 at 17:28 PM

I’m fucking sick of politicians who represent New York—city or state—saying this in interviews, on TV, at debates, in their sleep, etc.:

“I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists.”

Hillary Clinton said that tonight in response to John Edwards calling Bush’s War on Terror “a political slogan, a bumper sticker.”

Hillary disagrees with Edwards. The War on Terror is real, and it’s made us safer. how does she know this? Because she saw—first hand!—the damage the terrorists did to NYC. End of discussion!

Apparently anyone who saw—first hand!—the damage terrorists did in New York, Washington DC, or to that field in Pennsylvania has a clearer understanding of… well, the damage terrorists can do to cities, office buildings, fields, etc. No point arguing with them about our post-9/11 policy or approaches, shortcomings or successes—hey, they saw.

This is total bullshit. We all saw what happened on 9/11—wherever we happened to be at the time of the attacks, we saw it. We saw it on television, we read about it in the newspapers, we heard about it on the radio. (George W. Bush wasn’t exactly having breakfast at Windows on the World, and neither was Hillary Clinton.) For weeks we saw, read, and heard about little besides the attacks. I think it’s safe to say that every American under the age of 12 is painfully aware of “the terrible damage that can be afflicted on our country by small band of terrorists.” And I very much doubt that John Edwards was unaware that terrorists brought down two 110-story office buildings in New York City, killing thousands in the process, before Hillary clued him in tonight.

Would someone please pry this idiotic, insulting, and supposedly argument-ending trump card—I’m from New York! I saw what can happen!—from the cold, calculating hands of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani? They’ve abused it enough already. It’s gotta stop.

We all lived through it, we all saw, we all know.

RSS icon Comments


Mike Daisy, in his newest monologue, talks about how people who weren't in New York that day can't possibly understand what it was like.

And he is right.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | June 3, 2007 6:44 PM

What... there are terrorists. HOLY SHIT

Posted by Giffy | June 3, 2007 6:49 PM

But what does understanding "what it was like" have to do with leading the country? I'm with Dan on this one.

Posted by Fnarf | June 3, 2007 6:55 PM

@1 And yet, somehow, some of the people of New York still manage to have an opinion beyond "Oh my God!" I don't know what it was like, but I know what the 7/7 attacks in London were like - I know how scary it is when a friend has left their goddamn phone turned off and you can't remember which tube line they had to take to get to their job interview, I know what it's like to have the streets filled with people shouting at their mobile phones and trying to stop police cars to get some idea of what is going on. I know.

I still have an opinion. I still think any politician who answers a question with "I was there," is an idiot. I was there too, it doesn't mean I can run a country.

Posted by Rebecca | June 3, 2007 7:48 PM

...Or write a coherent post.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | June 3, 2007 7:57 PM


Boomer - can you share some of your personal insights you think the rest of us may have missed?


Posted by Ayden | June 3, 2007 8:12 PM

@5 It was coherent. English grammar is light on comma-splices.

Posted by Rebecca | June 3, 2007 8:15 PM

While I do think that people who were in New York (or other urban centers that were potential targets in those few hours that no one knew what was going on) had/have a different experience or view of 9/11, I also think that that has nothing to do with a future President's ability to make decisions about how to run the country.

How's that for a run-on sentence.

Posted by Julie | June 3, 2007 8:37 PM

"We all lived through it."

Really, Dan? Because when I was wiping the dust out of my eyes evacuating people, did you have the same experience watching it on your plasma television?

I agree that it's a bullshit trump card for HIllary, Guiliani and Bush, but don't drag the people who actually lived in it into the same category.

Posted by Christian | June 3, 2007 8:54 PM

I was living in MN during 9/11. I thought at the time "thank goodness I live in an out of the way place." It felt different for those of us who were not directly in the bullseye.

Put another way, anybody think that if the bad guys got a nuke, they would use it anywhere other than New York or Washington?

