|
Post by turbonium on Mar 21, 2007 23:50:52 GMT -4
Creation of new thread to focus on subject previously brought up on WTC 7 thread...the USS Liberty.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Apr 23, 2007 22:39:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 23, 2007 22:44:52 GMT -4
Wondered how long it's be before this got here. Short answer because he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and managed to make himself look like an idiot by opening his mouth?
It's clear from the answer he gave he didn't have any idea what part of the complex Building 7 even was, mixing it up with the wall of WTC 1 or WTC 6 at a minimum.
Quite obviously if he really did know anything about a CD of Building 7 he'd have used in in the '04 elections and had Bush skating all the way to Leavenworth.
eta: Many of the posters at LCF have almost wet themselves with delight, though, for once, Dylan is trying to be a voice of reason and point out that its obvious that Kerry hasn't the slightest clue on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 23, 2007 22:57:14 GMT -4
BTW: Here's the video of it. Make up your own mind what he knows, or is he just going off what he was told by the questioner?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 23, 2007 23:07:46 GMT -4
Short answer because he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and managed to make himself look like an idiot by opening his mouth?Remember, this is the same John Kerry who managed to insult US troops a week before the last election. It's obvious that he just had another attack of "foot-in-mouth" disease.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 23, 2007 23:29:28 GMT -4
I think if you watch the video it's clear it's not really foot-in-mouth, but more that he didn't want to look totally clueless so he just went with the information that the questioner had just given him, that WTC 7 was demolished by Silverstein and co. Heck the questioner even said that Silverstein had admitted it, so why would Kerry expect a trap?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 23, 2007 23:41:33 GMT -4
Short answer because he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and managed to make himself look like an idiot by opening his mouth?Remember, this is the same John Kerry who managed to insult US troops a week before the last election. It's obvious that he just had another attack of "foot-in-mouth" disease. I never thought it sounded like he was insulting troops, but that is perhaps a discussion for another day. In good news, Graham's leave has been confirmed for next month, though of course he can't tell me when--and even if he could, I probably oughtn't to tell you guys.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 23, 2007 23:48:14 GMT -4
I never thought it sounded like he was insulting troops, but that is perhaps a discussion for another day.
Whether you or I think he was isn't very relevant; the fact is the great majority of Americans thought that what he said was insulting, even if they didn't believe he meant to say it the way he did.
In good news, Graham's leave has been confirmed for next month, though of course he can't tell me when--and even if he could, I probably oughtn't to tell you guys.
Great--you can have him go pay moonman a visit ;D (j/k)
Seriously, that is very good news.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 24, 2007 0:47:12 GMT -4
In good news, Graham's leave has been confirmed for next month, though of course he can't tell me when--and even if he could, I probably oughtn't to tell you guys. Anyone would think that we'd be likely to come and flour and egg your motel room for you.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 24, 2007 2:09:51 GMT -4
Anyone would think that we'd be likely to come and flour and egg your motel room for you. Kinky.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 24, 2007 2:59:55 GMT -4
It's considered giving away troop movements, though I have to say, I think that's silly of them. After all, a handful of guys are going away on leave all the time, so when this particular handful of guys leaves, it isn't a big deal. Besides, if the insurgents are that determined to blow up a plane of guys going home, it's really simple to just wait within shooting distance of the airport.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Apr 24, 2007 7:41:22 GMT -4
Quite obviously if he really did know anything about a CD of Building 7 he'd have used in in the '04 elections and had Bush skating all the way to Leavenworth. You are forgetting that, in the mind of the typical paranoid TRUTHER, both Democrats and Republicans are under control of the Illuminati (or whatever secret Society one prefers) and all political arguments are faked to deceive us mindless sheep.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 26, 2007 16:34:20 GMT -4
No. The glow is primarily if not entirely from external illumination on the smoke, likely from reflected sunlight; the side of the building is partly illuminated the same way. Moreover, the shadowing among the smoke billows is consistent with external lighting. It's all external illumination? Hardly. Look again at the image.... The white arrows indicate the glowing areas - the windows which are billowing smoke, oddly enough! The blue arrows indicate windows that are not glowing, and not billowing smoke. Also, note that the glow spots emanate from behind the smoke. The smoke is in front of the glowing areas, blocking parts of it. External light is not creating the glowing areas. Fires are. Ya know, I'd left this alone. But I made the mistake of going on the JREF forums and encountering a guy who insisted that the Pentagon crash was faked because there was a picture of someone holding up an IV bag. He said that 25 years ago he'd held up an IV bag and was told to put it down by a medic. His conclusion was that all IV bags were pressurized, no one used gravity-fed IVs anymore, and clearly the picture had to be a fake. He just knew it. After pages of detailed refutations by myself, a trauma nurse, a doctor, a veterinarian, and a combat medic, he finally relented. But this same absolute self-assurance that he knew everything he needed to know about this field reminded me of turbonium's proclamations on firefighting and fire behavior. So I have a few simple questions for turbonium. The picture you marked up above shows the same scene as the first image here. You assert that the glow must come from fire behind the smoke, not any external illumination such as reflected sunlight. You also say that The white arrows indicate the glowing areas - the windows which are billowing smoke, oddly enough!
The blue arrows indicate windows that are not glowing, and not billowing smoke.Question 1. What about the windows in the first image which are clearly billowing smoke and clearly not glowing? Question 2. The third image on that page clearly shows some glowing smoke. It also clearly shows glowing smoke away from the building, and glowing bricks, and glowing boarded-up windows. Do you claim that fires are causing all those glows? Question 3. Looks like Photobucket has bit the dust, so I'll have to rebuild my static image library. In the meantime, does this fire appear to be going out? [Credit Firehouse magazine]Or this one? [AP photo from cnn.com]
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 26, 2007 16:44:44 GMT -4
Since another building fire has been cited for comparison, let's continue with it. The smoke has no problems billowing out from the rooftop..... The author of the site noted - "Heavy smoke was pushing out of every crevice of the building." Unlike WTC 7, where the smoke dared not billow out even an inch past the "SMOKE BORDER". Oddly enough, there is no smoke pushing out the side of the building we're facing. Clearly this building could not have had much fire going on in it. Or could it? Lo and behold, a better look - the third image down on this page again - does show some smoke from the upper floor! Not very much. Perhaps we just didn't notice it in the previous view. Is it possible that a not-very-good image might not reveal everything? And/or that conditions may change between images? But now we have a different indication that this fire was pretty small. Mr. Spak's claim "pushing out of every crevice" is flatly contradicted by the third image. Clearly, the fire wasn't very big, and Mr. Spak was part of the hoax.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 26, 2007 16:52:40 GMT -4
One other thing. The right side of the third image (which shows side 2 of the building) clearly shows glowing smoke on side 1 of the building (the side we are facing in turbonium's marked-up version above). Only this time we are looking at the smoke from behind and to the side. Funny how it has the same glow as parts of the building side including brickwork and what appears to be a boarded-up window. And some of the smoke on side 3 of the building (to the left in the 3rd image) which we are viewing from the side and slightly ahead.
Funny, that. Sorry for the thread necromancy.
|
|