You know, I could probably buy the official story

[rollingrock]

...if the upper block above the impact point were made of solid steel
(and/or concrete)...and the lower block were made out of fine glass. -G. MacQueen



Yep, so could I!

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Still dealing with that fundamental mistake

Essentially that is what we are dealing with - steel and glass.

What, Bolo Boffin? The lower section wasn't made out of steel!!!!!

No, it wasn't. But the lower structure was brittle when compared to the force that hit it from above. Whether it was still bound together into a structure or torn apart into its several pieces, the mass of the upper section remained the mass of the upper section.

And when it crashed down, it only had to break through this, floor after floor:



It had to tear these joints loose. That's all. Whether it was on the side of the core columns or the side of the perimeter columns (as shown here), the joints you see here had a choice when the falling mass of the upper section began to deliver its force to them: redistribute every bit of that force to the rest of the structure or snap before doing so. If they snapped or tore loose, then the mass kept going down.

What Bazant showed in several papers was that the upper section had enough force after falling a single story to have done exactly this SEVEN TIMES OVER. There was no way for these joints to have redistributed that much dynamic load. They snapped, and the relatively brittle structure tore apart all the way down.

Sledgehammer, meet Stubben glass.

[rollingrock]

3. 'The lower structure was brittle

when compared to the force that hit it from above.'




that's a good one!

that's what I love about you bolo...your marvelous sense of humor.

[William Seger]

2. I don't care what you buy

... it's what you try to sell. What, exactly, does MacQueen's ignorance have to do with anything?

[rollingrock]

4. Personally, I could buy the official story

...if the lower block were nothing more than a hologram. even 90 some stories of fine glass is going to cause the upper block to slow down at some point. that's just common sense and basic physics. instead, the structure accelerated and kept falling as if it were traveling through nothing but air.

[William Seger]

7. Well...

... again, so what?

Serious question: How do you deal with the fact that the world is literally full of people who understand pretty well why the towers collapsed, including the lead engineer of the design team, Leslie Roberts?

[rollingrock]

8. You OCTers

always good for a laugh.

[William Seger]

10. No answer?

So, you just try to avoid thinking about it?

The reason I ask is that I thought I understood it reasonably well when it happened, and Roberts seems to have a pretty similar understanding. Why, exactly, do you think I should be concerned that a theologian with a PhD in Asian religion doesn't understand it?

[rollingrock]

11. Hogwash

you make a bunch of assertions with no explanation, no supporting facts.

that's called a frivolous claim, not a serious one.

[William Seger]

12. I've supported my assertions here dozens of times...

... and you're just dodging my actual question:

How do you deal with the fact that the world is literally full of people who understand the collapses very well?

[rollingrock]

13. How do you deal with the fact

that the world is full of people who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny?

and no, you haven't supported a thing.

[William Seger]

14. Not a problem for me

... since they, like you and MacQueen, can't give me a single rational reason for agreeing with them or any logical, evidence-based argument for why I'm wrong in not believing those things. I'm just wondering how irrational people deal with such issues. Is there some reason you keep dodging my question?

[rollingrock]

15. Why are you trying to hijack the thread?

your question has nothing to do with the OP.
start your own damn thread.

[William Seger]

18. Ain't no hijack

You have posted an OP which amounts to an argument that if an expert in Asian religion admits that he has no fucking clue why the towers collapsed, then the best guess is a controlled demolition, despite the fact that experts in structural mechanics can explain it quite well, with highly quantitative physics-based analysis. I'm just curious about the "thought" process that lies behind this type of "reasoning." If you're too sensitive about that, well, never mind...

[rollingrock]

20. You have a habit of making random assertions and conclusions

with no evidence at all to back them.

[William Seger]

27. You have a habit of talking through your ass

Yeah, I know this will get deleted, but some things just need to be said.

[rollingrock]

16. Sorry

there is nothing rational about the official story.

[LARED]

29. The world is full of children that believe in Santa and the Easter

bunny.

Children are not on their own intellectually capable of understanding that Santa and the Easter bunny are made up. Of course when they grow intellectually, it's a different story.

Something many CT'er should reflect upon.

[scott75]

17. Regarding NIST

How do you deal with the fact that the world is literally full of people who understand the collapses very well?

Such as the people at NIST? David Ray Griffin, in his book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, had this to say about this organization:

By way of preparing readers for how shockingly bad NIST's report is, I will point out that NIST is not a neutral, independent organization: it is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. While NIST was writing its report, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush administration, which, according to a statement signed by over 12,000 scientists (including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science), has been guilty of engaging in "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."31

A former NIST employee has, in fact, reported that in recent years his agency has been "fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm." As a result, scientists working for NIST "lost scientific independence, and became little more than 'hired guns.'" With regard to 9/11-related issues, this whistleblower said:
By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures. There was no chance that NIST people "investigating" the 9/11 situation could have been acting in the true spirit of scientific independence.... Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office, and assessed for political implications before release.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. How nice. Would you like to try to demonstrate that bias

by showing how they got any of their science on the collapses wrong?

[scott75]

22. Exposing NIST's poor work

How nice. Would you like to try to demonstrate that bias by showing how they got any of their science on the collapses wrong?

With pleasure. Physicist Steven Jones and others have spoken of it at length. Here's a good excerpt from his peer reviewed paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?:

I along with others challenge NIST’s collapse theory. NIST maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite the observations above, particularly the fact that fire endurance tests with actual models did not result in collapse. In a paper by fire-engineering experts in the UK, we find:

The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire… However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the <47> core and <240> perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The < proposed effect > is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet < by NIST >. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)

I agree with these pointed objections, particularly that the “response of the whole frame” of each building should be considered, especially heat transport to the whole frame from localized fires, and that the “core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005)

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Oh, bruddha. We got a live one.

Steven Jones? Of which Bazant spoke in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics when he said:

Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any
issue of concern, interested lay critics should realize that, in order to help discern the truth about
an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to expend the effort to become
acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics.

Adherence to this principle would lead to more intelligent science-based discourse, and it would preclude the need for everyone to waste time on baseless critiques and unproductive discussions. Of even greater importance, it would avoid misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect
information.

You're trusting Steven Jones in this? Wow.

Anyway, let's look at his paper. In my copy from his pet journal and after extensive peer review arranged by Kevin Ryan, that LYING LIAR, Jones' paper says this:

Is the falling molten metal from WTC Tower 2 (Top photos) more likely molten iron from a thermite reaction (lower left) OR pouring molten aluminum (lower right)?

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 degrees C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce.

Well, you know, there's a problem with that liquid, molten metal being iron. Iron's melting point is 1535 degrees C, so if Jones is really, really sure that the molten metal pouring out of WTC 2 is 1000 degrees C, it can't be iron.

This Jones paper? This is the one you want to use to show that NIST has bad science? Really?

[scott75]

30. Even NIST doesn't dismisses some of Bazant and Zhou's paper...

Steven Jones? Of which Bazant spoke in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics when he said:

Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any
issue of concern, interested lay critics should realize that, in order to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to expend the effort to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics.

Adherence to this principle would lead to more intelligent science-based discourse, and it would preclude the need for everyone to waste time on baseless critiques and unproductive discussions. Of even greater importance, it would avoid misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information.

The fact that you're quoting from Bazant doesn't speak highly of your knowledge concerning his work. Concerning the paper from Bazant and Zhou, even NIST rejects some of it. However, Steven Jones did say one positive thing about it. Again from his "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" paper:

11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? ( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )

Correct — jet collisions did not cause collapses — we can agree on that. MIT’s Thomas Eager also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eager and Musso, 2001).

After this one positive comment, however, he finds that the article has much to answer for:
We continue with Bazant & Zhou:

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… ( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )

But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:

Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )

Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).

They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

To be continued...

[William Seger]

37. The fact that you're quoting Jones attempt to dismiss Bazant

... doesn't speak highly of your understanding of what either one is saying. The 800^oC temperature mentioned by Bazant was merely a preliminary assumption, not in any way critical to the gist of Bazant's hypothesis, which concerned why the collapse continued after it got started. Jones apparently lacks the knowledge (or perhaps hopes that his little cult of ignorance lacks the knowledge) to understand that structural steel loses strength continuously as it heats and that it has lost half its strength at only 600^oC, so he imagines that he has struck a mighty blow against Bazant (or hopes his insignificant cult of ignorance sees it that way). But unfortunately for Jones (and his ignorance cult), he needs a lot more than irrelevancies to do that. Jones is correct that "Bazant & Zhou do not explain how 'more than half of the columns in the critical floor suffer buckling' at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed," but again fails to understand (or hopes his ignorant cultists don't understand) that that also has nothing to do with the hypothesis Bazant is presenting in the paper, which is about what happened after that. The proof that Jones doesn't really give a shit about the science and is just hoping to fool his tiny cult of ignorance is that Jones continues to ignore that it is now known that the collapse was progressive, starting with the buckling of the perimeter columns on one side and progressing across the entire building. Whether or not Jones understands that (or simply hopes that you don't) is irrelevant, and his inability to acknowledge it should tell you something about his scientific integrity.

Do you feel insulted that I keep pointing to the ignorance that lies behind blindly accepting anything and everything Jones says? Good! I really don't care about your opinions or how you arrived at them, but you really ought not go around making claims of fact based on ignorance.

Since you're already hijacked the thread -- and it was a silly thread anyway -- continue away.

[scott75]

45. The fires couldn't have gotten the steel framework to 600 C

To make a long story short, the fires couldn't have gotten the 90,000 ton interconnected steel framework to 600 C. As David Ray Griffin mentions in his book "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited":

A single piece of steel can, to be sure, heat up quite quickly. But, as Mark Gaffney has written:

The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed some 90,000 tons; and because steel is known to be at least a fair conductor of heat, on 9/11 this massive steel superstructure functioned as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of the steel framework was vast compared with the relatively small area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away much of the fire-generated heat.... The fires on 9/11 would have taken many hours... to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework as a whole to the point of weakening even a few exposed members.59

NIST's own tests found only a few perimeter columns that had reached 250 C and -no- core columns that had reached 250 C. I'm not saying that the steel didn't get hotter than this (there's evidence that some of the steel melted and even evaporated, which the fires simply couldn't have managed), I'm saying that that's all NIST officially found. The reason probably has a lot to do with the fact that that's about the temperature the fires should have been able to get the steel.

[SidDithers]

46. Griffin is a theologian, isn't he?...nt

Sid

[scott75]

68. Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology, yes...

He is also an author of several acclaimed books on 9/11.

[Ghost in the Machine]

86. One of your fellow OCTers is a Jesus College graduate who went on

to a career as a dancer on a cruise ship, yet some of you hang on his every word... so what's your point?

[scott75]

110. What's the name of this OCTer?

Maybe I've heard of him.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. You know, if you want to believe that the steel would have "wicked the heat away," you go right on.

It is a foolish thing to believe. It isn't true. People use iron and steel implements while tending fires all the time. Blacksmiths depend on heat energy staying in one part of the steel to be able to shape and form it.

But you go right on ahead believing that the steel structure could have wicked this away:



And this away:

[wildbilln864]

49. you mean you don't fucking understand heatsinks, bolo?

good grief!? :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

50. I mean I understand steel isn't a fucking heatsink like that, wildbill.

You can chuckle it up all you want. It's foolish to think steel could "wick that heat away." Why the fuck do they fireproof it if all they have to do is wick the fucking heat away?