I think New Yorkers and Washingtonians can speak about terrorism issues in a way that others can't. For us out here in the provinces, it's a philosophical exercise. For them, it's an ongoing reality.

I agree w/ you that it shouldn't be used by politicians for ad hominem attacks, though.

Posted by Big Sven | June 3, 2007 9:05 PM

Okay, then the person in charge of New York can run on it as an issue. Okay, the 99% of the rest of the country wasn't in a terror target, and the president is the president of 100% of the country (which I know is news to UN Ambassador Bolton, who said Bush was "president of the people who voted for him" on the Daily Show).

Posted by Andy Niable | June 3, 2007 9:34 PM

Dan, I completely agree with you. Whenever I hear "I say first hand!", it makes me cringe, regardless of whether Hillary or Guiliani says it. PLEASE STOP IT NOW!

Okay, I can maybe grant that New Yorkers and D.C.ers might have a different perspective, since they were, and probably always will be, the primary target for would-be terrorists.

But that doesn't grant Hillary or Guiliani (or any other New Yorker) mystical powers of perception that automatically makes them more qualified to fight terror.

When I hear the "I was there, I saw it first hand" line trotted out again and again, it is meaningless, and rings hollow. I would never have voted for Guiliani in the first place, but hearing Hillary trot this out makes me more inclined to vote for one of the other Dems who appear to treat it as a serious issue rather than a campaign slogan.

Posted by SDA in SEA | June 3, 2007 10:39 PM

Oh Please - 911 was a terrible event, yes. But was it the London Blitz? No. Was it the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake? No. Was it the siege of the Warsaw Ghetto? No. Was it the shelling of Beiruit? No. Was it the firebombing of Dresden? No. Was it even the Seattle Fire? No.

I could go on and on, but I hope those of normal intelligence, and normal levels of self-importance will get my point. Bad things happen to people - but unless you were on one of those planes, or on one of the floors of the WTC that were inescapable, you got through it. Stop milking it.

Posted by Boomers need to retire | June 3, 2007 10:40 PM

"Mike Daisey, in his newest monologue, talks about how people who weren't in New York that day can't possibly understand what it was like.

And he is right."

Since I've been invoked, I'd like to respond: I don't believe the piece in question actually makes the above statement--it talks about my experience being in New York that day, but the argument over whether people can or can not understand what that day was like for others isn't part of my work. It did create a rift between myself and my wife, which I explore in the piece.

That said, I think Dan is on the money with the abusive uses this "status" has been used for. It's insulting and purile that this tactic can be used to end conversations, and while I've mainly been victimized by GWB's use of that day for many ends, it's disheartening to listen to Hilary, Giuliani and countless others appropriate it for one end or another.

So I agree with Dan, but as usual his attack is a little bombastic--but better too loud than too quiet, I believe, and at the core he's right.

Posted by Mike Daisey | June 4, 2007 12:15 AM







Posted by Essex | June 4, 2007 1:09 AM

I don't think watching the attacks on TV versus being in Lower Manhattan or at the Pentagon when it happened is the same. For most people, being there matters.

For example, when Katrina happened, I could see how hard reporters were trying to explain the devastation, but knowing they weren't doing it justice no matter how hard they tried. (You could see it on their stunned faces.)

Anecdotedly, many folks I've spoken with about 9/11 admitted they felt very little about it because it was 3,000 miles away and they didn't know anyone who was killed. Intellectually, yes, emotionally? No. Especially those who had never been to eithe place.

That said, invoking 9/11 for political gain (or using it to avoid talking about the issues) is crass, period.

Posted by different | June 4, 2007 2:17 AM

I've seen the effects of cancer first hand but that doesn't mean I have any fucking idea how to cure it.

Posted by Giffy | June 4, 2007 6:59 AM

I think you mean "over the age of 12." Other than that I agree completely.

