Home | About | Donate

No, Joe, Don’t Roll out the Red Carpet for Torture Enablers

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/12/21/no-joe-dont-roll-out-red-carpet-torture-enablers

2 Likes

Obama’s “look forward” tacit approval of torture enablers makes it unlikely that sidekick Joe will change direction.

Unless Biden heeds Rep. Bill Pascrell’s admonition to indict Trump, his appointees, and enablers post haste, the torture crowd and the GOP will become more powerful than ever, consigning the Democratic Party and democracy itself to the dust bin of history.

3 Likes

All of this behavior by members of our government becomes beyond disgusting when you come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was a false flag event, with no planes or hijackers.

2 Likes

Good work Recon to open the 9/11 "New Pearl Harbor

1 Like

Please also remove Haspel from her government position! She is beneath contempt!

1 Like

Wait-what? I knew you advocated for a conspiracy on this. I don’t (well I do in terms of using the event to start a war with Iraq). But I never realized you don’t believe two planes flew into the twin towers. Is that your claim? Please explain.

1 Like

It’s not my claim, it’s a conspiracy fact. Physics proves it. I am exhausted tonight, so I only have the energy to list the main points from memory, instead of looking it up all the points.

  1. An engineer took the flight paths (with a time sequence) on the Twin Towers, provided by the FAA, overlaid them with a scaled computer model of Manhattan and plotted the known points of structures. He used this data to determine the approach speed of the “objects”, (time and known distance), the speed worked out to be approx. 435 mi. per hour. According to aeronautical engineers the 767 aircraft would need 600% more engine power to travel at that speed at sea level.
  2. The Twin Towers were over built, compared to normal steel-framed, high rise structures. Each structure was designed to absorb the impact of 2 of the largest aircraft at the time (727’s), at the same time, and not collapse The outer shell consisted of 10" X 1 1/4" thick, high carbon steel box columns, spaced on 39" centers around the entire buildings, from the bedrock (7 stories below grade) to their height of 110 stories. There were welded horizonal plates that connected these columns in groups of 3. There was also an inner core that housed the elevator banks, this core was ringed with 47 (I think) of these same columns. Commercial aircraft are fabricated from aluminum, and skinned with approx. 1/8 thick aluminum. It defies the laws of physics to believe this aluminum, especially the fragile wing sections, cut through these steel columns like a knife through butter, with no debris on the outside of the structures. This statement has been confirmed by a professor with a doctorate in material science and testing (Bio listed below)
  3. My past profession was in structural firefighting, and I was a certified fire service instructor, I can tell you without a doubt, there has never been, in the history of the world, a structural failure in a steel-framed high rise building due to fire, and there never will be. Yet on that day we are to believe 3 high rise structures completely collapsed because of moderate fire, one of which, wasn’t even struck by any aircraft. There are photos (on line) of structure fires in these types of buildings, fully involved, top to bottom, side to side, and front to back, one I remember happened in Brazil in the 90’s. That building did not collapse and is still used today.
    There are many other points and issues, that I don’t have the energy to go into tonight, NORAD’s response, the cell phone calls from victims, zero debris in the PA. “crash site”, video tapes confiscated around the Pentagon, almost no debris at the Twin Tower site, confiscated NYC 911 tapes, no seismic reading when when over 1 million tons of debris hits the ground in NYC, etc.

I had a hunch about the speed of the “objects” in point (1), no proof, just a hunch, so I looked up the cruising speed of a Cruise Missile, 435 mi. per hour.

Here’s the Bio, check out her credentials, they’re impressive. And if it peaks your interest click on her web page and view one of her presentations, they’re long, but very informative. I suggest the one in HD quality, to more easily see what she’s pointing out. She uses the data available to scientifically analyze and eliminate probable causes

~www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/bio/Wood_Bio.html

2 Likes

I agree of course with everything that CodePink does and stands for. I was particularly impressed with their efforts in early 2019 in highlighting the blatant theft of Venezuela’s patrimony by the “Opposition Party”, thereafter anointed by a Democrat and Republican full house.

That Harris and Biden shouldn’t roll out the red carpet for torture enablers is a given.

Think on this, though:

  • That torture enablers have not yet been strung up by their heels and, further, get to participate in Part Deux, is an indictment of American collective morality.
  • The torture enablers referenced would not exist were it not for the presence of torturers.
  • Torturers (meaning here “US Interrogators” of Muslims) would not exist if we did not invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan would have never happened if American collective morality was worth a damn.

The rot is deep. The rest is theatre.

And you - yes, you - Average America are part and parcel of both.

3 Likes

I’m not asking about any arguments on steel farmed structures and fire, only the claim (which I have never heard anyone make up until you) that planes didn’t hit the towers. I’ve heard plenty of claims that the US government orchestrated or knew about the plan to hit the towers with planes and placed explosives because they knew that wouldn’t be enough to make them fall (which I also don’t believe), but that is very different than saying that any witness who saw planes hit was lying, any video was faked, or that some advanced holographic projection was used to make it look like a plane to witnesses and video, or explain what happened to the people on those planes (I’m sure their families want to know). That level of thinking is Alex Jones level (Sandy Hook didn’t happen) and frankly, I’m a little disappointed, but oh well.