[wildbilln864]

52. You don't think steel conducts heat!?

That's amazing! :banghead:
Of course it doesn't transfer all the heat away, but it does do some. :eyes:
And what about AL. bolo? Do you think it conducts heat?

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Keep beating your head against a wall, wildbill.

It's doing wonders for your thought process.

[wildbilln864]

54. That wall's coming down bolo!

you stick to captioning.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Mm-hmm. n/t

[William Seger]

58. The NIST collapse hypothesis doesn't require the columns to get to 600 C

Read the probable collapse sequence of events in Chapter 9 of the NIST report: The finite element analysis showed that the initiating event in both collapses was the sagging floors pulling the perimeter columns inward until they buckled, not overheated columns failing on their own. That buckling only required that the columns were somewhat weakened by heat, combined with the load redistribution from the columns destroyed by the planes. The progressive horizontal failure that followed was aided by the core columns being somewhat weakened by heat, but that effect was combined with the loss of lateral stability (due to the loss of the floors), asymmetric loading, and bending caused by the tilting tops. 600^oC temperatures were not required in any columns to explain the collapse.

[scott75]

72. My friend responds- no support for assertions

I don't know what his point is, or what he is responding to. He provides no support for his assertions. Chapter 9 is 390 pages. You would need to go through that in order to investigate his unsupported assertions, i don't have time to do that. ...you would need to interrogate him further on some of his specific claims. There has been finite modeling animations available on youtube which show a collapse unlikely. Kevin Ryan wrote about NIST tweaking their collapse model, they had to use unrealistic values in order to generate a collapse. How do the perimeter columns resist the thermal expansion force yet fail to the much weaker "sagging force"? What happened to the core?

Also:

Where is this "finite element analysis" of the collapse?? I thought that was never released. This is chapter 9, it seems to only deal with finite element analysis of the the impact of the aircraft:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2BChap9-11Draft.pdf

[William Seger]

84. Oh, does "no support for assertions" mean the same thing as "too long; didn't read?"

I should have been more specific: I was referring to Chapter 9 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6.pdf">NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers. (Your friend's link is to a draft version of a different document.)

> "You would need to go through that in order to investigate his unsupported assertions."

Gee, I guess so.

> "There has been finite modeling animations available on youtube which show a collapse unlikely."

Sorry, "no support for assertions." (However, I do remember an amazingly absurd animation on YouTube that "proved" that you could remove all the core columns and the perimeter columns on three walls, and the top section would just bounce up and down on the remaining perimeter wall. That was quite a hoot.)

> "Kevin Ryan wrote about NIST tweaking their collapse model, they had to use unrealistic values in order to generate a collapse."

That's Kevin Ryan's typically disingenuous way of saying that NIST adjusted their model to match what they knew about the collapse, mainly from videos and photos. But I do believe that's standard practice with FEA models: If the model doesn't match what you already know about a scenario, why would you expect it to tell you anything useful about what you don't know? What use would it be? If Ryan wanted to say, "Well, I just don't trust that model," that would be fine, but that wouldn't produce anywhere near the effect he wants among the "true believers," so he has to make it out as a deliberate and sinister plot by NIST to fake the results. After all, everyone knows that if you're a scientist or engineer taking money from the government, covering up mass murder just comes with the territory. Or so we're told by the "truth movement." And oh yeah, "no support for assertions."

[achtung_circus]

85. ...

[scott75]

93. Citing one's source

I should have been more specific: I was referring to Chapter 9 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6.pdf">NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers. (Your friend's link is to a draft version of a different document.)

I'll let him know.

"You would need to go through that in order to investigate his unsupported assertions."

Gee, I guess so.

If you assert something, and especially if you aren't quoting some source, you should cite your source; and I don't mean citing some 100 page document, but the page of the 100 page document.

There has been finite modeling animations available on youtube which show a collapse unlikely.

Sorry, "no support for assertions." (However, I do remember an amazingly absurd animation on YouTube that "proved" that you could remove all the core columns and the perimeter columns on three walls, and the top section would just bounce up and down on the remaining perimeter wall. That was quite a hoot.)

I've heard similar things (that is, 3/4th columns removed bit I believe). I believe a more thorough investigation should be made to ascertain the validity of this assertion.

[William Seger]

99. Well......

If I was referring to something obscure, I probably would have been more specific. However, if you are on this board attempting to refute the "official story," I would expect some familiarity with the subject. If you don't know what's in the NIST report, then for all you know it could be right, huh.

Anyway, all that's necessary to "ascertain the {in}validity" of the animation I saw is to watch it. The only thing missing was Wile E Coyote jumping on top of the building, trying to make it collapse on the Road Runner.

[scott75]

107. I know some of the things that are in the NIST report..

Have you read much of Steven Jones "Why Indeed Did the WTC buildings collapse?" He counters some of NIST's points. So does David Ray Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited. I think it's fair to say that the person making the argument should back it up. If they can't, I think that speaks far more of the solidity of their arguments then anything else.

[William Seger]

117. I wasn't making an argument

I was attempting to inform you that the NIST collapse hypothesis does not require 600^oC temperatures in the columns, and you will find no claim of temperatures that high in their probable collapse sequence. If you don't believe me, then you can either check the NIST report yourself or you can continue to believe whatever you like.

Yes, I've read Jones' original "Why" paper and the updated version, and I was astonished that such nonsense was written by someone with a PhD in physics. I predict that you will be very disappointed if you hitch your wagon to Jones' star -- if you'll pardon the pun, Jones has recently painted himself into a corner -- but I'm not going to waste much time trying to convince you of that.

[scott75]

36. How some thermite compounds lower the melting point of steel

You're trusting Steven Jones in this? Wow.

Anyway, let's look at his paper. In my copy from his pet journal and after extensive peer review arranged by Kevin Ryan, that LYING LIAR,

I have seen no evidence that Kevin Ryan has ever lied.

Jones' paper says this:

Is the falling molten metal from WTC Tower 2 (Top photos) more likely molten iron from a thermite reaction (lower left) OR pouring molten aluminum (lower right)?

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 degrees C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce.

Well, you know, there's a problem with that liquid, molten metal being iron. Iron's melting point is 1535 degrees C, so if Jones is really, really sure that the molten metal pouring out of WTC 2 is 1000 degrees C, it can't be iron.

Actually, it can be, assuming that thermite was indeed used; it simply couldn't have been Thermate TH3 in this particular instance.

Jerry Lobdill, in his peer reviewed paper Some Physical Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, The Eutectic, and The Iron Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001, which he published in June, 2007, states the following:

The observations of Bernett, Biederman, and Sisson ( BB&S )( See Footnote 2 ) describe sulfidation of some structural steel from WTC 7. They say:
"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approach ~1000 C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a "blackmith's weld" in a hand forge."9

And they conclude:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

We should take note of the fact that they are saying they have no idea of the rapidity of the sulfidation and oxidation processes or when they began. They also seem to be aware of the fact that there were large volumes of red hot metal below the rubble piles. (This is rather interesting since NIST, their sponsor, claims they are unaware of any such thing.)11

Now consider the problem of the molten metal flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Some have suggested that this metal was the eutectic mixture of FE and S. Let's discuss that possibility. We assume that the steel that is cut from the columns is essentially pure Fe. It is melted and fixes with the thermate reaction products and then flows away by gravity. As the mixture cools, the original molten mix was at S > 31.4%, Fe begin to crystallize out. This increases the S% in the remaining mix. As the cooling continues, the S% increases until it reaches 31.4%, and this remaining molten eutectic mixture solidifies at 994 C (or 988 C, depending on which measurement you believe). So unless the original S% was 31.4%, the molten mass is crystallizing out solidified Fe as it flows downhill and cools. When, in the cooling process, the molten mass reaches the eutectic composition, it also reaches the eutectic temperature. At that temperature the remaining liquid gives up its latent heat of fusion and crystallizes as a microscopically heterogeneous solid with a (macroscopically) 31.4% S, 68.6% Fe composition. Once all the material has solidified the entire mass resumes cooling. We thus have a plausible explanation of why the material flowing from WTC 2 was orange-hot liquid (~1000 C). However, if the thermate contained only 2% S by weight (as specified for Thermate-TH3)12, that would not be enough to even produce a eutectic mixture using all the Fe produced in the thermate reaction, let alone all the added Fe from the cut column. It is not likely that the amount of sulfur used would have produced a product close to the eutectic mixture; however, any substantial amount of sulfur will usefully lower the melting point of the attacked steel by sulfidation.

[William Seger]

39. Sheesh, you probably ought to read that again

He says you could have molten steel at 1000^o if it was 34% sulfer and then admits an incredible understatement, "It is not likely that the amount of sulfur used would have produced a product close to the eutectic mixture..."

[scott75]

40. This only means it probably wasn't Thermate TH3; there are other types of thermite, however

He says you could have molten steel at 1000o if it was 34% sulfer and then admits an incredible understatement, "It is not likely that the amount of sulfur used would have produced a product close to the eutectic mixture..."

He's saying that it wouldn't be likely if it was Thermate TH3. He seems to be implying that there are other types of thermite that have a higher sulfur content. I dealt with this issue near the beginning of the post.

[William Seger]

43. Uh huh, could you show me a type that has that much sulfur, please.

Sounds like a superdooper nanothermite stink bomb. Even if you could add that much sulfur to thermite without disrupting the reaction (which I seriously doubt), why would you? There's no reason to create a eutectic mixture just to cut the steel.

[scott75]

44. Perhaps another form of thermate, but have called for someone who knows more of such things

I'm guessing other forms of Thermate other then Thermate TH3 may have the correct amount. However, I'm just emailed someone who knows more about such things to get his expert opinion.

[scott75]

64. My friend responds...

I have now made contact with the man who I called an expert. He claims that he's not an expert, just someone trying to understand the science. Anyway, on to his comments:

I do not understand what Seger's point is. what point of yours is he addressing?
If you look at your post 36. Reread the Lobdill quote you used.
Lobdill is showing how thermite can explain the observations.
how is seger countering lobdill's explanation for the observations?
how is seger putting forward a different explanation for the observations?...

Lobdill is saying that as the hot molten thermite mixture cools, the concentration of sulphur increases in the mixture. this is because some of the iron crystalizes out of the mixture (the iron starts to freeze to a solid), iron freezing out of the mixture means the sulphur % in the molten mixture increases. as the sulphur % increases towards 31.4%, the mixture remains molten as it cools below 1500C towards 994C (see phase diagram in the paper). lobdill is saying you do not have to start with 31.4% sulphur. lobdill is saying that as the molten mixture cools it would likely form (naturally) a molten mix with 31.4% sulphur concentration.

Seger creates a misrepresentation that the mixture HAS TO to start with 31.4% sulphur, so any inference he draws from his own misrepresentation is bogus (bogus inferences - 31.4% sulphur would disrupt the reaction, why would you add 31.4% sulphur to the mixture, what reason is there to create a eutectic).
what Seger is trying to do is suggest that you are saying the mixture started with 31.4% sulphur...

if you want to know why sulphur is a good ingredient for thermite :
"The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel" - barnett 2001.