Posted by elswinger | June 4, 2007 7:11 AM


Posted by just push the caps lock key... | June 4, 2007 7:25 AM

I wasnít at Ground Zero wiping dust out of my eyes rescuing people (which is obviously a much different experience of 9/11), but I was definitely in a place where I felt threatened. Physically threatened. Like, oh shit, whatís going to happen next, we have to get out of here. I just think that results in a different view of the importance of and impact of 9/11, as well as a different psychological impact on the individual. It completely affected my view of the world. Every time I look out my office window and see a plane next to a skyscraper I think about 9/11. Which is pretty much every day. My friends and family who were not in potential danger that day do not feel the same way Ė seems like that is exactly what Mike Daisey is exploring in his piece.

I asked some of my family a few months ago what was the single world event that had the biggest impact on how they look at the world. For me, obviously, it was 9/11. For my mom and aunt, it was JFKís assassination (which I did not identify with at all Ė Presidents get assassinated, it had happened 3 times before, planes do not crash into buildings and kill 3,000 people). For my grandmother, it was Pearl Harbor. Obviously, we all can do math, and know that none of these events killed as many people as, say, the firebombing of Dresden, but itís not about that. In terms of an event's personal impact, your experience of the event is usually more important than the quantitative data on number of people killed or buildings destroyed (which is why something like Darfur is not being sufficiently addressed by our leaders).

But, again, the point of Danís post was that the fact that someone was a government leader during that time does not impact their ability to make decisions on the USís policy on terrorism in any way. Which, I donít think anybody here is arguing with.

Posted by Julie | June 4, 2007 7:58 AM

Dan, it's not just limited to politicians from NY State. Sept. 11 has become an official "new" excuse for a whole bunch of things...

1) Is one of the excuses why we will spend 1 trillion dollars (or more) on a war in Iraq, along with killing more of our own armed forces than that day's event;

2) Is the reason, on more than one occasion, an airline has either lost my luggage or charged me for something they didn't in the past ("our airline is barely making it, Sept 11 changed everything);

3) Is the reason that the border crossing at Blaine has become some version of Checkpoint Charlie when coming into the US;

4) Is the reason that fear has led this country to take away many civil liberties and enact laws which should chills down the spines of every American, which has led to the decline of our moral standing throughout the world...

and many other reasons.

Like mentioned above, New York is being rebuilt and a new multi billion dollar tower will go up in its place, but unless you're a tourist in New Orleans you have a good chance you're stuck in a shithole.

Sept 11 was terrible. But we dump billions down a sink hole on the basis of "we have to address Sept 11" in a Department of Homeland Security that has charged very few people with terrorist like crimeswhile we kill at least 10X more people a year through drunk driving, 5X more people a year through gun related domestic crime.

By the way Essex, if you're standing on that soapbox it must mean you either lost someone you knew and loved that day or was a part of trying to personally help/save someone that day. If you did, then I'm sorry for your loss but if not, then you can fuck off. As a former fireman I've had to tell too many moms that their kid just blew out the back of their head from a gun readily available to them or died from a drunk driver. I lost a friend that worked and died in those towers that day and he would be appalled at what has happened in and to this country since that time.

Posted by Dave Coffman | June 4, 2007 8:05 AM

Was Hillary actually in NYC on the morning, or is the claim just that she represented NY?

Posted by Jude Fawley | June 4, 2007 8:06 AM

Essex, of course the event is different for second and third parties, but that doesn't make their opinion any less valid. You could argue that the people who actually witnessed the event with their own two eyes are less capable of making critical decisions. After all, decisions based on fear are often the worst ones made. Fear made us believe the bullshit this administration spread. Fear got us into this goddam war. It's time to stop reacting to our emotions and start thinking.

Posted by Ebenezer | June 4, 2007 8:18 AM

I also was not there, but I saw the buildings before and I saw the giant hole in the ground long after.

I also remember work sending us all home. I remember a friend being stranded in another city and taking Amtrak home because there was no air travel. I remember my entire fucking country shutting down because of what happened in New York and Washington and being in disbelief because I never knew such a thing was even possible.