I have a degree in aerospace engineering (though I decided I was more interested in electronics than aeronautics, structures, or propulsion so I ended up working on different things), and I find the argument that this plane can’t fly at steady state at a given speed at a given altitude when perfectly level because the engines won’t put out enough thrust to be completely irrelevant. Those planes had dropped a significant amount of altitude which means plenty of potential energy to make up for any lack of thrust from engines. I basically concur with the poster at ~https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15407/can-a-boeing-767-200-fly-at-510-knots-at-a-height-of-400-metres who states:

The speed is secondary - what determines the physical limits of the Boeing 767 is Mach number and dynamic pressure.

510 kts at 400 m in standard atmospheric conditions equals Mach 0.775. This is well within the limits of the Boeing 767. But at 400 m it produces a dynamic pressure of 40,567 N/m², and that is too much. The maximum dive speed vDvD of the 767 is 420 kts.

This only means that flying at 510 kts is illegal, but it is still possible. If the airplane dove down to those 400m from enough altitude, it would entirely be capable to reach this speed, but would slow down once it stops diving.

There are several effects which can cause a catastrophic failure when flying too fast:

  • When the aircraft flies into a gust, the resulting load factor can overstress the structure.
  • When the pilot commands large control inputs, he will also overstress the structure.
  • Flutter might also cause structural damage.

The maximum Mach number of the 767 is 0.91 (0.05 above the maximum cruise Mach number, which is 0.86), and this corresponds to 523 kts in 11,000 m. Thankfully, certification requirements demand a margin of 20% between the maximum speeds and flutter onset speeds, so flutter might be close, but is still tens of miles per hour away when diving to 510 kts. Remember, to experience flutter you need also to excite the motion first. Here is a good discussion of this topic.

In short, flying a Boeing 767 in 400 m at 510 kts is not recommended, but is entirely possible and most likely even safe when done in calm air and by a calm pilot. It only won’t last long, because the engines will not produce enough thrust to maintain that speed. Flying this dive requires guts, but no special skills.

1 Like

I am not an aeronautical engineer, but there are quite a few who disagree with you about the thrust required at sea level. Also not addressed was how an aluminum plane cut through 1 1/4 in. steel, leaving a hole in the structure like a roadrunner cartoon, and zero debris on the ground. Surely in your field, you understand how fragile the wing components are on commercial aircraft.
Did you even check out the link I gave you?

1 Like

It’s a fascinating exchange, @dara and @ReconFire on the basic physics involved in the most improbability of 2 jetliners hitting and destroying the 2 skyscrapers at sea level, along with Building 7 which wasn’t even hit, on 9/11. Like @dara, I hadn’t heard that planes were not involved. There’ll be more to gradually be revealed in time, as much was revealed about the JFK assassination in James Douglass’ book, “JFK and the Unspeakable” (Orbis Books, 2008). It’s also impressive that CD will permit this open and educated discussion.

Not yet. I’ve been down this rabbit hole before reading about fireproofing, how it can be stripped, temperatures expected from that much fuel on fire, how steel acts at those high temperatures and so on. But I had never heard anyone claim there weren’t even planes so I followed that thread a little. I don’t want to dive into the other topics again - I’d rather keep reading on my main 4 topics I want to know as best I can for conversation here: M4A, biodegradable plastics, vegan farming efficiency, and molten salt nuclear fission reactors (as well as the basics of renewable energy plans). I will never be knowledgeable enough on all things 9/11 to convince anybody who doesn’t buy the official story but I had to pipe up after you said the thing about no planes at all. That claim is easily debunked in my opinion.

Then debunk it, how does 1/8 in. aluminum cut through 1 1/4 in. thick, high carbon steel box columns?

I’ve said all I’m going to say on the claim that there were no planes hitting the towers.

That has nothing to do with the claim of no planes. You can continue to believe the planes were not sufficient to bring the towers down. That is a different claim, and as I said I don’t care to go down that rabbit hole again.

A huge number of the countries we’re propping up use torture. child labor, etc. If we stopped propping them up, there’s a good chance they would stop propping us up, in that we’ve grown to count on their support of our system in the WTO, etc. So we have to welcome them into the community of nations by not asking them to change, and instead giving them our citizens jobs. Slavery, torture, etc, may be irksome but like Saddam Hussein these are “people we can do business with”, as Donald Rumsfeld famously said.

[/SATIRE]

Ah, yes - 'tis the gift that keeps on giving … .

You debunked nothing, the aluminum vs steel has everything to do with “no planes” and your smart enough to know it. But your not the first, nor will you be the last, who refuses to wrap their head around what happened on that day.

You have serious logic problems. You said no planes even hit the building. I reacted to that. If you can’t discuss one idea at a time rationally, I will ignore anything else you have to say, much of which I found to be rational in the past. I’m done. Pillory me all you want.