...therefore, steel will weaken faster and further with a sulphur based thermite compared to a non-sulphur thermite.

[William Seger]

69. Nope, don't buy that

I'm not a chemist, but thanks to investigating claims by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, one of the things I've learned is that the definition of a eutectic mixture is one in which all the constituents crystalize at the same "eutectic point" temperature. So, if the stuff pouring out of the WTC was really eutectic, the iron couldn't have been crystalizing out of it before the sulfur. So, this theory seems to contradict itself.

(ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic">Wiki page )

[William Seger]

88. On second thought, I'll retract the argument above

On second reading (yes, I occasionally do that), the Lobdill paper seems to be saying that the mixture is not eutectic until it reaches that 31.4% composition ratio. If that's correct then my argument above would be invalid. So, I'll grant that I think it's theoretically possible (assuming Lobdill is correct), and that only leaves the small problem of getting enough sulfur in the thermite to create a 31.4% concentration in the stuff that's pouring out the window. And the extraordinary coincidence that it reached the eutectic point just as it was pouring out the window. And the minor issue of no sign of any bright light inside the windows as would be expected from burning thermite. Other than that... a fine theory you got there.

[scott75]

89. I'm glad you changed your mind on the 31.4% bit...

You've still got one part wrong though; the thermate doesn't -start- with 31.4% sulfur; the thermite reaction crystallizes the extra iron until there is 31.4% sulfur. He gave me the example of water/ice and salt; salt will melt water; the sweet spot in that case is 23.3%, which I guess is the eutectic mixture point. I guess if you have cooling molten iron and sulfur, it's like too much salt in water; the extra salt will crystallize, until you get the eutectic mixture of 23.3% salt to water ratio. So why not start with 31.4% sulphur? I admit I don't know the answer to this, but I think he'll be able to explain it to me later.

I'll quote some of what he's written me since your 'don't buy it' post:

Here you go, this confirms what i was saying.

"the one mixture of a set of substances able to dissolve in one another as liquids that, of all such mixtures, liquefies at the lowest temperature. If an arbitrarily chosen liquid mixture of such substances is cooled, a temperature will be reached at which one component will begin to separate in its solid form and will continue to do so as the temperature is further decreased. As this component separates, the remaining liquid continuously becomes richer in the other component, until, eventually, the composition of the liquid reaches a value at which both substances begin to separate simultaneously as an intimate mixture of solids. This composition is the eutectic composition and the temperature at which it solidifies is the eutectic temperature; if the original liquid had the eutectic composition, no solid would separate until the eutectic temperature was reached; then both solids would separate in the same ratio as that in the liquid, while the composition of the remaining liquid, that of the deposited solid, and the temperature all remained unchanged throughout the solidification."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/196700/eutectic

so there you have it...iron will crystallize/solidify out first increasing the richness of the sulphur in the remaining liquid, until it reaches the richness required for the eutectic temperature (31.4% sulphur).

as the increasing sulphur richness approaches 31.4% then the point will reduce rapidly from about 1200C to 994C (see lobdill phase diagram), allowing the remaining liquid eutectic to flow away from the solidified iron.

[William Seger]

90. And what does your friend think about the alternate theory...

... concerning the Fuji Bank's large UPS installation on the 81st floor?

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

[scott75]

104. wrong response branch - nt

[scott75]

105. My friend's response

My friend's response:

Under discussion is the deliberate placement of thermitic material. The presence of "batteries" in the corner of the buildings could have been used as a vehicle for deliberate placement of thermitic materials, so is not decisive as evidence either way.

If the speculation is that the flowing material is lead (pb), then molten lead is not orange. It has a low emissivity coefficient, lower than aluminium, so it does not glow very much at high temperatures:
http://www.electro-optical.com/bb_rad/emissivity/matlemisivty.htm

So its not lead for the same reasons its not aluminium. If anyone thinks it is lead then melt a chunk of lead and demonstrate it can be orange, film it, and put it on youtube. Why this has not been done to this day is self evident.

[William Seger]

111. But the "aluminum hypothesis" is actually aluminum oxide and dross

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

The thing I find interesting about the "UPS battery" hypothesis is that when I first saw the video of that stuff dripping out of the WTC window, what it reminded me of most was the time I saw a power transformer on a telephone pole hit by lightening. It exploded in a shower of white-hot sparks, but then it dripped a lot of yellow/orange stuff on the road. At the time, I thought it could either be arc-melted metal or perhaps burning globs of oil -- I really couldn't tell what it was and I was less than 50 yards away.

Anyway, the general point is that mundane explanations need to be ruled out before exotic explanation become more probable, and that simply hasn't happened yet.

[scott75]

125. My friend seems to be away...

And this type of thing is not really my field, so I'll have to leave this for now.

[scott75]

65. Correction of typo

I made a typo; In one sentence, I quote Lobdill as saying:
"As the mixture cools, the original molten mix was at S > 31.4%, Fe begin to crystallize out."

In point of fact it should have been:
"As the mixture cools, the original molten mix was at S < 31.4%, Fe begin to crystallize out."

[William Seger]

21. Almost too lame to respond to

Here, I'll quote what I said, to save you the trouble of looking up-thread, and bold the parts you overlooked:

> "Serious question: How do you deal with the fact that the world is literally full of people who understand pretty well why the towers collapsed, including the lead engineer of the design team, Leslie Roberts?"

and...

> "The reason I ask is that I thought I understood it reasonably well when it happened, and Roberts seems to have a pretty similar understanding. Why, exactly, do you think I should be concerned that a theologian with a PhD in Asian religion doesn't understand it?"

Where do you see anything about NIST?

So, I take it that your method for dealing with my question is straw man arguments, innuendo, and non sequiturs huh. Interesting.

[scott75]

25. Exposing NIST's poor work is a straw man argument? Not exactly...

Here, I'll quote what I said, to save you the trouble of looking up-thread, and bold the parts you overlooked:

> "Serious question: How do you deal with the fact that the world is literally full of people who understand pretty well why the towers collapsed, including the lead engineer of the design team, Leslie Roberts?"

Kevin Ryan addresses this point quite well, in his article, Propping up the War on Terror:

Perhaps most compelling for me < in countering the official story > were the words of a genuine expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The NOVA video, incidentally, gave this credit to Leslie Robertson. But Robertson, who never claimed to have originated the design, was only a junior member of the firm , and Skilling was known at the time to be the engineer in charge.) In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."18

and...

> "The reason I ask is that I thought I understood it reasonably well when it happened, and Roberts seems to have a pretty similar understanding. Why, exactly, do you think I should be concerned that a theologian with a PhD in Asian religion doesn't understand it?"

Where do you see anything about NIST?

I didn't. I suppose I simply assumed that you were talking about an organization that actually wrote the final official report concerning the cause of the WTC buildings' collapse, instead of a junior member in an engineering firm. My apologies.

So, I take it that your method for dealing with my question is straw man arguments, innuendo, and non sequiturs huh. Interesting.

Exposing NIST's shoddy official reports is a straw man argument? NIST's official reports are the -backbone- of the official story concerning the WTC buildings. The fact that you seem to think that some junior member of an engineering firm involved in the Twin Towers' construction is the important issue speaks volumes concerning your knowledge of this issue.

[William Seger]

26. You (should) know you're in trouble when you need Kevin Ryan as a source

Robertson was a junior partner (not "member") in the Skilling firm, and he was the engineer who set up the Skilling New York office to work on the WTC. According to Robertson, Skilling was the firm's "salesman" who "had the golden tongue" but who had a "lack of attention to detail and unwillingness to focus on his profession sometimes." (http://books.google.com/books?id=yE1Pyui4GpkC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159">City in the Sky, by James Glanz and Eric Lipton). Take that for what it's worth, but the quote that Ryan (conveniently) finds so convincing was made at the time that a large anti-WTC contingent was using the possibility of airplane crashes as an argument against the building. Skilling said "we" -- not "I" as Ryan distorts it -- "did a study..." which doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the design records. Furthermore, there wasn't any way that engineers in the 60s could have possibly studied the effects of a fire from a large passenger jet crash: Neither the analytical tools nor the empirical knowledge existed at that time. And the final proof that Skilling's statement that "the building would still stand" after such a fire was political bluster to stave off criticism is that there was absolutely no special consideration to the fireproofing of the building; it was just what the building code required for all office buildings. In other words, Skilling simply assumed that standard fireproofing was adequate. He was wrong. So, no sir, Kevin Ryan does not "address this point quite well." As usual, Kevin Ryan distorts and tries to talk authoritatively about things he doesn't understand -- the very thing that cost him his job at the UL subsidiary.

> "I suppose I simply assumed that you were talking about an organization that actually wrote the final official report concerning the cause of the WTC buildings' collapse..."

Why would you assume that when I said something quite different? But in the context of the perfectly idiotic quote in the OP, in addition to Robertson I also had in mind the well-known Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson paper and http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Scholarly%20Papers">several other papers that have appeared in real peer-reviewed journals, as well as numerous informal comments by real structural engineers. You also seem to have missed that I said I think I understand it pretty well myself, and I have since I watched it happen on TV, and my understanding is in pretty good agreement with experts who have nothing to do with NIST. I've also spent a hell of a lot of time on this board explaining in excruciating detail why I believe the towers collapsed. Not that I'm claiming to be an expert myself, but I don't have any use for bullshit from people who don't understand structural mechanics and physics at least as well as I do, and I don't have any use for your delusions about how a bunch of accessories to murder at NIST have mislead everybody to cover up for "the government." And anyway, if you really want to talk about your NIST delusions and think you can defend what you claim, start another thread -- don't derail this one.

But I do thank you for indirectly answering my question about how irrational people deal with being on the losing side of technical debates on why the towers collapsed.

[rollingrock]

31. The official story is like a religion or cult

don't bother. you can't reason with the irrational.

[scott75]

33. I actually find William Seger and Bolo challenging..

Which is more then I can say for -some- official story supporters :-p. I don't really like bandying about insults; they can throw the same ones at us and I don't think anyone benefits from it; I, atleast, am attempting to persuade them that they're mistaken. I assume they're attempting to do the same.

[rollingrock]

35. Like trying to persuade a fundamentalist that creationism is bunk

that's a challenge alright.

[William Seger]

38. Thanks, I'm beginning to see where you're coming from now

In your little world of delusion, you simply turn everything upside down and then it looks right to you. Very interesting.

[scott75]

41. I believe that if it were really that bad...

...I wouldn't be discussing it with them. I have a friend who's a creationist, I simply tell him that in order not to mess up our friendship, we simply shouldn't talk about that issue.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Really?

You might find you have more in common with him than you think.

He's got intelligent design, and you've got intelligent design as well.

[scott75]

66. I think it's good to point out...

I think it's good to point out that there are some things that we can mutually agree on (such as that creationism is mistaken). As to who designed the plan for 9/11, we can continue to try to understand why we disagree on this point.

[rollingrock]

23. The Union of Concerned Scientists

vs. the hacks who were working for the Bush administration?
I'd go with the former by a long shot, thanks.






But some people will swallow any official bullshit, won't they?



baaaahhh

[LARED]

5. Can you souce this quote?

It's hard to believe anyone could say something so dumb.