I did not have first hand knowledge day of, but we were all impacted. To think otherwise is ludicrous. We could see the damage on a national scale.

Posted by Dono | June 4, 2007 9:02 AM

perhaps those who were NOT there might have some PERSPECTIVE on the situation that would allow them to act with more consideration & reason than those who's passions are inflamed by the trauma of experiencing the event first-hand. for instance, the Dalai Lama wasn't there - but his response to 9/11 may have been smarter than president dumbfuck's.

it is a bullshit grab for moral authority & i don't want Hillary or Rudy to be president of shit.

Posted by maxsolomon | June 4, 2007 9:09 AM


Hilary was in DC on 9/11, I believe. However, she spent months bringing world leaders and US politicians to view the 9/11 sites to secure aid and sympathy for New York.

She was in NY almost everyday for 2 months dealing with the aftermath (if Frontline is to be believed anyway...)

Posted by Monique | June 4, 2007 10:00 AM

Actually Iím in favor of this rhetorical model ó as long as it can be universally employed. So, for example, if Dan was arguing gay rights with some right-wing asshole, he could just say, ďIíve seen the suffering caused by bigotry against queers first hand,Ē and have that be the end of the conversation. Or really, you donít even have to experience it; you just have to see it. So Iím an expert on homophobia, sexism, racism and anti-Semitism. Come to that, Iím an expert on avionics: Iíve seen how planes operate first hand. I mean, not up close. And I didnít really understand what I was looking at. But Iíve seen it first hand, so thatís it. End of conversation. STFU.

Hell, this is an awesome model for designating expertise. Fuck it, I should be president: Iím an expert on, like, everything.

Posted by Judah | June 4, 2007 10:34 AM

Julie wrote:

I was definitely in a place where I felt threatened. [...] Every time I look out my office window and see a plane next to a skyscraper I think about 9/11.

Do you also think about 9/11 every time you see a fire truck headed for a skyscraper?

Most of us seem to have forgotten, but at 5:20 p.m. on that day, another World Trade Center tower (WTC7, a.k.a., the Salomon Brothers Building) collapsed. This was a 47-story steel-framed building one block from the twin towers. No plane hit building 7. Some debris from the explosions of WTC1 and WTC2 hit it, and several fires burned on several floors for several hours.

Then it dropped -- straight down into its own footprint, in 6.6 seconds. Free-fall speed would have been 6 seconds, so it's clear that as the top of the building came down, the other 46 floors provided almost no resistance. It didn't crumple, or tilt towards the side with the debris damage, it just dropped straight down. Fire has never -- prior to or after 9/11 -- caused any steel-frame building to collapse.

Strange, huh?

The 9/11 Commission Report does not address the collapse of building 7.

Something is not right. Don't take my word for it; look into it yourself.

(Fnarf: Take a deep breath. No grand conspiracy is implied here; I'm just trying to bring attention to something that our press -- including The Stranger -- refuses to address. We all know very well by now that you are a firm believer in everything our government has to say about 9/11, and that you think anyone who questions our government's story is a nut.)

Posted by Phil M | June 4, 2007 1:34 PM

Phil, while I firmly believe that anyone who believes any of these cockamamie theories is either illiterate, a moron, or intentionally uniformed and therefore unlikely to hear any arguments. Here goes. Check out the Wiki article on the subject

It has been investigated, it is being investigated. So far there is no evidence of a controlled demolition.

I should add that it would kind of odd for the government to knock it down. Letís say your right an 911 was an inside job. Clearly bringing down the trade centers, by apparently firing missiles from planes and then ramming said planes into the building would have a big effect. Why in gods name would they take down 7? What possible purpose would it serve to knock down a third building in what would clearly be kind of suspicious. Why not just hit the big buildings. Plus the sheer logistics of secretly rigging buildings, occupied building, without anyone noticing is well, letís just say, mind numbing.

You come up with a theory that is not absurd on its face and maybe people will listen.

