NM fair booth pulls targets depicting...

NM fair booth pulls targets depicting bin Laden

There are 110 comments on the CBS News story from Sep 22, 2012, titled NM fair booth pulls targets depicting bin Laden. In it, CBS News reports that:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A shooting gallery booth at the New Mexico State Fair has pulled targets depicting Osama bin Laden and other Arab-dressed figures after complaints that they were racist.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS News.

911 was an inside job

United States

#85 Sep 30, 2012
Lobo Viejo wrote:
911, You are like the creationists, the climate change deniers, or the potheads who try to demonstrate that cannabis is a cure-all miracle drug.
You don't understand the scientific method, or good science from junk science. You cherry-pick the data that fit your crackpot theory, quote it out of context, and ignore the rest.
I was especially amused by the guy claiming to be a chemical engineer who admitted that he did not have the proper equipment to test the dust. So he made up some other test method and concluded, nonetheless, that there was thermite in the dust. This guy has no paper documenting his test method or its reliability based on testing blanks, standards and other quality control measures. If this guy was legit, he would have written up his study so everyone else could understand and scrutinize what he did. But instead, he is just another talking head on youtube who you rely on as an expert.
Your most recent post demonstates just how pranoid and disturbed you really are. Ted Kaczynski would be proud of you.
First, I applaud you for watching at least part of the interview of chemical engineer Mark Basile.(XXYOUTUBE-JZNQq7XBLwcX X ) I agree with you in part -- I would like to see a paper detailing his methods, data, analysis, and conclusions. Some of his experiments are of course available on-line, if you were interested enough to put a little effort into a search, and the slow-motion videos he has made of the red-gray chips from the World Trade Center dust igniting and producing molten iron and other thermitic byproducts are better seen in video format than as interpreted in text, but it would be great to have data from spectroscopic analysis, too.

Understanding the "scientific method" in some general way is part of it. You also need to understand the purpose of the analytical tools (and the math and the jargon). Basile admitted that he didn't have access to a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), a tool used for thermal analysis, but a DSC isn't necessarily what you would use to identify thermite. If you want to identify the elements present in a sample, you can do a spectroscopic analysis.

By the way, you never did explain how the "ACTIVE THERMITIC MATERIAL DISCOVERED IN DUST" paper that I linked to previously
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php...
had been "thoroughly discredited." I'm not aware of a single peer-reviewed paper that challenges that team's conclusions, and if you are interested in seeing data from a DSC (as well as spectroscopic analysis and high-magnification photographs of the crystaline structures of the thermitic material, read the paper.

“I ain't afraid of no ghosts.”

Since: Aug 08

Dear old mucky Drasnia

#86 Sep 30, 2012
911 was an inside job wrote:
By the way, you never did explain how the "ACTIVE THERMITIC MATERIAL DISCOVERED IN DUST" paper that I linked to previously
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php...
had been "thoroughly discredited." I'm not aware of a single peer-reviewed paper that challenges that team's conclusions, and if you are interested in seeing data from a DSC (as well as spectroscopic analysis and high-magnification photographs of the crystaline structures of the thermitic material, read the paper.
You mean, aluminium oxide was found in the wreckage after an airplane, full of jet fuel, crashed into a building? Do you know what airplanes are made of? When you heat up aluminium, guess what it becomes...

Incidentally, any welder could have easily explained that (I was a welder for a long time). It's just one of the reasons you need extra safety precautions when welding aluminium.
911 was an inside job

United States

#87 Sep 30, 2012
Silk_the_Absent1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, aluminium oxide was found in the wreckage after an airplane, full of jet fuel, crashed into a building? Do you know what airplanes are made of? When you heat up aluminium, guess what it becomes...
Incidentally, any welder could have easily explained that (I was a welder for a long time). It's just one of the reasons you need extra safety precautions when welding aluminium.
Did you read the paper? Doesn't seem like you did.