[Realityhack]

6. Not really. We have several residents here that do it regularly. n/t

[rollingrock]

9. Creationists think physics is dumb.

you would fall into that category.

[LARED]

28. Translation; I can't source the quote

so I will hijack my own thread.

[rollingrock]

32. Translation: if you were literate,

you would see that the author of the quote is indicated.

[LARED]

34. Semantics aside, do you have a link to the quote - nt

[scott75]

75. Here you go

Graeme MacQueen says it 13 minutes into a video taken of a presentation he gave at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15793

[wildbilln864]

48. bolo actually said....

it was like steuben glass. He actually said that! :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

51. I said it in this fucking thread, wildbill

You got a fucking problem with a fucking exaggeration in service of a fucking point?

[wildbilln864]

56. It's much more than an exageration.

It's an example of you misunderstanding the physics of the collapses.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. No, it's just an hyperbole to smash through the brick wall of ignorance

And it's far more applicable to the towers than any account provided by the Truth Movement.

[Kitty Herder]

59. I don't know if I buy the official story or not.

Neither side has convinced me, to be honest.

But what makes me suspicious about the official story is that the buildings didn't collapse. They fucking exploded. Yet everyone keeps saying they collapsed. The official story explains a collapse, but not the powerful explosions we all witnessed.

[seemslikeadream]

61. back off

"January 2001. The Bush administration, orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to back off investigations involving the bin Laden family including two of Osama Bin Laden's relatives, who were living, guess where, in Falls Church, VA, right next to CIA headquarters."

[seemslikeadream]

62. James Bath

James R Bath connects Bush, bin Laden, Petrodollars, BCCI & BFEE.


I think this is the only known photo of Bath


James R Bath connects Bush, bin Laden, Petrodollars, BCCI & BFEE.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1928339

James (Jim) R. Bath's campaign donations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1930028

The FBI investigated James Bath & Bush!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1905988

James R Bath, SuperTurd of the BFEE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2053861

Call to Octafish: We need massive linkage on BCCI and IranContra.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2118878

Michael Moore: Re: James Bath....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2344047

How many here know who Adnan Khashoggi is?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2316608
.
Know your BFEE: James R Bath - Bush - bin Laden Link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3571293

James R Bath Links Bush and BFEE to House of Bin Laden (PROOF)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3234845


Know your BFEE: Killer Businessmen who Put Power & Profit Before Country.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4401300

My Republican neighbor came over and asked who was James R. Bath?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1483048#1483278

Highlights


Bush, Bath, BCCI and the Caymans
Posted by Octafish on Mon Mar-07-05 09:51 PM

Where the loot went...



Follow the Money: The Bush-bin Laden Connection

President Bush's September 2001 address to the American people will live on in infamy. In it, Bush roused the American people to a "war on terrorism," which was to consist of rooting out the financial sources of support for terrorist activities. A global effort ensued in the following weeks. Bush then signed an executive order freezing the financial assets of several alleged charities reputed to be "fronts" for the al-Qaida network. According to a report by Christopher Byron dated 9/24/01 entitled "Terrorists, dollars and a tangled web", however, one glitch got ahead of Bush's fanaticism: following this money trail would require investigators to "probe deep into the offshore activities of America's mightiest banks and the financial affairs of many of America's leading public figures," including George W. and George H.W. Bush. It all starts with the Bank for Credit & Commerce International, now infamous as the "BCCI Scandal." The BCCI, with its main offices in London and New York, was bankrolled by Saudi Arabian money handlers. The BCCI was engaged in widespread bribery of officials in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas; its criminal activities touched nearly every country on Earth. According to Byron, the BCCI "laundered money on a global scale, intimidated witnesses and law enforcement authorities, engaged in extortion and blackmail; supplied the financing for illegal arms trafficking and global terrorism; financed and facilitated income tax evasion, smuggling and prostitution." As Byron also explains, BCCI operated via secrecy through various front organizations, and "penetrated the top-most echelons of American business, co-opting and exploiting many of the most visible and influential public figures in America."

The tentacles of BCCI began to touch George W. Bush when he sold his young, struggling oil company to Harken Energy. This, according to Byron, "set in motion a chain of events that wound up entangling Bush, briefly but awkwardly, in the affairs of not just BCCI but of the bin Laden family itself." Specifically, what is the bin Laden connection?

James Bath, one of Bush's original partners in his oil company, had contacts in the Middle East. According to Byron, Bath was named in a 1976 trust document as the business representative for Salem bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's half-brother, who was killed in a private plane crash in Texas in 1988. William White has claimed that Bath was involved in a secret conspiracy to funnel Saudi money into the U.S., and that since 1976-the year Bush Sr. became head of the CIA-Bath had worked as a CIA liaison to Saudi Arabia. White has made the claim, which Bath denies, that "Bath ran an aviation business and obtained several aircraft from the CIA."

As Byron reports, Bath did run Skyway Aircraft Leasing Ltd., an aviation business based in the Cayman Islands, which was owned by Saudi banker Khalid bin Mahfouz. In 1977, bin Mahfouz joined up with Saudi front man for BCCI, Ghaith Pharaon, and became an investor in the Main Bank of Houston, in which Bath also held a stake.

CONTINUED...



Does George W. Bush Have Something To Hide?
Mahfouz’s past also includes business dealings with George W. Bush, having invested $50,000 in the younger Bush’s first company, Arbusto Energy, through his U.S. representative James R. Bath, an aircraft broker and friend of Mr. Bush from their days together in the Texas Air National Guard. (Wall Street Journal (WSJ), “Vetting the Frontrunners: From Oil to Baseball to the Governor’s Mansion,” 9-28-1999)

Legal papers regarding Bath's contested divorce listed one of his assets as a $50,000 investment in Arbusto Oil -- Bush's first company. Moreover, Bath's business partner said he had no substantial money of his own at the time he made the Arbusto investment, implying that Bath received the money from someone else: "Most of Bath's investments....were really fronts for Mahfouz and other Saudis connected with the Bank of Credit and Commerce (BCCI)." (The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of BCCI, Random House, Beaty & Gwynne, 1993, page 229.)

Award-winning author and journalist at the Houston Chronicle and “The Economist,” Peter Brewton, consulted James R. Bath’s resume and wrote that in early summer 1976 Bath received a huge business break:


“Bath was named a trustee for Sheikh Salem bin Laden of Saudi Arabia , a member of the family that owns the largest construction company in the Middle East. Bath’s job was to handle all of bin Laden’s North American investments and operations.” ( The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush, Shapolsky Book Pub., 1992)
Shortly thereafter, Bath also began working for billionaire Sheikh Mahfouz, NCB banker for Saudi billionaire financier Abdullah Bakhsh. Meanwhile, George Junior’s failing Arbusto company was renamed Bush Exploration -- hoping to trade on his father‘s increasing importance; however, it was soon merged with Spectrum 7 Energy, as oil prices were collapsing.

While hard times continued for Spectrum, in 1988 Harken Energy Corporation absorbed the company, according to WSJ. And in return for adding the famous Bush name as a corporate asset, Texas-based Harken in effect bailed out the future president’s failing fortunes with generous stock options, a salaried seat on Harken’s board of directors, low-interest loans, and other helpful perks. < Harken Energy: George W.‘s Perfect Storm, 7-15-2002 -- http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0207/S00104.htm >



James R Bath Links Bush and BFEE to House of Bin Laden (PROOF)
Posted by Octafish on Mon Mar-07-05 04:38 PM

Back when George W was defendin' Texas from the Air Force of North Vietnam, he met a man by the name of James R Bath. They both were drummed off the flight line for failing to take physical exams -- coincidently, I'm sure, right about the same time the government starting testing pilots for illegal drugs.

Here's the document:



Here's the document James R Bath signed to be the official US business agent of the bin Laden family. Neet, huh?



Here's a great, fair-and-balanced in the best sense of the phrase, article:

Mystery man

Why the White House deleted the name of Bush pal and Saudi go-between James Bath from the president's military records is a tantalizing but unanswered question.

By Craig Unger

April 27, 2004 | Last month, before the 9/11 commission began its public hearings and Iraq exploded in renewed warfare, the White House tried to quell a gathering storm regarding President Bush's military service, releasing hundreds of documents about Bush's tenure in the Texas Air National Guard some 30 years ago. A close examination of the documents reveals that they not only fail to answer lingering questions about Bush's service but prompt a crucial new area of inquiry that could play a role in the presidential campaign -- a long and lucrative, but low-profile, relationship between Saudis and the Bush family that goes back 30 years.

The document that raises that question is dated Sept. 29, 1972, and notes that 1st Lt. George W. Bush was suspended from flying because of his "failure to accomplish annual medical examination." Since he had just received hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of training as a jet fighter pilot, the fact that Bush let his medical certification lapse raises a troubling matter. Why did he allow himself to become ineligible to fly when he still had two years of service left? Given that random drug testing by the military had just started, some have suggested that Bush had not yet given up his partying ways and may have begged off because he had a substance abuse problem.

The records released by the White House last month fail to answer that question, but they do add one compelling fact to the story -- namely, that Bush was not the only man in his unit to be suspended for failing to take the physical, and that someone else at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston was suspended for exactly the same reason at almost the same time. However, in the documents, the second man's name was inexplicably redacted -- raising new questions.

Throughout the reams of documents released by the administration, standard practice was to allow each National Guardsman's name to be printed in full. Why did the White House make an exception in this case? Why would the Bush administration want to make sure this name in particular did not make it into the public eye?

The White House declined to answer these questions. However, the same document that was redacted by the White House had been the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Marty Heldt, who was investigating the story before the 2000 presidential election. In the same document that the White House selectively censored for release to the public, the name of the man who was also suspended with Bush is clearly printed. His name: James R. Bath.

CONTINUED...(worth wading through the commercial to retrieve)...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/27/james_bath /

Anyone seen Mr. Bath lately? Hope his health is holding up, seeing what happens to those who know too much about the BFEE and all.



James R Bath, SuperTurd of the BFEE
Posted by Octafish on Fri Jul-23-04 10:22 PM

James R Bath is George W Bush's buddy from the Texas Air National Guard. They got grounded together for refusing to take a physical (read: drug test) in 1972. If you want to see a copy of the actual document, ask and I'll post it for you.

So... later that decade, Bath becomes a bidnessman, Texas-style, and serves as the official business representative of two of the wealthiest Saudi families: the bin Mahfouz (banking, like, um BCCI) and the bin Laden (construction, Mecca and Afghan mountain redoubt).

The Honorable Skip Fox of the DU, made a solid post to chronicle the Little Turd from Crawford's life as a crooked businessman. Behold:


Forum: DCForumID38
Thread Number: 4933
< Go back to previous page >
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Message
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"HarkenGate, July 9, 2002 file:"
Posted by skip fox on Jul-09-02 at 04:38 PM

HarkenGate readily breaks down into five areas for investigation and discussion:

1.W. possibly built oil company and interests through favoritism or trading off his father's name (esp. Bahrain's naming of Harken as the oil company for the country's off-shore interests).

2. Harken's posted of phony financial statements, claiming incoming assets for a subsidiary it bought from itself. (A mere $8-12 million, a low-rent version of what Enron did a decade later.)