Posted by Giffy | June 4, 2007 4:39 PM

So not to be all "with her own eyes" about this, but one of my best friends lived less than half a block from the WTC on 9/11 and was home when the planes hit. She was right there for the whole thing and she says the biggest mistake most people make is to downplay how fucked up WTC 7 was when it collapsed. The burning wreckage that landed on the tower wasn't just "some debris". It was tons of burning concrete and steel dropped on the tower from more than 100 feet up, then left there to burn uncontrolled because all the firefighters had just been killed in the tower collapses.

So yeah. The building fell down. Not nearly as surprising as you might have been led to believe.

Posted by Judah | June 4, 2007 5:12 PM

I think DC was probably just as traumatized as New York. I remember waking up that morning and hearing "Morning Edition", and the host (was it still Bob Edwards?) talking about all the rumors: A car bomb at the state department, tear gas on the mall.

I'm not giving Hillary any points here, but I can see where DC wouldn't have been a picnic either.

As for WTC 7, I would find it completely acceptable if the authorities had decided to demo it because of its unsafe condition. What I think is weird is that they wouldn't admit it. But then again, we've seldom had such a paranoid administration - and you have to admit there was a lot of stuff in there that they would have been glad to be rid of.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | June 4, 2007 5:47 PM


Giffy wrote:

I firmly believe that anyone who believes any of these cockamamie theories is either illiterate, a moron, or intentionally uniformed and therefore unlikely to hear any arguments.

Nice of you to go into this with an open mind.

According to a 2004 Zogby poll, half of New Yorkers believe our leaders had foreknowledge and failed to act. Following is quoted from an August 30, 2004, Zogby press release:

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and ďConsciously FailedĒ To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New Yorkís Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

Another Zogby poll, conducted in May, 2006, indicates that 42% of Americans think there has been a government coverup of the events surrounding 9/11.

A 2006 survey conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found (quoting their August 2, 2006 press release):

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East

Giffy wrote:

Check out the [Wikipedia] article on the subject

That article states that FEMA believes their best hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurrence":

In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse.[6] FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was primarily caused by fires on multiple stories (which were started by debris from the other two towers), and not by the actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC. The report noted that, before this collapse, there had been little, if any, record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building, such as 7 WTC.

The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

I'll add the following about the FEMA investigation:

  • No independent investigation was funded.
  • FEMA assembled a group of volunteer investigators: the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), and gave them a budget of $600,000 to create their report.
  • FEMA's investigators lacked subpoena power.
  • They were not allowed to see the buildings' blueprints.
  • The investigators were barred from Ground Zero. They were only allowed to examine the few large pieces of steel in salvage yards.
  • Engineers examined no steel until late October. Salvage yards were visited on 57 days by March 15.

As for the steel -- the evidence of this horrific crime -- the city accepted a plan for recycling of the steel by a company called Controlled Demolition, Inc., 11 days after the attack. Most of it was sent to blast furnaces in China and India. Trucks hauling steel off the site were specially fitted with GPS receivers to track their locations.

The Wikipedia article goes on to exlain that NIST is still conducting their investigation (it doesn't mention that they pushed WTC7 out of their initial report and have since postponed the supplemental report several times and then outsourced it) and that they are having trouble understanding what happened:

In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floorsĒ; he added "But truthfully, I donít really know. Weíve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".

Also, see this response to NIST's FAQs.

Then the Wikipedia article sites a Popular Mechanics FAQ that displays a photo of questionable authenticity showing damage to the base of WTC 7. If as Popular Mechanics states, that building really had a large chunk taken out of its base, wouldn't you expect it to have fallen asymmetrically?

Note that soon before Popular Mechanics began its disinformation campaign with their May, 2005, "Debunking the 9/11 Lies" article by Ben Chertoff (yes, he is related to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff), some big changes were made at the magazine.

