American Devil comments

I wonder how many people decrying the evils of downloading are also the ones avoiding the NHK man who wants to charge for the TV channel that people don't watch...

Just for a different point of view, lets put this article in terms of bananas. It is well known that Bananas have potassium which is radioactive. 1 banana contains 0.1 microsieverts of radiation or 15 Baquerels of radiation. (This information has been widely posted on more places than just Wikipedia, but that's likely the first place readers will seek this information).

Thus, 10 bananas = 1 microsievert.

The article claims that the air has a rating of 2 microsieverts, and the soil has as much as 52 microsieverts of radiation. That would be 20 bananas hanging in the air, and as many as 520 bananas on the ground.

Although I have not done a comprehensive count, my local grocery store has a large pile of bananas in 5-banana bunches. Thus, if I were to stand there, in front of the display (figuring around 104 packs of bananas) I would get the same dose of radiation. Wow! All these years I have been studying which bunch to put in my basket, and I have been getting irradiated along with my family.

Also, it should be noted that 1 person gives off 1 baquerel of radiation (that is the base equivelent). thus, if the story is correct, the air has the same radiation given off by 300 people.

OMG!!! that is about how many people get crammed into the Tokyo trains every morning. No wonder I hate those train stations in the morning, they are full of people giving each other radiation!!! And I'm not even prepared to think how much radiation is shared in a stadium during a game.

Just something to think about...

Here's a conspiracy idea for the reason why there are radioactive bottles. How about some jerk puts the bottles under the floorboards as a way to slowly kill the last occupant... or the one before that since we don't know how long this was there. Why wasn't it detected before? Who regularly goes around with a rad.counter? No one. Someone could have put it there to give their victim cancer. It would have been making people sick for years more to come if Fukushima hadn't started getting people to check for that stuff. Should investigate the owner more thoroughly...

"Operation Divine Wind" ... SS says. My guess is that means they are going to intentionally sink more of their ships on the bows of the Japanese ships. Afterwards, they will demand that Japan pick up the survivors and transport them back to Japan for trial... hoping that intentional suicide will deter the hunt.

Personally, I feel that the more that SS tries to resemble Al Quida with its terrorist/suicidal attacks, the more the Japanese will desire to eat whales just to spite them... Before SS, very few J-people cared about whale-bacon... They all told me it didn't taste good. But now, more feel that SS's attacks on their culture have encouraged them to retry the nasty stuff just to see what the fuss is about or to "stick it to Sea Shepherd" as one J-co-worker told me. Meanwhile nobody bothers China for its fishing practices...

Rich7

I agree with you completely.

Pawatan,

You like the idea that the impact of the airplanes caused the destruction of the buildings, but if so, why didn't they collapse immediately? Why wasn't there more buckling from the beginning?

I mentioned fires and 6000 degrees because those have been the arguments of people like yourself who believe the official story that the planes' impacts and burning fuel caused the destruction of the three buildings.

And as others have asked in addition to myself, if as you claim the buildings were destroyed mostly because of the impacts, then why did Building 7 (which didn't suffer major impacts go down? It didn't get jet fuel sprayed all over it, or in it, yet it went down. And yet the pentagon also suffered the impact of "a plane" and yet didn't collapse. That disproves your theory that the impacts were the major contributors to the buildings' demise.

Calling me a strawman doesn't answer the questions, just shows that its easier for you to degrade me than answer my questions concisely or civilly.

Since most of the people on this thread want to concentrate on just how the towers fell, and what happened to the Pentagon, I have some questions for those who accept the government accounting on blind faith.

(1) If Jet fuel constantly burned at the temperature needed to melt steel, why don't the engines of your average aircraft constantly melt off form such excessive heat?

(2) In order for the fire to heat up to 6000 degrees inside the core of the buildings, there would need to be a constant, controlled supply of fuel. Wouldn't the impact and destruction of the plane caused the fuel to be spread forward out of the building along the lines of the crash (momentum) rather than carefully feeding flames down the internal shaft of the building for an hour as suggested? Try this experiment. Fill a water balloon with paint and throw it at a pipe with a hole in it. record how much of the paint will coat the interior, and how long the paint will continue to seep into the hole and down the inside. Will it continue for an hour?

(3) Playing along, lets assume that the airplane had sufficient fuel to pour down the inside core. Once it did, wouldn't the fire follow the fuel back up to its source and burn that (further explosions, destroying the source of the fuel. After all, there is a reason why people should not smoke at gas pumps, and we are being asked to assume that the fuel form the plane was used to heat the interior up to 6000 degrees over an hour without blowing up the source of the fuel.... How is that possible without some control over the flow and distribution of the fuel which shouldn't be possible from an impact that utterly destroyed the aircraft.

(4) Moving to the Pentagon. Why is there only a blurry shot of a white blob impacting with the side of the building? Are you telling me that there are no security cameras anywhere around the pentagon except in the parking lot? What about from the hotel across the street? Why has all footage been seized and held secret except for one small version? What is it that we aren't to see? We've all seen two planes hit two buildings and the destruction of those (three) buildings and the deaths of those inside. Is the CIA afraid we might see something other than a plane hitting the wall?