3. W.'s trading of stock based on possible knowledge of potential stock devaluation i.e., insider trading (2 possibilities):
–a. Knowledge of secret State Dept. memo claiming Hussain was ready to attack neighbors.
–b. Knowledge of Harken's dire straits as one member of a three-member "Fairness" (auditing) committee.

4. W.'s late filing of stock sales to SEC and variation in story as to reasons.

5. Possible favoritism shown to Bush's business "indiscretions" by SEC through father's influence and/or the possible reward to SEC investigator(s) by W. himself.

According, this first file breaks into these five areas with hotlinks and clipping of the stories focusing on each issue. The second file provides the base of documents from which the first file was drawn in a manner that the reader might follow the progression of the story. Both files begin with BACKGROUND, citing Joe Conason's thorough and clear overview of the narrative of W.'s fortune. To Joe's credit, he brings up nearly all of the five issues (and sub-issues) listed above. Pizzo's article is also a good background piece.

************************************************
************************************************

BACKGROUND:

--Joe Conason's "Notes on a Native Son," Harper's Magazine, Feb. 2000. (A thorough, given article parameters, overview of George W. Bush's fortune. Harken is covered primarily on pp. 4-6 of item. Due to this article, Conason has been frequently quoted on Bush's corporate dealings):

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1797_300/59086099/p1/article.html


–Stephen Pizzo, "Bush Family Values," Mother Jones, Sept.-Oct. 1992 (another good example of early reporting on Bush's fortunes):

http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/bushboys.html


Will Pitt's December 18, 2001 DU article, "King Midas in Reverse," also summarizes the major issues well and is a good read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/12/18_midas.html


************************************************
************************************************


1.THE POSSIBILITY THAT W. BUILT OIL INTERESTS BY TRADING OFF HIS FATHER'S NAME AT THE LEAST, FAVORITISM AT THE MOST:

Read Conason and Pizzi in Background.


Kevin Sack's "George Bush the Son Finds That Oil and Blood Do Mix," NY Times, May 8, 1999 (another excellent background piece concerning W.'s acquisition of a fortune, but Sack's clearly draws the personal and familial connections):

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/f/friedman/spring02/govt1/schedule/j/j1/bush.html




<snip>

In October 1991, Time Magazine questioned why the tiny country of Bahrain would stake so much of its financial future on Harken Energy, which it labeled an "obscure, money-losing company with no refineries and no experience in offshore oil exploration." But the magazine also noted that oil-insiders speculated that Bahrain's rulers saw the arrangement as a way to gain influence with the Bush administration.

Mysteriously, primary reporters have also ignored what could point to a nexus regarding foreign policy and personal financial interests. Interestingly, the Village Voice in January 1991 reported that in 1990 the Bush administration signed an agreement with Bahrain that chose the small country as the permanent principal allied base in the Middle East, although it was some 200 miles away from the hostilities in Iraq and Kuwait.

The military-base deal came after Harken announced its Jan. 30, 1990, joint oil-drilling venture with Bahrain. So President Bush's key contributors and his son George W. were carrying on personal financial business with Bahrain at the same time decisions were being made regarding the possibility of a war in the Gulf.

And neither the president nor his adviser, George Jr., let the press know that Bahrain had been permitted to infuse $7.7 million in foreign cash to hire U.S. public relations firm Hill & Knowlton to lobby Congress and the American people; a stunning variety of opinion-forming devices and techniques were employed to inflame U.S. patriotic passions of war while personal financial interests were on the line.

<snip>


And it's even possible that some bin Laden money went to Bush's launching pad in the oil business (Arbusto) as the wealthy Saudi family sought to maintain favor with the Republican administration as Wayne Madsen reports in In These Times:




<snip>

In 1979, Bush's first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a
Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a
5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative
for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17)
to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto
money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the
September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting
that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden's, in Arbusto.

In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged
his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests. In fact,
Bath has extensive ties, both to the bin Laden family and major players in the
scandal-ridden Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) who have gone on to
fund Osama bin Laden. BCCI defrauded depositors of $10 billion in the '80s in what has
been called the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" by former Manhattan
District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During the '80s, BCCI also acted as a main conduit
for laundering money intended for clandestine CIA activities, ranging from financial
support to the Afghan mujahedin to paying intermediaries in the Iran-Contra affair.

<snip>

************************************************
************************************************

2. HARKEN'S POSTING OF PHONY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CLAIMING ASSETS WITHOUT NOTING DEBITS AND BUSH'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRAUDLENT ACCOUNTING.


Paul Krugman's July 7 column spells it out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/opinion/07KRUG.html

<snip>

That's exactly what happened at Harken. A group of insiders, using money borrowed
from Harken itself, paid an exorbitant price for a Harken subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum.
That created a $10 million phantom profit, which hid three-quarters of the company's
losses in 1989. White House aides have played down the significance of this maneuver,
saying $10 million isn't much, compared with recent scandals. Indeed, it's a small
fraction of the apparent profits Halliburton created through a sudden change in
accounting procedures during Dick Cheney's tenure as chief executive. But for Harken's
stock price — and hence for Mr. Bush's personal wealth — this accounting trickery made
all the difference.

Oh, and Harken's fake profits were several dozen times as large as the Whitewater land
deal — though only about one-seventh the cost of the Whitewater investigation.

Mr. Bush was on the company's audit committee, as well as on a special restructuring
committee; back in 1994, another member of both committees, E. Stuart Watson,
assured reporters that he and Mr. Bush were constantly made aware of the company's
finances. If Mr. Bush didn't know about the Aloha maneuver, he was a very negligent
director.

<snip>

An unattributed editorial in the St. Louis Post Dispach July 7, 2002, puts it succinctly:

http://home.post-dispatch.com/channel%5Cpdweb.nsf/TodaySunday /
86256A0E0068FE5086256BEF002DD29E?OpenDocument&PubWrapper=Editorial

(You'll have to bind http address together to go directly.)


<snip>

...Harken sold a subsidiary to a group of its own insiders. It lent those insiders much of the money to make the purchase. Then Harken claimed a profit from the sale. It was almost as if the company were claiming profits for selling something to itself. Shades of Enron, Qwest and Dynegy, among others. The SEC cried foul. It forced the company to restate its earnings to show a much larger loss.

Did Mr. Bush approve of such accounting sleight of hand? After all, he was on Harken's audit committee. Or was he snoozing while management had fun with figures?

<snip>


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/08/MN139428.DTL

<snip>

Democrats hope to draw attention to a controversial deal by Harken to sell one of its subsidiaries, Aloha Petroleum, to a group of Harken insiders. The SEC later found that deal might have disguised at least $8 million in losses by Harken and asked the company to restate its 1989 earnings. Bush was on the audit committee of Harken's board at the time.

<snip>

************************************************
************************************************

3. BUSH'S SELLING OF HARKEN STOCK BASED ON POSSIBLE KNOWLEDGE OF POTENTIAL STOCK DEVALUATION, I.E, INSIDER TRADING (2 possibilities):

–a. BUSH'S KNOWLEDGE OF A SECRET STATE DEPARTMENT MEMO CLAIMING HUSSAIN WAS OUT OF CONTROL AND READY TO ATTACK KUWAIT

Pizzo lays out the case:

http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/bushboys.html

<snip>

In May 1990, the U.S. State Department sent a chilling but still classified report to Scowcroft. The report warned that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was out of control and was threatening his neighbors:

May 16, 1990
SECRET
Attached is a paper containing a list of options for responding to recent actions and statements by the Government of Iraq. ...We ask that you pass this paper to Robert Gates for his review.

Under "options" the memo suggested: Ban Oil Purchases: The largest benefit Iraq receives from the US is through our oil purchases...
PRO -- A total ban on oil purchases would have some short-term impact.
CON -- Such action might also have an impact on US Oil prices.

Oil companies had learned, during the years of the long Iran-Iraq war, that trouble in the gulf hurts companies with oil interests because, for one thing, at the first sound of a rifle shot in the gulf region, Lloyds of London jacks up insurance rates on oil tankers and company installations. The "wartime" rates are very high and cut deeply into company profits and investor confidence. If things really get out of hand, pipelines are destroyed and waterways are mined.

The secret memo augured ill for Harken's fledgling venture.

<snip>

(Memo is May, Bush sells in June!)

–b. KNOWLEDGE OF HARKEN'S POOR FINANCIAL SITUATION AS A MEMBER OF A THREE-MEMBER "FAIRNESS" (read: AUDIT) COMMITTEE :

Read Conason and Pizzi in Background.

Molly Ivins Feb. 15, 2002 Texas Observer article:

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=562

<snip>

A month before Bush sold his stock, the Harken board appointed Bush and another company director, E. Stuart Watson, to a "fairness committee" determine how restructuring would affect ordinary stockholders.

Smith, Barney, Harris, Upham & Co., the financial consultants hired by Harken, told Bush and Watson only drastic action could save the company. So Bush sold his stock before the news became public. According to U.S. News & World Report, there was "substantial evidence to suggest that Bush knew Harken was in dire straits."

<snip>

Daschle's desire to look into the SEC's 1991 investigation of Bush (mostly on late filings, but also on possible insider trading):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/08/MN139428.DTL


************************************************
************************************************

4. BUSH'S LATE FILING OF STOCK SALES TO SEC AND VARIATIONS IN THE STORY

Real problems are brewing in this area. Did you notice that the story changed again in the last 24-36 hours?? The initial story had been that the SEC had misplaced the filings. But that didn't wash (since nobody at SEC was willing to take the heat for W.'s incompetence in a high profile case.) Recently he claimed that the hold up was due to Harken's lawyers. At Bush's Monday (June 8) press conference, he said that they are not clear what happened. Why can't the previous story, that Harken's lawyers filed months late, stand up under scrutiny??

A July 4, 2002, NYTimes story by Elisabeth Bumiller succinctly provides details on W's changed story about late filing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/04/politics/04BUSH.html?ex=1026532800
&en=249a29fcb97603b8&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

You'll have to paste address together and register to read, but a shortened version without NYTimes registration necessity at:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/3599668.htm

<snip>

Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday. that Bush failed to promptly disclose the sale of stock 12 years. ago because of a ``mix-up'' with his lawyers. In 1994, however,. Bush blamed not his lawyer but the Securities and Exchange Commission for misplacing the proper forms.

Fleischer could not completely explain the inconsistency, and he said he did not know when or why Bush changed his explanation about the reason the sale was disclosed late.

. . .

Bush, who was on Harken's board of directors, has said that he quickly realized that the stock's slide would raise concerns that he had sold based on inside information, a potential crime. The suspicions grew when the SEC said that it did not have a document from Bush, a Form 4, that insiders must file when they sell stock. Bush did not file the Form 4, and officially report the sale, until March 1991.

But Bush had promptly filed another required document, a Form 144, disclosing his intent to sell the stock.

In 1994, when Bush was asked why he had not filed the Form 4, he said he thought he had and that the SEC must have misplaced it. But on Wednesday, Fleischer said the problem was a ``mix-up, a clerical mistake'' by lawyers for Harken.

``The best explanation is the attorneys thought the form hadbeen filed, which is what led George W. Bush to say he thought it had been filed and the SEC had lost it,'' Fleischer said. ``That was not the case.''