According to the spectroscopic analysis, the microscopic red-gray chips that are very abundant in the WTC dust contain, among other things, very uniform sub-micron size crystals of iron oxide as well as very uniform sub-micron size crystals of elemental aluminum, intimately mixed in stoichiometric proportions (in ratios such that thermitic reaction consumes nearly all of the available aluminum and metal oxide and releases maximum heat in addition to the reaction byproducts) and locked in a durable matrix.

In other words, the material is *HIGHLY ENGINEERED*. It didn't arise spontaneously as a result of the plane impacts, just as cakes don't arise spontaneously when you throw ingredients into an oven, just as diamonds don't arise spontaneously in a forest fire.

By the way, the videos by themselves prove demolition at the World Trade Center. The only way that you could have the visible perimeter of a 47-story steel frame structure with a footprint the size of a football field and with many structural columns distributing loads throughout this volume SUDDENLY AND SYMMETRICALLY DROP AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION (!!) is if all structural resistance holding up those perimeter columns SUDDENLY were ZERO, when moments before that resistance was holding the building in place.

For example, here's a ten-second proof of demolition:

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#88 Sep 30, 2012
So, we go from paper targets of a human silhouette of OBL at the fair to WTC and conspiracy theories. Talk about a hijack.
911 was an inside job

United States

#89 Sep 30, 2012
Willothewisp wrote:
So, we go from paper targets of a human silhouette of OBL at the fair to WTC and conspiracy theories. Talk about a hijack.
I've realized by now that you like to keep things in your head in separate little compartments -- keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay, eh?-- but I think that the reason why OBL has become the cartoon villain at the shooting gallery booth, AND, more importantly, why the 2000th U.S. soldier has just lost his life in far-off Afghanistan today, is because OBL was blamed for the 9/11 attack on the day of the attack. Less than a month after the attack, we were dropping bombs on Afghanistan.

Which is strange because the Taliban actually offered to cooperate with the U.S. if the Bush Administration provided evidence of bin Laden's involvement. Of course, Bush didn't.

In fact, in June of 2006 in response to a journalist's question, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb stated,"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11....Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11."

I've posted this brief video summary (with links to sources) on bin Laden before. Maybe you missed it:

http://www.corbettreport.com/the-last-word-on...

.
911 was inside job

United States

#90 Sep 30, 2012
Looks like that 2000 casualty total is old. According to the following site, U.S. deaths were at 2125 as of a few days ago.(I wonder who is counting the Afghan deaths?)

http://citizenjournalistreview.wordpress.com/...

So while you're playing with your gun at the fair, remember: the illegal war grinds on.

“More Brains Than .....”

Since: Sep 11

..a Zombie Thanksgiving

#91 Sep 30, 2012
911 was inside job wrote:
Looks like that 2000 casualty total is old. According to the following site, U.S. deaths were at 2125 as of a few days ago.(I wonder who is counting the Afghan deaths?)
http://citizenjournalistreview.wordpress.com/...
So while you're playing with your gun at the fair, remember: the illegal war grinds on.
Do you know why it is so windy in New Mexico?
911 was an inside job

United States

#92 Sep 30, 2012
Phil the Grillmaster wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know why it is so windy in New Mexico?
Hmm... Is it cuz the Lobos suck?

:)

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#93 Sep 30, 2012
Some of the conspiracy crackpots even claim that it was cruise missiles, not passenger jets, that crashed into the WTC towers. I guess all the eyewitnesses who think they saw jets were just mistaken.

Look at the impact of the second jet at the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

When you consider the structural damage that went clear thru the building, and the resulting fire, there is no need for explosive charges hidden by the government to bring this building down.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#94 Oct 1, 2012
And then we have all the symbols and murals and hidden tunnels and buried buildings at Denver International Airport. The secret control center for the US? Runways in the shape of swastikas. And then there is Roswell.

“Shoot First, Think Never”

Since: Jun 09

Elk Grove

#95 Oct 1, 2012
Personally 911 was an inside job has some really good points. I've seen videos, read books...done some research...now there are explanations from some of the conspiracy theories that just don't make any sense. But there are those theories that you just can't dismiss.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#96 Oct 1, 2012
http://www.google.com/search...

