Thomas Friedman supported Iraq invasion TV interview Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Well.Suck.On.This., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 27, 2007 at 9:27 pm
"We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.
...
What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?"
You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow?
Well, Suck. On. This.
Okay.
That Charlie was what this war was about. We could've hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could."
Here's a YouTube video of the Charlie Rose Show with Thomas Friedman uttering these exact words in the first 7 minutes of the video:
Posted by Well.Suck.On.This., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 28, 2007 at 7:36 am
A good day to reflect on how the same criminal network that employs Thomas Friedman to say "Well. Suck. On. This." to innocent Iraqis is that same criminal network that owns the media and refuses to call for investigations into the 9/11 attack.
No scientific, scholarly paper explains why the 47-story, steel-framed WTC 7 building imploded in on itself even though the Arabs didn't touch it.
Thomas "Well. Suck. On. This." Friedman is part of the criminal network that attacked USA on 9/11.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 28, 2007 at 7:55 am
"No scientific, scholarly paper..."?
Try Engineering News Record. Engineers always examine disasters because that is how they learn. There is no way they could have missed a staged demolition. They know about the diesel fuel in the basement for the emergency generators, and they know the temperature at which steel loses stength.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 28, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Suck, I have subscribed to ENR off and on for 30 years. Unless you are going to assert that the applied sciences are not serious, your comment is meaningless. After 9/11 the failures of all the buildings were examined and exhaustively analyzed by experts in the field. Unlike theoretical scientists, applied scientists back up their assertions with their careers. Check Mulholland for an example. Theoretical scientists can be wildly wrong, yet keep honors and tenure - see Ehrlich for example.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 28, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Well Suck, it is your assertion that there is some nefarious U.S. criminal network out there blowing up our major buildings. You need to defend that one. The only criminal network I am aware of that blew up the WTC is Al Qaeda.
Watch out for ice bullets, Suck...maybe they are out to get you, and those are the kind of weapons they use.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 28, 2007 at 1:40 pm
"FACT: Normal people dislike crime and criminals."
I agree
"FACT: Arabs didn't touch WTC 7 and the mainstream press has done NOTHING to call for an investigation."
Really? They blew up the two huge towers next to it. Ya think there might be a connection, here? Conservation of momentum, alone, could explain this one.
"It isn't tough to figure out a criminal network is responsible for the following:"
"The 9/11 attack on USA"
Other than Al Qaeda, it is VERY hard to figure out the connection. I haven't seen any evidence.
"The controlled demolition of WTC 7"
What controlled demolition? A delayed collapse is not the same thing as a controlled demolition.
"The mainstream media cover-up of the entire 9/11 attack"
The same thing was said about the JFK assasination (for decades). Complete hogwash. More ice bullet stuff.
"The lies about WMDs"
Saddam had them, he used them, the various intelligence agencies around the world said he still had them. What lies?
"The disasterous War on Muslims"
Yes, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are conducting such a war.
"Attempts to expand the War on Muslims to include Iran"
Al Qaeda is very interested in such a thing (since Iran is full of Shias), but I don't think the Taliban are interested (they have their hands full in Afghanistan). What are you talking about, Suck?
Posted by Well.Suck.On.This., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 28, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Gary,
You cannot deny there is no scholary, official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, and the mainstream press has done NOTHING to call for an investigation.
In fact, there's lots of evidence suggesting Arabs had little or nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 28, 2007 at 2:05 pm
"You cannot deny there is no scholary, official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, and the mainstream press has done NOTHING to call for an investigation."
I wouldn't know, because there is no rational reason to investigate paranoid suggestions. The only reason to investigate is to ascertain engineering answers that can, possibly, be learned.
"In fact, there's lots of evidence suggesting Arabs had little or nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11."
No there isn't
"Looks like the chickens are coming home to roost."
Posted by Well.Suck.On.This., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 28, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Gary:
Here's just a small sampling of the compelling evidence that Arabs didn't attack USA on 9/11:
- The three WTC buildings collapsed in their own footprints and did not topple over. This bears the characteristics of controlled demolition. The central columns were pulverized and the buildings fell in on themselves.
- Horizontal puffs of smoke or 'squibs' can be seen popping out floors as the collapse engulfs floor by floor of the buildings. Again, this is typical of controlled demolition.
- Molten metal pools found in the 3 basements of the 3 WTC buildings suggests that the commonly used explosive thermite may be responsible for the collapse. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots.
- WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and yet it collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which is .6 seconds quicker than it would take an object dropped from the roof of the building to hit the floor. This violates fundamental laws of physics, unless the building was brought down by explosives.
- Buildings that collapse without the aid of explosives produce large piles of intact concrete and do not turn to dust as they are falling, as was witnessed on 9/11.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 28, 2007 at 3:04 pm
"Here's just a small sampling of the compelling evidence that Arabs didn't attack USA on 9/11"
Suck, it's hardly worth pursuing your paranoid theories, but I am in a humorous mood, so why not.
" The three WTC buildings collapsed in their own footprints and did not topple over. This bears the characteristics of controlled demolition. The central columns were pulverized and the buildings fell in on themselves."
It's called pancaking. The WTC was built with a new (for the time) skeltal structure that lacked central support structures. If those buildings ever collapsed (not expected), they would come straight down, because the load is evenly distributed. No mystery here.
" Horizontal puffs of smoke or 'squibs' can be seen popping out floors as the collapse engulfs floor by floor of the buildings. Again, this is typical of controlled demolition."
Smoke or dust. Come on, Suck, what would any rational person expect? I will attempt to explain it to you: You see, floor X, with its support structure weakend by heat, collapses onto floor X-1 and momentum is built; floor X-1 then gets it going even more, and collapses onto floor X-2...etc. At each collaspe (pancake) there is an increase in air pressure outwards, which carries smoke or dust with it. Duh?
"Molten metal pools found in the 3 basements of the 3 WTC buildings suggests that the commonly used explosive thermite may be responsible for the collapse. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots."
When it gets hot enough, metal melts, and believe it or not, falls to the centr of gravity. I hope this helps. Somehow, I doubt it.
"WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and yet it collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which is .6 seconds quicker than it would take an object dropped from the roof of the building to hit the floor. This violates fundamental laws of physics, unless the building was brought down by explosives"
I don't recall that WTC-7 fell within 6.6 seconds of the collapse of the main towers hit by planes. Nevertheless, a builing collapse is not subject to the terminal velocity, due to air reistance, like an object dropped from the top of the builing. Every now and then a jumper from the GG bridge lives, because he/she is saved by terminal air resistance. A heavy concrete builing has no such significant constraints. There is no violation of the laws of physics at play.
"Buildings that collapse without the aid of explosives produce large piles of intact concrete and do not turn to dust as they are falling, as was witnessed on 9/11."
Depends on the pressures involves. Concrete tends to become dust under major vertical collapse conditions. Not completely, though - there were still a lot of concrete blocks that needed to be jackhammered out.
Posted by Rosie, a resident of another community, on May 28, 2007 at 7:30 pm
W.S.O.T.,
I'm sorry you're having such a terrible time finding support in this forum. It's an unsympathetic crowd, eh? Try Roswell - you might have better luck there.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