<snip>


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/07/08_Harken.html

<snip>

Ari Fleischer who, if you read the. transcript of July 3, 2002's White House Press Briefing, craftily alleged. that Harken Energy's corporate attorneys were grossly incompetent. No, he didn't "say" they were grossly incompetent, but if you follow Fleischer's logic, you would have to conclude that this is what he meant. Apparently the attorneys neglected to read the deadline and filing instructions printed at the top of SEC Form-4: "This Form must be filed on or before the tenth day after the end of the month in which a change in beneficial ownership has occurred (the term "beneficial owner" is defined in Rule 16a-1(a)(2) and discussed in Instruction 4)." That is the tenth day after the end of the month . . .. Not 34 weeks.

. . .

I have never once worked with what I'd call an "upright" attorney who would dare miss a director's SEC filing deadline. In fact, if I were the assigned secretary to that lawyer, I would have been fired had I failed to note the deadline on my own working calendar.


<snip>

The third change in the story, Chicago Trib:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum /
duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=25150&forum=DCForumID5

(You'll have to paste address back together to go direct and then register, but here is the salient paragraph.)

<snip>

Changing his response for a third time, Bush said he did not know why some of the
forms he was required to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission about his
1990 sale of nearly $850,000 in Harken Energy Corp. stock were 34 months late reaching
the SEC. He earlier had blamed the SEC for losing the documents, and then a "mix-up"
by Harken's attorneys.

<snip>

David Scheim, for Campaign Watch, summarizes the SEC's final disposition on Bush's sales:

http://www.campaignwatch.org/more1.htm

<snip>

. . . the SEC had not exonerated Bush. On October 18, 1993, Bruce A. Hiler, the SEC's associate director for enforcement, wrote a letter to Bush's lawyer stating that "the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and that, at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him."7 Bush claimed he had been cleared, and the head of the SEC's enforcement division, William McLucas, went beyond the letter and stated that "there was no case there."8

Yet Hiler's official letter had added that it "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation ."9

<snip>


Knut Royce's report for The Public i stresses the SEC connection:

http://www.public-i.org/story_01_100400.htm
and he follows it up with another:

http://www.public-i.org/story_01_100400.htm


Informational: Nederland posted this in DU July 8, 2002

<snip>

Mr. Bush followed the law by informing regulators of his intention to sell stock in Harken Energy Corp., a Texas oil company, in 1990. But he conceded that because of a "mix-up, a clerical mistake" by Harken lawyers, Mr. Bush had not promptly reported the sale after it took place.

Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/03/politics/main514190.shtml


As I mentioned before, its the intention to sell (form 144) that is the important document. The document indicating that you actually sold your stock (form 4), is generally regarded as a formality.

<snip>

and Nederland follows up with:

<snip>

This form must be filed with the SEC as notice of the proposed sale of restricted securities or securities held by an affiliate of the issuer in reliance on Rule 144. Notice on the form is only required when the amount to be sold during any three-month period exceeds 500 shares or units or has an aggregate sales price in excess of $10,000. The sale must take place within three months of filing the form and, if the securities have not been sold, an amended notice must be filed.

Link: http://www.sec.gov/answers/form144.htm


As you can see, the form must be filed within three months of the sale, not in the "next couple of years" . . . .

<snip>

The seriousness of late filings?? Frank Rich's "All the President's Enrons," NY Times (July 6) provides only a brief paragraph on Harken, but includes the sentence, "A Presidential spokesman assured us . . . that this infraction amounted to nothing more than driving 60 in a 55-mile-an-hour zone.")

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/06/opinion/06RICH.html


Daschle's desire to look into the SEC's 1991 investigation of Bush (mostly on late filings, but also on possible insider trading):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/08/MN139428.DTL


************************************************
************************************************

CONTINUED. THIS IS ONE IMPORTANT READ. GO TO THE LINK AND GET THE ENTIRE THREAD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4933&forum=DCForumID38&archive=


14 page interview w/ Bill White, mentioned above
Posted by rog on Thu Jul-01-04 10:05 PM

14 page interview from the CBC website
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/white.pdf

Conspiracy Theories: Broadcast on the fifth estate Wednesday, October 29 2003 on CBC-TV
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories /

Google "george w bush" "james r bath" "bill white"
http://tinyurl.com/yv4jo

More articles, including the complete "part 1" of the Jerry Urban article from the Houston Chronicle.
http://tinyurl.com/yq43d

Part 1 also available here (about 1/3 of the way down):
Feds Looked Into G.W. Bush-Bin Laden Connection
http://www.bushnews.com/attack.htm

Can't seem to find part 2, supposedly published on the following day, June 5, 1992.


The FBI investigated James Bath & Bush!
Posted by ALago1 on Thu Jul-01-04 09:05 PM

Just doing some random Google searches turned up this 1992 article from the Houston chronicle:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/1990s/houstonchronicle060492.html

"Federal authorities are investigating the activities of a Houston businessman -- a past investor in companies controlled by a son of President Bush -- who has been accused of illegally representing Saudi interests in the United States.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network -- known as FinCEN -- and the FBI are reviewing accusations that entrepreneur James R. Bath guided money to Houston from Saudi investors who wanted to influence U.S. policy under the Reagan and Bush administrations, sources close to the investigations say. FinCEN, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury, investigates money laundering. Special agents and analysts from various law enforcement agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Customs Service, are assigned to work with the FinCEN staff.

"The federal review stems in part from court documents obtained through litigation by Bill White, a former real estate business associate of Bath. White contends the documents indicate that the Saudis were using Bath and their huge financial resources to influence U.S. policy.

Moore should have mentioned that the Feds were on to them (or at least appeared to be) in his film. Anyone else ever heard of this?


James (Jim) R. Bath's campaign donations
Posted by President Jesus on Tue Jul-06-04 08:01 AM

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=TX&last=Bath&first=Jim


James R Bath connects Bush, bin Laden, Petrodollars, BCCI & BFEE.
Posted by Octafish on Tue Jul-06-04 12:12 AM

If Corporate McPravda should ever get off its bloated backsides long enough, they might trace and document the BFEE's many nefarious connections to Smirko's blacked-out Texas Air National Guard buddy -- James R Bath.

Named in Fahrenheit 9/11, the guy ties the BFEE to Saudi petrodollars, international terrorism, money-laundering, drug-dealing and a whole lot more, including nuclear proliferation.

The press won't t be doing the nation any favors calling Bath a linchpin or missing link: It would be doing its job. And if they do, it's likely the nation would discover what Danny Casolaro termed "The Octopus."

Here's an excerpt from a BBC interview with Bath's one-time business partner, a brave man named Bill White. There's also a link to the interview.

BILL WHITE
Interview by: Bob McKeown

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

EXCERPT...

SO IN A SENSE, AT THE POINT WHEN YOU FIRST MET HIM WAS BATH THIS LINK BETWEEN THE BUSHES ON ONE SIDE AND THE BIN LADEN’S AND SAUDIS? Right. That link had already been established and Jim was actually in an operational mode. He spent probably ninety-five percent of his time, I’d call it hand-holding the Arabs. He bought a bank for them. He bought an airport for them. He started an airline for them among other ventures in Houston, Texas and was the nominee or the front man for their ownership of these various entities. He would spend most of his time dealing with their interests while I concentrated on running our real estate development company.

WHAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST OF THE SAUDIS IN AND AROUND HOUSTON? WHY DID THEY COME TO TEXAS AT THIS TIME? Well they had a large presence here because of their oil interests (Aramco & Saudia are headquartered in Houston). And they had banking interests by virtue of Bush Senior’s association with First International Bank which subsequently became InterFirst. And there was also John Connolly, who was a former Democrat who turned Republican and worked in the Nixon Administration with Bush, he ran First City NationalBank. We also had James Baker and his Baker & Bott’s Law Firm, so you basically had a confluence of political and business interests that were friendly to the Saudi Royal Family here in Houston.

IN THE MID SEVENTIES WHEN YOU FIRST CAME IN CONNECTION WITH JIM, WHAT DID YOU LEARN THROUGH BATH ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THE BUSH CONNECTIONS AND THE BUSH HISTORY WITH SAUDI ARABIA? Well Bath explained to me that he had been tapped by George Senior to set up a quasi-private aircraft firm that would basically engage in CIA-sponsored activities funded by the Saudi Royal Family. He explained that the Saudis had basically entered into a quid pro quo relationship with Bush and that Bush when he was CIA Director worked with the head of Saudi Intelligence and the CIA trained the Palace Guard to protect the Saudi Royal Family who was concerned about a fundamentalist revolution. And it was at that point I think that this thing got kicked into high gear and the Saudis agreed to provide surreptitious funding to the United States to fight it’s secret wars in Afghanistan and Nicaragua. Payback came when Bush as Vice President sent AWACS and F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and supported Saddam Hussein under the adage that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. We had the Iran-Iraq War at the time so that’s really how the relationship evolved. “That’s my understanding although I think in retrospect the Saudis realized that they had the power, the magic wand by virtue of their Petro-dollars and that they could use that to influence US foreign and domestic policy. “

SNIP...

WHEN YOU LOOK BACK OVER ALL OF THIS HOW MUCH HAS IT COST YOU IN FINANCIAL AND OTHER WAYS? Well it’s cost me virtually everything, financially. I lost my business, all my real estate holdings, all of my assets were conveyed to Bath in the lawsuits, my house was foreclosed on because the mortgage was held by the Bank that was laundering the Saudi money, all my property was sold at constables’ sale, my Navy retirement was forfeited, and we paid a terrible price. One irony was that during this litigation process, when I refused to cooperate in the cover-up, they began to offer me money and banking business - a package worth millions of dollars if I would only sign what they called a Settlement Agreement. But as I explained to my Lawyer, the Settlement Agreement was nothing but a ‘hush money’ agreement. It said basically that we could never have this conversation and that I could never disclose the Bush-Saudi relationship. I felt that to take that money and to sign that Agreement would have been to basically spit on the graves of all of my friends who died in Vietnam and were fighting to fulfill the Oath we took to protect the Constitution. So I’ve paid a heavy price but I really feel like some of us have a destiny. I certainly didn’t choose this destiny, but it was thrust upon me and I’m trying to do my best to get the truth out. And again there’s really no ill will toward Jim Bath or George Bush. It’s just a matter of getting the truth out on the table and letting the consequences be what they may. But I think the truth’s important.

CONTINUED...


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JkjMbciHAlgJ:www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/white.pdf+jim-bath+bill-white+cbc&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



CONSPIRACY OR COINCIDENCE?

Is it a conspiracy or a coincidence? There is a long and tangled history between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia.

There are many business and connections between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia.

It begins in the 1970's in Houston, Texas, when George W. Bush was just starting out in his family's two businesses of politics and oil. The powerful - and very rich - Bin Laden family helped fund his first venture into oil.

The cozy friendship continued for decades. After a terrorist attack at a barracks in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 Americans, the bin Laden family received a multi-billion dollar contract to re-build. And incredibly, George Bush Sr. was in a business meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington on the morning of September 11th with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers.

Below is a timeline that details the relationship between the Bin Laden and Bush families that culminates in the tragic events of September 11th.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html


Bush's Former Oil Company
Linked To bin Laden Family

By Rick Wiles
American Freedom News.com
c. 2001 American Freedom News
10-3-1

EXCERPT...