(5) A point about planes from my sister who is a military flight mechanic. Although the wings are lightweight and should have sheered off at the first impact of the telephone poles, its amazing that the poles were knocked down without even the evidence of paint transference let alone wings being sheared off. Also, aside from the impact of the central body, there should be some major evidence of the two engines which are made of titanium. yet the only parts found were small enough to be carried away by person. The conspiracy movie even claims that the engine part shown does not come from a civilian aircraft, but from a military craft. I'll leave that claim to the side since its not central to the argument.

(6) But here is one more point I want considered. What's good for one building surely must be good enough for another. If each of the twin towers can collapse completely due to a single airplane spreading fuel for over an hour at 6000 degrees temperature, then why is the same NOT true in the case of the Pentagon? where did the fuel go? was the plane on fumes and completely empty when it hit? the pictures I have seen show only one section collapsed from the IMPACT, not from steel-melting fires. Why didn't the rest of the building collapse, or fall into the underground sections? According to the believers, above, the burning fuel melted steel and concrete, thus it should have done the same to the Pentagon. If the impact of debris from the destruction of the twin towers was enough to cause the total collapse of Building 7, wouldn't the impact of a plane also cause a brick building such as the Pentagon to also completely collapse? Or is brick and concrete much stronger than steel and concrete?

(7) To move onto 'crash' site in PA. If the fuel can continue burning at 6,000 degrees in WTC for an hour, why was there very little fire in the PA crash? Again, was the plane empty was the fuel dumped? Why could parts and bodies be carried away. There should have been nothing left but powdered ash if we had an hour-long fire at 6000 degrees in the middle of the PA woods.

I will be happy to hear the believers answers to my questions. If there are any.

Why? That's the 10 Billion dollar question that the government doesn't want answered. Now, as I have repeatedly posted, my view is that 9/11 paved the way for the government to declare two wars, get rid of due process (via the patriot act) and maintain power with a president who was constantly ridiculed for having less than a 6th grader's ability to speak English...

Now, as to the importance of Building 7... The conspiracy movie of choice in this matter, "Loose Change" had some interesting views... One theory in the movie was that building 7 contained records of events that the government wanted destroyed. I find that theory to be over the top, as they could have used a shredder rather than destroy a whole building...

Another theory though, which I find more interesting about the whole scenario, involves the World Depository of Gold that was kept in a vault under the WTC complex. The theory goes like this: Different governments keep gold in this vault as a kind of marker for stock exchange activities (Cue the movie Die Hard 4 in which the bad guy says there's ore gold there than in Fort Knox). And the conspiracy theory says that after the destruction of the buildings, no gold was found in the rubble, certainly not enough to equal the amount that should have been there. So the movie narrator suggests that the gold was removed (by whom is not stated, perhaps CIA, Perhaps Lupin III) prior to the destruction.

IF the government did remove the gold, then that would be stealing from all those other countries, who are allies, and getting away with it (no one has asked for reimbursement). That gold could then be used to help pay for the war, or line a lot of pockets as bribes in the coming war against terror...

So, that movie concluded that the 9/11 was a massively successful heist by the U.S. government, allowing them to begin two wars in the Middle East, stay in power for 8 years, and make a lot of money to boot. That sounds like a CIA win/win scenario (right out of Hollywood) doesn't it?

@WilliB

Actually, I believe they didn't think they would get bogged down. After the military success of the first war in Iraq (in which Bush Senior left Hussein in power), Bush Jr., Cheney and Rumsfeld, were sure that Iraq would be an easy win. And once Hussein was out of the picture, they likely believed that the grateful populous would happily hand over their oil rights and become democratic... Unfortunately, they underestimated the depth of hatred between the different groups and how quickly they would start creating effective improvised explosive devices that could kill American troops.

It's not a conspiracy theory to see that Bush was too quick to declare himself the winner in both wars, just because his tanks could beat the enemy tanks. Its very apparent from the news from the last 10 years that the U.S. Government has had very little success in getting the different groups to work together in Iraq, just as it has little success in eradicating the Taliban... which could retake Afghanistan the moment the U.S. leaves.

Although the debate on How the buildings could be brought down... I admit it's moot. They did come down. But as 'Hatsoff' pointed out, the question is why would an organization try to bring down the buildings.

Here is one possibility for a government to allow or to encourage such devastation to happen.

Number 1 reason: It galvanizes the country into accepting anything and everything the government tells them. Americans are very self-centered, but when an attack comes from abroad, as in both Pearl Harbor, 1941, and NY 2001, We Americans will blindly follow our leaders into any war.

Before Pearl Harbor, the Congress would not allow FDR to join the war in Europe, yet after the Japanese attacked, FDR was allowed to wage war in the Pacific AND Europe! The Nazi's didn't attack Pearl Harbor, but it gave FDR the opportunity to do what he wanted.