Christopher Bollyn wrote the following for American Free Press on March 19, 2005 (sorry, I've reached my two-hyperlink Slog comment limit, but this is easy to find):

In the months leading up to the Chertoff article in PM, a brutal take-over occurred at the magazine. In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazines former editor-in-chief was replaced by James B. Meigs, who came to PM with a deputy, Jerry Beilinson, from National Geographic Adventure. In October, a new creative director replaced PMs 21-year veteran who was given ninety minutes to clear out of his office.

A former senior editor at PM, who is forbidden from openly discussing the coup at PM, told AFP that the former creative director was abruptly told to leave and given severance pay of two weeks wages for every year spent at PM. Three or four people have been similarly dismissed every month since, he said. He said he was astounded that the coup at PM had not been reported in the mainstream media.

Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Magazines. The president of Hearst, Cathleen P. Black, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is married to Thomas E. Harvey, who served as special assistant to the director of the CIA. Harvey also served as General Counsel and Congressional Liaison of the U.S. Information Agency, the former external propaganda arm of the U.S. government, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army and Navy, and as personnel director for the Bush-Quayle 92 Campaign.

Coincidence theorists will, no doubt, brush this all aside and cite Popular Mechanics as unbiased experts on the events surrounding 9/11.

It has been investigated


it is being investigated.


So far there is no evidence of a controlled demolition.


At the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas in April of this year, BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones described electron microscope analysis of WTC steel samples indicating the use of thermate, an incendiary compound used to cut steel for demolition purposes.

Griffy wrote:

I should add that it would kind of odd for the government to knock it down.

Who said anything about the government knocking it down? I certainly didn't.

Letís say your right an 911 was an inside job.

I didn't say that, either.

Clearly bringing down the trade centers, by apparently firing missiles from planes and then ramming said planes into the building would have a big effect.

Missiles? What the hell are you talking about?

Why in gods name would they take down 7?

Well, off the top of my head... Big insurance settlement for Larry Silverstein? He owned building 7 (and had just signed a 99-year lease for the rest of WTC in July, 2001) -- he got an $861 million payout on his $386 million investment for WTC 7 alone. Destruction of SEC records of the WorldCom and Enron scandals? (Along with several financial institutions, this building had offices for CIA, DOD, IRS, SEC, EEOC, and Secret Service.)

What possible purpose would it serve to knock down a third building in what would clearly be kind of suspicious.

Your sentence doesn't make sense, but I've already mentioned a couple possible purposes. And as for being suspicious, it doesn't really matter, does it? No matter how suspicious it looks, with enough propaganda, people like yourself can be convinced to attack people like myself whenever we try to point out the suspiciousness of the situation.

Why not just hit the big buildings.

Come on, Giffy. This was a 47-story building! It was a big building.

Plus the sheer logistics of secretly rigging buildings, occupied building, without anyone noticing is well, letís just say, mind numbing.

Damn straight it is. It still sends chills down my back. 13 months ago I would have told you it was impossible. Now I don't think so. I mean really, how many people can tell the difference between the cable guy and the explosives-rigging guy? If you happen to be in the stairwell of a skyscraper and there's some maintenance guy wiring up a box on the wall, what is your first thought likely to be? I bet it's not, "holy shit, I think that guy is wiring this building for demolition."

Sure, it would be expensive, but we print our own money, right? Plus, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001, that the Department of Defense cannot account for 2.3 TRILLION dollars (yeah, we all forgot about that, but it's true -- see "Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds ó $2.3 Trillion", CBS News, Jan. 29, 2002). Five to fifteen million dollars' worth of Iraqi oil has gone misisng every day for the past four years (so, there's $7B to $22B; see "Billions in Oil Missing in Iraq, US Study Finds", New York Times, May 12, 2007). We handed out 365 TONS of cash in Iraq (see "Dems attack Bremer for doling cash in Iraq", Seattle Times, February 27, 2007). So resources aren't likely to be a problem, when you think about it.

You come up with a theory that is not absurd on its face and maybe people will listen.

You imply that I have presented a theory. I very specifically did not. I'm only pointing out that the collapse of WTC 7 was very suspicious.