According to a 1976 trust agreement, Salem bin Laden appointed James Bath as his business representative in Houston. Revelation about Bath's relationship with the bin Laden financial empire and the CIA was made public in 1992 by Bill White, a former real estate business partner with Bath. White informed federal investigators in 1992 that Bath told him that he had assisted the CIA in a liaison role since 1976 - the same year former President George Herbert Walker Bush served as director of the CIA.

During a bitter legal fight between White and Bath, the real estate partner disclosed that Bath managed a portfolio worth millions of dollars for Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz and other wealthy Saudis. Among the investments made by Bath with Mahfouz's money was the Houston Gulf Airport.

A powerful banker in Saudi Arabia, Mahfouz was one of the largest stockholders in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. BCCI was a corrupt global banking empire operating in 73 nations and was a major financial and political force in Washington, Paris, Geneva, London, and Hong Kong. Despite the appearance of a normal banking operation, BCCI was actually an international crime syndicate providing "banking services" to the Medellin drug cartel, Pamama dictator Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal, and Khun Sa, the heroin kingpin in Asia's Golden Triangle.

The BCCI scandal implicated some of the biggest political names in Washington - both Democrats and Republicans - during the first Bush White House. The bank was accused of laundering money for drug cartels, smuggling weapons to terrorists, and using Middle Eastern oil money to influence American politicians.

CONTINUED...



Banking scandal figure seeks claim to airport contract

By JERRY URBAN
Staff

A key figure in the world's largest banking scandal is participating in an attempt to take control of a major city of Houston aviation contractor, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court here.

National Commercial Bank-Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (NCB), which is controlled by the family of Sheik Khalid Bin Mahfouz, has claimed rights to 90 percent of the outstanding shares of Southwest Airport Services, according to documents accompanying the lawsuit filed by Sandra C. Bath , president of Southwest Airport Services.

SNIP...

Bath filed the lawsuit against the bank and her former husband, James R . Bath , a local entrepreneur.

SNIP...

James Bath is the guarantor on the defaulted loan. He pledged 900 of the 1,000 outstanding shares of Southwest Airport Services to the bank as collateral to secure the loan, according to court documents. Bath held the shares for himself and on behalf of his former wife as community property, the lawsuit says.

CONTINUED...

http://sugarinthegourd.com/bath/bath02.html


Bush Said Friend's Arbusto Investment Was His Own, Not Saudi Money

Friend "Declined To Comment For The Record"

by Jerry Urban
The Houston Chronicle
June 4, 1992

"Federal authorities are investigating the activities of a Houston businessman -- a past investor in companies controlled by a son of President Bush -- who has been accused of illegally representing Saudi interests in the United States.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network -- known as FinCEN -- and the FBI are reviewing accusations that entrepreneur James R. Bath guided money to Houston from Saudi investors who wanted to influence U.S. policy under the Reagan and Bush administrations, sources close to the investigations say. FinCEN, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury, investigates money laundering. Special agents and analysts from various law enforcement agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Customs Service, are assigned to work with the FinCEN staff.

SNIP...

Such representation by Bath would require that he be registered as a foreign agent with the U.S. Department of Justice. In general, people required by law to be registered are those who represent a foreign entity seeking to influence governmental action or policy. An Annapolis graduate and former Navy fighter pilot, White, 46, claims that Bath and the judicial system, under the veil of national security, have blackballed him professionally and financially because he has refused to keep quiet about what he regards as a conspiracy to secretly funnel Saudi dollars to the United States. White became entangled in a series of lawsuits and countersuits with Bath, who for some six years has prevailed in the courts. White says the legal action has financially devasted him and Venturcorp Inc., the real estate development company in which he and Bath were partners.

"In sworn depositions, Bath said he represented four prominent Saudis as a trustee and that he would use his name on their investments. In return, he said, he would receive a 5 percent interest in their deals. Tax documents and personal financial records show that Bath personally had a 5 percent interest in Arbusto '79 Ltd., and Arbusto '80 Ltd., limited partnerships controlled by George W. Bush, President Bush's eldest son. Arbusto means bush in Spanish. Bath invested $50,000 in the limited partnerships, according to the documents. There is no available evidence to show whether the money came from Saudi interests.

CONTINUED...

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/1990s/houstonchronicle060492.html



http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/white.pdf

BILL WHITE Interview by: Bob McKeown
LET’S GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING. WHEN DID YOU FIRST MEET JAMES BATH? I met him when I graduated from Business School in nineteen seventy-eight. I came down to Houston for an interview.
AND WHAT KIND OF PERSON WAS HE? I was actually recruited from Harvard Business School by Lan Bentsen, Senator Bentsen’s son. When he found that I was a Navy Fighter Pilot, he said that there was an Air Force Fighter Pilot in Houston that I should meet – a pilot who the Bentsen family and the Bush families were already in business with. And he said that this fellow James R. Bath needed someone to run a series of real estate companies that would be grub staked by not only the political families, but also by some foreign Nationals - the Saudis. And so I came down for an interview and met Jim Bath.
SO, THE INTRODUCTION WAS MADE BECAUSE YOU HAD THE COMMON GROUND OF HAVING HAD BOTH BEEN PILOTS? Exactly. We’re both fighter pilots.
AND AT THE TIME BATH WAS IN BUSINESS IN HOUSTON DOING WHAT? He was in Business primarily operating an Aircraft Brokerage Company called JB&A which stands for Jim Bath and Associates. He also ran a company in the same building called Bin Laden&Associates which Jim explained was a procurement company for the Saudis.
NOW AT THAT POINT, HAD YOU EVER HEARD THE NAME BIN LADEN? No, I had not.
AND AS YOU INVESTIGATED AND FOUND OUT WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE, WHAT DID YOU LEARN? Well, I learned that there was a relationship between the Saudi Royals and the politicians here in the United States. Bath was helping to protect the Saudi Royal Family by hosting some of the Saudi Nationals who were at our Air Force bases being trained as pilots. We had a Prince (Sultan) training at NASA who was the first foreign National to fly on the US Space Shuttle. We had other foreign Nationals here too. Jim was functioning as an intermediary between the Bushes and the Saudi Royal Family.
HOW HAD JIM BATH BEEN ANNOINTED TO BE THIS INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN THE SAUDIS ON ONE HAND AND FAMILIES LIKE THE BUSHES ON THE OTHER? Well, Jim explained that in the early seventies George Bush Junior, our current President, came on boardthe Texas Air National Guard where Bath was stationed along with some other Politicians’ children. This is during the Vietnam War era when Bush and Bath became drinking buddies and good friends. And then in 1976, when Dubya’s Father became CIA Director, the CIA was trying to privatize it’s air affiliate subsidiaries. Jim was actually
1
recommended to the CIA Director, George Senior, by Dubya - that’s when the relationship was established.
AT THE POINT THAT YOU FIRST MET JIM BATH, HE WAS NOT ONLY CONNECTED TO THE SAUDIS, TO THE BIN LADENS BUT ALSO TO THE BUSHES? That’s correct.
“He spent probably ninety-five percent of his time, I’d call it hand-holding the Arabs. He bought a bank for them. He bought an airport for them.”
SO IN A SENSE, AT THE POINT WHEN YOU FIRST MET HIM WAS BATH THIS LINK BETWEEN THE BUSHES ON ONE SIDE AND THE BIN LADEN’S AND SAUDIS? Right. That link had already been established and Jim was actually in an operational mode. He spent probably ninety-five percent of his time, I’d call it hand-holding the Arabs. He bought a bank for them. He bought an airport for them. He started an airline for them among other ventures in Houston, Texas and was the nominee or the front man for their ownership of these various entities. He would spend most of his time dealing with their interests while I concentrated on running our real estate development company.
WHAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST OF THE SAUDIS IN AND AROUND HOUSTON? WHY DID THEY COME TO TEXAS AT THIS TIME? Well they had a large presence here because of their oil interests (Aramco & Saudia are headquartered in Houston). And they had banking interests by virtue of Bush Senior’s association with First International Bank which subsequently became InterFirst. And there was also John Connolly, who was a former Democrat who turned Republican and worked in the Nixon Administration with Bush, he ran First City NationalBank. We also had James Baker and his Baker&Bott’s Law Firm, so you basically had a confluence of political and business interests that were friendly to the Saudi Royal Family here in Houston.

[seemslikeadream]

60. demolition

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm

"…as if a demolition team set off, when you do the demolition of an old building."

"…it looks like one of those things when an old building being purposely dynamited and blown up."

"…anybody that ever watched a building being demolish on purpose knows, that if you're going to do this, you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down."

"The way this structure is collapsing is something that was planted, it's not accidental, that the first tower just happens to collapse, and the second one collapse in exactly the same way. How they accomplish this, we don't know."

"The building collapsed to dust. You don't find a desk, you don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big."

-"What happened to the concrete?"
-"The concrete was pulverized. Rivers and rivers of this dust powder, two or three inches thick. The concrete was just uh… pulverized!"

"(…) we've all seen too much on television before, when a building is deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

"…it's as if, as if they had detonators, yes detonators, planted to take down the building, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, yes"

"…I heard a second explosion"

"it was a uh… heavy duty explosion…"

"…there was a secondary explosion and then a subsequent collapse"

"…close to blow and it knocked everybody else"

"to me sounded like, sounded like an explosion.."

"it sounded like gunfire, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang! And then all of the sudden, three big explosions"

"we heard a big explosion coming down"

"…the top part of the building just blew up"

"we saw some king of explosion"

"…by the force of the explosions…"

"…big explosion, we went back to the eight floor"

" when we got to the lobby, it's this big explosion"

"…the lobby looked as though, a bomb had exploded there"

"huge explosions, now raining debris … "

"…there's been a huge explosion"

"huge explosion that we all heard and felt"

"we just witness some kind of (…) explosion and uh"

"…a very loud blast explosion "

"a secondary explosion, tower 1-10"

"there is some other bomb going off. He thinks there were actually devices that were planted in the buildings" "planted in the building"

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Explosion != explosives. n/t

[scott75]

67. Granted, but certain types of explosions are probably caused by demolitions..

Such as many of the explosions that were described. And yet, the government never investigated for explosives, allegedly because there was no evidence that explosives could have been used. This is clearly false.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Some trained experts in picking out explosive signatures from seismographs say, "No explosives."

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/blanchard_implosion.pdf (pdf)

This is POSITIVE EVIDENCE that no explosives were used to bring down the 3 WTC buildings.

[scott75]

73. Jim Hoffman has already thoroughly dealt with Blanchard's article...

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

[Bolo Boffin]

74. And the copy of the paper I linked to has dealt with any of Hoffman's points worth dealing with.

You're behind the times, scott.

[scott75]

76. looks more like the reverse...

It seems to mention Steven Jones fleetingly at the end; I don't see it addressing any of Jim Hoffman's rebuttals to its points. On the other hand, Jim Hoffman counters Blanchard's claims thoroughly.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Nuh-uh. n/t

[scott75]

78. Did you even -glance- at Jim Hoffman's article?

If you did, I think you'd see my point.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. Yes, I did. Did you even look at Blanchard's article?