And what about these images at DIA? Explain them away?

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4194

And Denver is closer.
911 was an inside job

Waco, TX

#97 Oct 1, 2012
Lobo Viejo wrote:
Some of the conspiracy crackpots even claim that it was cruise missiles, not passenger jets, that crashed into the WTC towers. I guess all the eyewitnesses who think they saw jets were just mistaken.
Look at the impact of the second jet at the WTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
When you consider the structural damage that went clear thru the building, and the resulting fire, there is no need for explosive charges hidden by the government to bring this building down.
It isn't clear at all from the video that the structural damage from the plane impact was sufficient to cause the entire tower to disintegrate into concrete dust and shredded steel. In fact, I see a building that SURVIVED the plane impact, as it was designed to.

Here is World Trade Center Construction Manager Frank DeMartini in a History Channel documentary, speaking after the 1993 bombing:


Here is a summary of the Towers' design parameters, including statements about planning for plane impacts:
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/design.ht...

Did I mention that steel-frame skyscrapers have a history of robustness, despite abuse? Did I mention the Usce Tower in Belgrade, built in 1964, that survived a total of TWELVE (!!) Tomahawk cruise missile strikes during the 1999 NATO bombing campaign? And the Empire State Building that survived an impact with a B-25 bomber in 1945? And the long history of skyscraper fires that, to date, has never brought a single skyscraper down (unless you believe the official 9/11 fiction, in which case we saw three exceptions in one day...). How about the World Trade Center towers surviving a bomb at basement level in 1993 (in an operation that prominently involved the FBI)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

911 was an inside job

Waco, TX

#98 Oct 1, 2012
Willothewisp wrote:
And then we have all the symbols and murals and hidden tunnels and buried buildings at Denver International Airport. The secret control center for the US? Runways in the shape of swastikas. And then there is Roswell.
Is that where they're hiding bin Laden?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#100 Oct 2, 2012
In plain site. You've been there. The nazis symbols, mason symbols, bad location for wind shear etc.. of course. And they are keeping Elvis there too.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#101 Oct 3, 2012
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't clear at all from the video that the structural damage from the plane impact was sufficient to cause the entire tower to disintegrate into concrete dust and shredded steel. In fact, I see a building that SURVIVED the plane impact, as it was designed to.
Here is World Trade Center Construction Manager Frank DeMartini in a History Channel documentary, speaking after the 1993 bombing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sO1JxpVb2eUXX
Here is a summary of the Towers' design parameters, including statements about planning for plane impacts:
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/design.ht...
Did I mention that steel-frame skyscrapers have a history of robustness, despite abuse? Did I mention the Usce Tower in Belgrade, built in 1964, that survived a total of TWELVE (!!) Tomahawk cruise missile strikes during the 1999 NATO bombing campaign? And the Empire State Building that survived an impact with a B-25 bomber in 1945? And the long history of skyscraper fires that, to date, has never brought a single skyscraper down (unless you believe the official 9/11 fiction, in which case we saw three exceptions in one day...). How about the World Trade Center towers surviving a bomb at basement level in 1993 (in an operation that prominently involved the FBI)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Oh, I get it now. All steel structures, all bombs and all fires are the same and comparable from one site to another. Wouldn't it be nice if science and engineering were so simple?

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#102 Oct 4, 2012
Willothewisp wrote:
In plain site. You've been there. The nazis symbols, mason symbols, bad location for wind shear etc.. of course. And they are keeping Elvis there too.
Lol, I thought Elvis was on that UFO w/ Bigfoot and the 911 TROLL!
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#103 Oct 4, 2012
Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I get it now. All steel structures, all bombs and all fires are the same and comparable from one site to another. Wouldn't it be nice if science and engineering were so simple?
Obviously you don't get it, because I never claimed that, and neither has anyone else in the various links I've provided.

However, there ARE certain things that are essentially universal, like the laws of conservation of energy and momentum and other laws of physics, as well as material properties that are a consequence of physical laws (like melting and boiling points, strength, flexibility, thermal conductivity, etc.). Without these repeating patterns in nature and consistent material properties, there WOULDN'T be any science and engineering.