Posted by Phil M | June 5, 2007 4:06 AM

So Silverstien, a rather rich men, in an attempt to get an insurance payout equal to the value of the buildings, decides to fly some planes into said buildings and then use explosives to bring down another. Why not just sell the damn thing. It doesn't really make any sense. Or are you saying that someone else did the towers then he did 7. Was it terrorists or the government. If it was the government and they were helping him get the insurance money, would it not have been easier to just secretly give him some cash. Why stage an elaborate terrorist attack and then let some guy knock down a third building for a little cash. Seems awfully complicated. There are easier ways to get money and destroy records, much easier. Hell shred em and blame it on the intern.

By the way here is a nice site with pictures showing the pretty severe fires.
And the damage to 7

Buildings may looks solid but they are really not. Essentially all they are is floors held up by columns. Like this

| | | |
| | | |

You weaken the columns, especially ones wit ha floors above them and the columns give way. That starts a chain reaction collapsing the building. With WTC7 you have a building hit with very fast and likely quite large debris, this damaged the structure and started fires. Those fires weakened the supports and the building fell.

Posted by Giffy | June 5, 2007 8:42 AM

Rest of the links "Damn you spam filter"
And the insurance money
And termite

Posted by Giffy | June 5, 2007 8:43 AM


So Silverstien, a rather rich men, in an attempt to get an insurance payout equal to the value of the buildings, decides to fly some planes into said buildings and then use explosives to bring down another.

That doesn't seem very likely to me. Where do you get these crazy theories?

Enough with the straw men, okay?

I don't know why someone might have wanted to bring the building down. I don't know why someone would have wanted to build it. Neither of these facts makes it any less likely that the building was built or demolished.

As for your ASCII art engineering diagram, I can't say if it's accurate or not. I'm guessing it's a little over-simplified. The chain reaction part, I can grasp. Only this didn't happen like a chain reaction in which one failure led to another, which led to another, etc., because it would have taken longer. This thing fell as if the lower floors provided no resistance to the upper floors -- like the whole thing was broken apart at the same instant and then the remaining fragments just dropped straight down.

I can't explain this, FEMA couldn't explain it, the 9/11 Commission did not even mention it, and five years into their investigation, NIST still has yet to explain it.

The images on the site to which you linked suggest that the smoke spread farther than others I have seen do. Why did FEMA not have these? What about NIST? Do you think there has been some kind of conspiracy to hide the evidence?

I, along with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, want an independent investigation of this crime. Bush originally appointed Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 Commission, but Kissinger resigned the day after the FSC asked him to disclose whether he had Saudis named Bin Laden as clients. The executive director was Phillip Zelikow, a Bush insider. No one testified under oath. Bush and Cheney refused to testify separately. FEMA's investigation was done with volunteers, and they were not allowed access to the crime scene. NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Its directors are all Bush appointees.

This isn't a Bush-bash; if Clinton (or Gore or Kucinich, for that matter) had been in charge when it happened, I wouldn't want their people running the investigation, either.

If you want to trust the same people who lied to us about Iraq and who knows what else, fine, but I don't. As far as I'm concerned, they have lost their credibility.

We owe it to the people who died, and we owe it to ourselves, to find out what happened and prosecute those who were responsible. We have done neither, and it's very unlikely that we will if we settle for an investigation controlled by suspects. If you don't like to think of them as suspects (as you might if you presuppose the story they told us hours after the crime was committed) substitute "the people who could have prevented it" or "the people who should have prevented it" or "the people who benefited from it by using it as justification for their pre-existing war plans and Constitutional restrictions". Either way, why the hell were they running the investigation?

If you don't care what I think (and why should you?) at least go see this list of unanswered questions from the Family Steering Committee. Are those questions answered on your myth buster site, Gilfy?

Posted by Phil M | June 5, 2007 9:56 AM


Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 12:42 PM


Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 12:42 PM


Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 12:43 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).