Blanchard does seismographic analysis on demolitions for a living. He documents them. He's one of the top experts in the field. If he says they aren't there, you better produce a paycheck from the NWO on him because Jim Hoffman's background in software engineering means shit-all.

[scott75]

80. Yes, I looked at Blanchard's article..

And I looked at Jim Hoffman laying his fallacious claims to rest, one by one. You say you glanced at his article. You notice this? I don't care if he's a 'top expert in the field'; experts can and have lied in the past. The main point is that his claims were debunked in the article that you claim to have seen and no degree is going to change that.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. OK, you hang with the software engineer and I'll hang with the guy who does it for a living.

:eyes:

[scott75]

82. So that's how it is? Saying so and so has a super duper degree and forgetting about logic?

Whatever...

[Bolo Boffin]

83. No, this is about an expert speaking in his field and day-to-day responsibilities vs.

Jim Hoffman, someone speaking outside his field of expertise.

[Ghost in the Machine]

87. Please provide a link to *any* of Blanchard's data..

Thanks,

Ghost

[scott75]

92. This is Blanchard's article...

This is Blanchard's article that Seger linked to:
http://ae911truth.info/pdf/blanchard_implosion.pdf

And here is Jim Hoffman's point by point counter:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

[Ghost in the Machine]

94. I have Blanchard's article on my hard drive...

.... and you know that ae911truth.info is Bolo Boffin's site, right? Here's a link to it on Blanchard's site: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

What I meant by "data" is any of Blanchard's evidence: graphs, charts, seismograph printouts, etc. I see that Jim Hoffman is saying the same thing in the other link you provided:

"In fact, Blanchard's treatment of the issues he addresses is anything but scientific. Blanchard:

vides no evidence to support most of his assertions.
Repeatedly invokes a privileged body of evidence and ignores the vast body of public evidence.
Excludes possibilities out of hand, cherry-picking a few issues to address.
Relies on flat denials, such as his assertion that there is no evidence of explosives use.
Exploits fallacies such as appeals to authority and appeals to prejudice.
Promotes common misconceptions, such as that demolitions must proceed from the ground up."

Brent Blanchard provides no data (evidence) to back up his claims, yet these OCTers cling to his words as the gospel because they see him as an authority figure. Check out this thread and see some of the points I've been trying to get across about explosives: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206605&mesg_id=241070


Peace,

Ghost

[scott75]

97. Thanks for the info Ghost

and you know that ae911truth.info is Bolo Boffin's site, right?

No, actually.

What I meant by "data" is any of Blanchard's evidence: graphs, charts, seismograph printouts, etc.

Ah, ok. I thought you might mean this, but thought I'd make sure you didn't just mean the article.

I see that Jim Hoffman is saying the same thing in the other link you provided:

"In fact, Blanchard's treatment of the issues he addresses is anything but scientific. Blanchard:

Provides no evidence to support most of his assertions.
Repeatedly invokes a privileged body of evidence and ignores the vast body of public evidence.
Excludes possibilities out of hand, cherry-picking a few issues to address.
Relies on flat denials, such as his assertion that there is no evidence of explosives use.
Exploits fallacies such as appeals to authority and appeals to prejudice.
Promotes common misconceptions, such as that demolitions must proceed from the ground up."

Brent Blanchard provides no data (evidence) to back up his claims, yet these OCTers cling to his words as the gospel because they see him as an authority figure.

Looks like you're right. I had really hoped that they would actually try to counter Jim Hoffman's claims, but apparently the fact that Jim Hoffman isn't officially a controlled demolition expert means that he can't be qualified. Jim Hoffman has spent more time then most compiling a ton of information that counters the official story line. I think they'd do much better to see him more as a technical reporter. I wonder if he knows that even a dutch controlled demolition expert has stated that WTC 7 was definitely taken down via controlled demolition? Anyway, because Jim Hoffman doesn't have a degree hanging on his wall (what degree does Blanchard have anyway, haven't heard any brought up), they don't want to even give his arguments the time of day. As you may know, Danny Jawenko, there's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA">video of a Dutch controlled demolition expert who stated unequivocally that World Trade Center building 7 was taken down by controlled demolition.

Check out this thread and see some of the points I've been trying to get across about explosives: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206605&mesg_id=241070

Good post.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Danny Jowenko

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Danny+Jowenko

[scott75]

103. As a matter of fact...

I don't consider Jawenko's testimoy to be the ace in the hole. I just mention him because you guys seem to think that Blanchard is such great stuff simply because he's a controlled demolition expert. You speak of opinions being colored? Believe me, the 'coloring' in the U.S. has been enormous. People who have questioned the official story have been sidelined and even fired (Kevin Ryan) or suspended from their jobs (former physics professor at BYU, Steven Jones).

I far prefer the detailed work of physicist Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, as well as that of mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti, who has written some technical papers and who I have corresponded with as well.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Your post is factually inaccurate.

As I have stated, the Blanchard paper linked there deals with as much as Hoffman's paper is worth even considering. Why do you continue to pretend that this is not the case?

[scott75]

98. All I see is Hoffman countering Blanchard's points, one by one...

If you feel that he counters even a single point of Hoffman's counters, by all means, provide the excerpt where you feel he has done so.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. End of the paper. Blanchard talks about the monitoring equipment.

Page 12 - I'd copy and paste, but the PDF doesn't allow that.

Otherwise, his remarks stand. He's an expert in reading seismographs for explosive signatures and there are none in the seismographic record. Hoffman pretends that he can see one, but all his chart shows is a slow build-up to the main signals, consistent with the building tearing itself apart before debris starts hitting the ground. NO signatures of explosives are seen in Hoffman's chart. Hoffman should stick to engineering software.

[scott75]

106. Sorry, but page 12 counters none of Hoffman's counters

Page 12 - I'd copy and paste, but the PDF doesn't allow that.

That only talks about seismic data, something that Ghost has dealt with here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206605&mesg_id=241070

Not only that, but Blanchard's clarification on page 12 actually appears to agree with Ghost; to whit:
The Columbia University vibration waveforms recorded on 9/11 do not appear to indicate that explosives were used.

They then go on about interpretations. No facts here. It doesn't even specify why they believe that the waveforms don't appear to indicate that explosives were used. Furthermore, I've heard quite a different story elsewhere.

And no, it doesn't deal with Hoffman's counters of their 9 assertions at all.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Nuh-uh. n/t

[scott75]

109. That's all you have to say?

Sigh...

[Bolo Boffin]

112. That's all you have to say -- why not me?

You use a lot more words to say "Nuh-uh," but that's all you're saying.

[scott75]

113. If that's what you believe...

...perhaps I should just leave your 'nu uhs' alone.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. Well, it is all that you are saying!

Sorry, but page 12 counters none of Hoffman's counters

Translation: Nuh uh.

That only talks about seismic data, something that Ghost has dealt with here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I missed the poster's expertise in the field so you're linking to the poster's "Nuh-uh."

Not only that, but Blanchard's clarification on page 12 actually appears to agree with Ghost; to whit:
The Columbia University vibration waveforms recorded on 9/11 do not appear to indicate that explosives were used.

I think you and the poster would have a point if the CU waveforms DID appear to indicate that explosives were used. Since they don't, you don't have a point. Are you familiar with the position you've been arguing?

They then go on about interpretations. No facts here. It doesn't even specify why they believe that the waveforms don't appear to indicate that explosives were used. Furthermore, I've heard quite a different story elsewhere.

Translation: Nuh-uh.

And no, it doesn't deal with Hoffman's counters of their 9 assertions at all.

The "Nuh-uh" so nice, you said it twice.

[scott75]

115. No, it is not all I am saying...

Even what you quoted should make that clear to you; apparently it doesn't.

[Bolo Boffin]

116. Nuh-uh. n/t

[scott75]

118. Sigh -nt

[Bolo Boffin]

119. Your selective quoting is showing.

The more complete Blanchard quote:

a) The Columbia University vibration waveforms recorded on 9/11 do not appear to indicate that explosives were used, b) To the contrary, our interpretation of these waveforms - and the interpretation of many other experts - is that they clearly indicate explosives were not used, and c) Protec's vibration data recorded during the same timeframe, while far less specific, does not show any vibration events that contradict the data recorded by Columbia University.

To this, Hoffman says, "Nuh-uh."

[scott75]

120. That is only the 'interpretation' of Blanchard and an alleged 'many other experts'

The only 'expert' Blanchard actually makes clear believes this stuff is himself. I imagine that he could cite another demolition expert who was apparently bought off, but I have seen no evidence that he's got many demolition experts at his back.

Most importantly, he doesn't explain -why- his interpretation "clearly indicates explosives were not used".

Meanwhile, there are many people who believe otherwise. Not only that, but the actual 9 assertions he makes in his paper are clearly countered by Jim Hoffman.

[Bolo Boffin]

121. Unreal.

Dude, Blanchard DOES THIS FOR A LIVING. He uses seismographs to document the explosions in a controlled demolition. Have you figured that out yet? Do you know what that means?

Darwin's "interpretation" of his biological observations is the theory of natural selection.

Einstein's "interpretation" of his physical observations is the theory of relativity.

Just like a creationist, you are taking careful scientific statements from an well-established expert and pretending there is some room to think they are either mistaken or lying. Hoffman's musings are irrelevant until you can mass several actual experts on seismographs together to say something else. Until you do, anyone who truly respects science will be hanging with Blanchard.

[scott75]

122. Blanchard has been debunked...

His "expertise" didn't stand the test of logic. Using caps lock won't change that fact. Here is Blanchard's article with his 9 assertions and Jim Hoffman countering them one by one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=241323&mesg_id=241772

If you've gotten that far, I recommend reading some posts from Ghost in the Machine:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206605&mesg_id=241070

[Bolo Boffin]

123. Let me know when you come up with something new. n/t

[scott75]

124. I'll come up with something new when you stop using the same debunked arguments -nt

[SDuderstadt]

126. Blanchard was hardly debunked...

you can't be serious claiming that he was.

[Bolo Boffin]

127. Just more "Nuh-uh". n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

128. Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. n/t

[scott75]

91. 9/11 was the first and only day that steel framed buildings collapsed...

Which means that it was definitely not one of his 'day-to-day' responsibilities. Anyway, you seem content with your expert and uninterested in actually reading the counters to his claims, so I guess there's really nothing more to say.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. You're being disingenious and building straw men.

Blanchard documents controlled demolitions for a living. He knows the characteristic signature of explosives being used to demolish buildings. Those signatures aren't present in the seismographic records. Hoffman simply demonstrates that he has no idea what he's talking about, but he dresses it up in enough sciency-sounding language to fool the gullible.


And I have read Hoffman's article and can see for myself the level of bullshit and inexpertise it contains. You can keep pimping your straw man about how I won't look, but it's not true.

[scott75]

101. Blanchard may 'document' controlled demolitions..

But he seems to have a very poor understanding of how they work. Hoffman makes this clear and Ghost has even provided some excellent excerpts of his that back this up. Ghost also deals with the seismic records issue; he mentions it all in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=241323&mesg_id=241961

You may have taken a brief glance at Hoffman's article, but it seems that you simply haven't understood his points...

[SidDithers]

71. trains...

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
"I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet."

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
"The ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?"

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) "At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you."

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) "You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/shaking.html

Sid

Edit: forgot tags on first quote