And Before 9/11, very few people cared about what happened in other countries. Certainly very few cared about Somalia, when our soldiers were dying... BUT after 9/11, the U.S. Government was able to declare war on both Afghanistan AND IRAQ. Neither Country claimed that they had ordered the attacks on 9/11, and other countries couldn't even understand WHY Bush had such a hard on for going back into Iraq other than to get the oil. And no one in the States, gave it a thought. The magic word of WMD's was good enough in a time of war...

So why allow thousands of your own people to die? Easy. To achieve an agenda. The U.S. isn't even the first to do so. The British Prime Minister, after obtaining the Enigma, got intelligence that the Germans were going to bomb either of two cities. He could have had those cities prepared to fight back, or evacuated people in preparation. but doing so would reveal to the Germans that the Allies had broken their codes. Churchill chose... his governing body chose not to alert either city, and allow the bombers to come. Churchill believed that those who died, did so in order to bring the war to a quicker end, and save even more lives.

If its possible for one government to think that way, then its possible for G.W. Bush, Cheney, and whoever else to think similarly. Ask any supporter of the government's explanation, and I'm positive they will also accept that both wars were necessary, and the deaths of all those American Soldiers will eventually save the lives of so many more people in the future...

We all know the facts from TV that two planes hit two buildings. Since the planes and the buildings were destroyed, there is no way of confirming who gave them the order to fly into buildings. It's not like they did a lot of explaining while they were flying.

We know that the pentagon had some kind of explosion (photos show a single round whole before the building collapsed). And we know that there was a big whole in the ground in PA. We don't have any photos or videos of either plane hitting those targets.

We know that transcripts from a grainy video of Osama bin Laden that he claimed responsibility. We know that although Bin Laden didn't claim to be working for the Afghanistan government, and that government didn't claim that they ordered Al Quida to declare war on the U.S., we know that Bush declared war on them, and later, on Iraq... which didn't claim to have anything to do with 9/11.

We know that in the last 10 years, thousands and thousands of Americans died in both wars, not to mention all the people in those countries that were invaded by America. We know that Terrorist bombings have not stopped in either country, and we know that most Americans are still forced to get all-but naked in order to travel by air, and that the airlines don't feel any safer now than they did after 9/11. We also know that in 10 years, the mysterious mass cache of WMD's that are supposed to be in Iraq have never been found.

I know that from the moment Bush was elected up until 9/11, he was considered a joke, and an embarrassment for his lack of speaking skills, and yet right after 9/11 until 2008, he was treated like a god who wasn't allowed to be questioned. Anyone who did question him was and still is considered to be anti-patriotic and those people could be arrested without due process according to the Patriot Act... much like the tyrants in Libya and Syria did with their people.

And we know that the price of oil has gone up incredibly, and it took almost 10 years to finally get someone to kill Obama.

What I don't have confidence in, is that Osama Bin Laden was working without support or that the CIA wasn't aware of his existence or his plans. I also don't have confidence to say that Bush didn't take advantage of the attack in NY to declare war on Iraq right after starting his war in Afghanistan so he could get oil money. After all, he owns lots of oil in Texas and his father was the one to put Hussein in Power back in the 80's under Reagan in order to put pressure on Iran.

I don't have proof that Bush, or his administration allowed the devastation to go on in order to start their war, just as there is no proof of a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. We have to accept the magic bullet explanation that two airplanes can bring down 3 buildings with the same speed and precision of controlled detonations. We have to accept that two other planes also crashed despite a lack of parts... (I don't buy that titanium engines can evaporate, though they weren't found in either the Pentagon building, nor the PA site).

So, 10 years after 9/11, I don't know if Osama Bin Laden is solely responsible for everything that happened during or since 9/11. Like JFK, we will probably never be allowed to know the truth in order to maintain the government's authority. We have to deal with things the way they are.

Actually, none of this surprises me in the least. This was all a pre-election year stunt to get votes. The politicians don't care about numbers, just about looks (and that's true of all the sides, including TEA PARTY). Take my word for it, all the politicians in the States will start throwing up posters and TV Ads saying this and that. Example, the Tea Party will say they were the only ones to fight against the debt ceiling, while the Dems and GOP will say they were the ones to save the country from "Certain Doom." Each side will claim they sponsored key points to cut the debt and yet they will say that they saved their constituents from having important programs cut.

Why do I think this is true? Because they did exactly the same thing the last time, when the broke a billion in debt, and everyone feared an end to the world. It didn't happen then, I knew it wouldn't happen this time either.

TEPCO hopes to bring the reactors to a stable cold shutdown state by early January, _ a goal some experts have questioned as too ambitious.

By early January of what year? 2012? 2015? 2050?

So... is this article saying that we DON'T need to worry about another big quake destroying Tokyo or the Tokai area in the near future as everyone believes? That the pressure has been relieved and won't happen again for a long time?