NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish Pubs Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > People and Politics > Stop Press: New Yorkers don't like Muslims or Ground Zero mosque says new poll

People and Politics by Patrick Roberts

Stop Press: New Yorkers don't like Muslims or Ground Zero mosque says new poll

Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Larger Text

E-mail

129 Comments

15 - 129 | See all comments

maloney | Sep 19, 2010, 09:41 AM EDT

But not with yourself dennis, it will make you go blind.

Report abuse

Monsoonman | Sep 18, 2010, 11:53 PM EDT

Dennis, me fine friend....Give it a rest. Surprise suicide attacks can work wonders especially when domestic aircraft are used as weapons of mass destruction. NORAD was looking for an outside enemy, not our own domestic aircraft in our own airspace used against us....now run along and play.

Report abuse

DennisQ | Sep 18, 2010, 11:21 PM EDT

You aren't asking enough questions, Monsoonman. It wasn't ingenuity that allowed the terrorist to penetrate NORAD's defenses. Those hijackers were up in the air from 7:59 in the morning until 10:03. That's more than two hours of air time for enemies to be flying around in well-defended American air space.

That fact alone should make you curious about what happened. But for some reason you've lost any sense of skepticism. Will the real Monsoonman please come forward? How long have you been on this planet that you're so trusting? Two HOURS!!

Report abuse

Monsoonman | Sep 17, 2010, 09:53 PM EDT

The ingenious terrorists started the fire then set the "silent" demolition charges to go off EXACTLY 7 hours after the fire started. The building was brought down exactly according to schedule, perfectly planned and executed.

Report abuse

hancock | Sep 17, 2010, 10:51 AM EDT

I saw it. The whole building was on fire at 11, when I got there, ans continued to burn until about 4. What happened DENNIS?

Report abuse

DennisQ | Sep 17, 2010, 02:52 AM EDT

Not everyone agrees that the fire was as big as you say it was, hancock. Photographs don't show 40 floors of fire. But even if there were a raging, all-consuming fire, the building collapsed in a really improbable way. The roof kept its integrity throughout the collapse and fell straight down at an accelerating rate of speed.

You've never addressed the improbability of this collapse on cue. The support columns had to give way in just the right sequence and at just the right time in order for the building to collapse the way it did. This non-random result of a random process is the main reason skeptics believe the collapse was intelligently directed. I haven't speculated on what the nature of that intelligent direction might be, but it can't be ignored.

Report abuse

hancock | Sep 17, 2010, 01:43 AM EDT

It was 40 fls of fire that weakened the steel structure bldg. I watched it burn for 7 hrs. The bldg collapsed because of that. Now if you think that's impossible, show some guts for once and tell us your theory.

Report abuse

Monsoonman | Sep 17, 2010, 12:52 AM EDT

A high rise makes a perfect chimney...think about it boy....think.

Report abuse

DennisQ | Sep 16, 2010, 10:12 PM EDT

What are the odds that a randomly selected key will open a given lock? The fire hypothesis relies on just this sort of improbability. NIST's analysis stops at a point where collapse, it says, is "inevitable." But that's not the entire question.

Aside to hancock: Aviation fuel doesn't burn especially hot, nor is it especially volatile. It's just kerosene. In Japan they get it delivered to their homes for heating oil. However, the point is moot. Building Seven was not hit by a plane.

Report abuse

Monsoonman | Sep 16, 2010, 09:03 PM EDT

Dennis you should come out to Cali when we have our Santa Ana firestorms that sweep through housing subdivisions. NOTHING is left as the temperatures of the fires skyrocket into steel melting temperatures. Even the concrete foundations are crumbled and the steel inside of them melted. Get a grip lad you really are barking up the wrong tree. You know not what you speaketh.

Report abuse

DennisQ | Sep 16, 2010, 05:53 PM EDT

You haven't addressed the more important problem, the apparent "choreography" of the failure of the support columns. They all failed just at the right time and in the correct sequence to bring the building down into its own footprint.

This is a more serious problem than the acceleration because each separate failure is a non-trivial event by itself. The sequence of these failures suggests that they did not occur randomly - which would have happened if they were caused by fire alone. The collapse of Building Seven was too orderly to have occurred at random.

Report abuse

hancock | Sep 16, 2010, 11:42 AM EDT

Miles of commercial carpet, thousands of computers. miles and miles of wire, a lot of stuff that will burn hot. Especially when coated w aviation fuel stretching 400 feet. Dennis show some guts and tell us what you think happened.

Report abuse

DennisQ | Sep 16, 2010, 05:21 AM EDT

There are several problems with the theory that Building Seven collapsed because of fire. The first is finding a source for combustion temperatures that will cause steel to fail as extensively as supporters of that theory claim. What was in that building that would burn that hot?

A second, more important problem is that fire is too random a process to produce the choreographed failures that had to have occurred so that the roof maintained its integrity while falling at an increasing speed. There's no question about the acceleration - you can see it on a time-lapse montage photograph. What you don't see are the solid objects apparently disintegrating a moment before. These 24 interior columns and 57 exterior columns had to have failed simultaneously. The anomaly is greater than the collapse itself; it's that the collapse appears to have been directed.

Report abuse

hancock | Sep 16, 2010, 12:56 AM EDT

So the 40 fls of fire were a diversion?

Report abuse

DennisQ | Sep 16, 2010, 12:28 AM EDT

Forty floors of fire don't cause eighty-one supporting columns to collapse all at once, which is implied by the uniformity of the collapse. If there was a roaring fire as you suggest, it may indeed have caused local failures. But eighty-one columns collapsing at once suggest a choreography that NIST hasn't even attempted to explain. Their refusal to allow scholars to analize their calculations does not work in their favor.

It seems to me very improbable that all the components would fail at exactly the same time. Without committing myself to one conclusion or another, it certainly looks like there was some intelligence that guided the collapse.

In addition to NIST's unusual behavior in declaring the inputs into its computer model a state secret, there is also the highly irregular rush to clean up the site. There were no bodies in the rubble, nor did any debris block the street. Why the hurry to remove everything of value to a forensic investigation?

There are too many open questions; indeed, too many serious questions, to allow the present state of knowledge to be the record of events. Let's re-open the investigation so we get some real answers.

Report abuse