In my previous post to which you were responding, I indicated that the World Trade Center engineers and architects took into account the possibility of airplane impacts and included sufficient reserve capacity in their design that the Towers could withstand these impacts and fires, as well as hurricane force winds and other conceivable stressful conditions that the buildings might be subjected to during their lifetimes. Of course, human-engineered demolition can undo all of these precautions, although not always as successfully as we witnessed on 9/11.

For example:
&t= 15s
and http://www.youtube.com/watch...
and http://www.youtube.com/watch... ;

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#104 Oct 6, 2012
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you don't get it, because I never claimed that, and neither has anyone else in the various links I've provided.
Actually that is exactly what you ask us to believe. That the whimpy 1993 WTC truck bomb was the same as fully fueled jets crashing into the towers. That, if a building in Asia burned and did not collapse, then the WTC had to have been brought down by controlled demo. You don't understand the process of logic and reason, and what it takes to prove or disprove a hypothesis. You substitute rigorous, peer-reviewed papers with talking heads on youtube. There obviously is no shortage of flakes and crackpots who will say what you want to hear, but none of them can make a cohesive and defensible written argument.
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#105 Oct 6, 2012
Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that is exactly what you ask us to believe. That the whimpy 1993 WTC truck bomb was the same as fully fueled jets crashing into the towers. That, if a building in Asia burned and did not collapse, then the WTC had to have been brought down by controlled demo. You don't understand the process of logic and reason, and what it takes to prove or disprove a hypothesis. You substitute rigorous, peer-reviewed papers with talking heads on youtube. There obviously is no shortage of flakes and crackpots who will say what you want to hear, but none of them can make a cohesive and defensible written argument.
Are you being deliberately dishonest, or is this just a consequence of your persistent psychological denial?

I have stated that the demolitions at the World Trade Center are PROVEN because that is what the videos show and because that is what the abundant incendiary residues indicate. The abundant presence of unreacted, very sophisticated pyrotechnic materials in the dust is further confirmation. There are also plenty of credible witness accounts of secondary explosions in places far from the impact and fire zones, and this witness testimony is supported in some cases be obvious blast and shrapnel injuries to the witnesses' bodies!

The fact that steel-frame highrises are inherently robust (as a consequence of the properties of steel and the practice of including safety margins in the design), and the fact that there are ZERO cases of complete structural failure for any reason other than demolition throughout the history of steel-frame highrises everywhere on the planet (barring the alleged three exceptions that happened on 9/11) is not proof of demolition, and I never claimed it was. It is however, A VERY GOOD REASON to consider demolition as a viable hypothesis. However, the government "investigators" did not test for and rule out demolition, since they refused to test the debris and dust for evidence of high-temperature incendiary arson (even though such tests are NORMAL protocol!) and since they DESTROYED over 99.5% of the steel evidence before it could be metallurgically tested. Even when other government agencies (FEMA, EPA, and USGS) turned up evidence that was consistent with demolition and inexplicable from the "fire & damage" hypothesis, the NIST investigators chose to ignore the "anomalies" and spin computer-generated fictions that had little basis in reality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories - Bin Laden Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Running Scared North Korea's Kim terrified of B... Jun '17 Parden Pard 1
News Romney 'applauds' Obama for Osama bin Laden raid (May '12) Feb '16 Jared Axelrod Dem... 51
News 'Utter nonsense': CIA and White House blast Sey... (May '15) May '15 -Lea- 1
News Did enhanced interrogation help the CIA find Os... (Dec '14) Dec '14 lol 2
News Push to declassify more documents seized from b... (Jun '13) Apr '14 swedenforever 4
News Bergen: Pakistan hid Bin Laden? Prove it (Mar '14) Mar '14 Quagmire 12
News Pakistan reduces sentence for doctor accused of... (Mar '14) Mar '14 PAKIs_TALK_OUT_OF... 4
More from around the web