The Madrid fire can't be compared to WTC fires. The buildings are different structurally and therefore will behave differently under similar circumstances. Further, the circumstances in the Madrid fire were NOT the same. The fire was longer, but there was no impact damage. Finally, in support of what happened at WTC, the metal supports that weren't fire protected at Madrid DID fail and those parts of the building collapsed. For more info, look at

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

All the comparison of the two fires shows is the poor design/fire resistance of the WTC. Yeah, our government is full of sh*t, so its certainly not necessary to create nonsensical equivalents.

best,

A

-- arbitraryname

Sorry, but it can be compared. The Madrid fire burned much longer and much hotter.

But, since 9-11 is not really the topic today I'll just ask for your help and then stop on the subject for today. Except for that magic day when three steel framed skyscrapers all came down due to a small fire, has any other steel framed building collapsed due to fire?

Also, why did WTC 7 imploded when WTC 6 and WTC 5 were closer to the Twin Towers and more heavily damaged by falling debris, yet, their structures remain. They were "different" also? How so?

It is like being told you can never step in the same river twice; true that no two events can be identical. This logic seems to only be employed when it helps support a government conspiracy theory. (the official story is a conspiracy theory)

I was a kid when JFK got shot by a magic bullet; but I just never believed in the magic.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-fbi.artaug04,0,3746296.story

or click on sig.

Questions worth pursuing, now it's been firmly established Jean Duley is no Oliver Sacks:

What was Dr. Irwin's connection, to both Ivins and Duley?

What are Irwin's professional credentials and affiliations? Has he ever worked for or consulted with the FBI in any capacity?

Things we will hopefully learn soon (or should) that go beyond hearsay and character assassination:

Did Ivins really make threatening remarks in group therapy?

Did Ivins did in fact leave Duley threatening voicemails?

Do Ivins' emails reveal clear signs of disturbance and hostility?

Plus everything else in the FBI case files, of course.

Reading about this case, I find what I'd really like to know is:

Who was Bruce Ivins? Good friend and admired co-worker, greedy businessman, sorority stalker, Unibomber soul mate? He clearly was a complicated, troubled man, and plainly in a fragile mental state when he died. Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely, but certainly much more complex than a "nice guy" or "outstanding scientist" or "government patsy" meme would suggest.

but I suspect the FBI settled early on it being one of those PhD egghead types ....

I remain really troubled by the timeline of the sent letters. The great gap between the first single letter and second "bunch" ... irrc, it wasn't that so much that the letter got lost (although there were some days in which it was very uncertain who or what the target was ... which remains unclear actually, since the letter vanished).. however, there was massive contamination ... from which only "madman" might be deduced.

The second letters to the networks again had no rhyme or reason beyond maybe "publicity seeking" or "television news punishing" madman? The "death to America / death to Israel" seemed jive at the time.

Then the one, then belated delayed other to the Senate ...

exactly how was this ever NOT going to finger the "top level" bioweapons program personnel?

I still think it was someone much lower and much "quirkier," maybe another PhD egghead hater...

(the anthrax was carbon dated to have been produced within 3 years of delivery... so my favorite ancient souvenir theory is shot out of the water ... but a more recent "theft of opportunity" still might work)

I think the big-boys would have appreciated how potentially deadly that powder was ... and sealed it up better.

It's amazing how the day LWM decides to post again, Abe Lincoln and the Confederacy once again rears its head. And of course Ron Paul has to come up, comparing him to Nancy Pelosi on the ACLU Meter no less. Nancy Pelosi is pure fail and you're pure fail too if you vote for support her and her "Antiwar Enough" friends.

Surely it is nothing more than a coincindence that these things happen...

I wonder how many "last straws" it has left in its never-ending hay bail?

I agree that they are taking the exact route they did with Hatfill. That suggests very strongly that this case is just as weak as Hatfill's. That also suggests to me that the last thing they can do is actually close the case, because then, if we had a real Congress, Mueller and Mukasey's butts would be brought to the witness table forthwith to provide a full accounting. Because that is still a formal possibility with our imitation Congress, DOJ will not close this case. As long as it is open, they can claim they are sure it was Ivins (through anonymous leaks, of course) but need more time to tie up the loose ends.

The Madrid fire can't be compared to WTC fires. The buildings are different structurally and therefore will behave differently under similar circumstances. Further, the circumstances in the Madrid fire were NOT the same. The fire was longer, but there was no impact damage. Finally, in support of what happened at WTC, the metal supports that weren't fire protected at Madrid DID fail and those parts of the building collapsed. For more info, look at

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

All the comparison of the two fires shows is the poor design/fire resistance of the WTC. Yeah, our government is full of sh*t, so its certainly not necessary to create nonsensical equivalents.

best,

A

The standards in a court proceeding and journalism are essentially the same - relevance.

You need to decide just what it is you're trying to do - because you're doing one thing while claiming to do another. You say you're just interested in what's "relevant." But what you're doing is bringing up slime-throwing irrelevancies that are not about examining the media coverage of whatever case there may or may not be against Ivins but are rather about actively undermining that case.

Again, just noting that the case against Ivins' mental state is based on the uncorroborated claim of a single source should have been enough. It would have made the point. But for you, it wasn't and didn't; instead, it was necessary to destroy the reputation of the accuser. Because even though you claim

it is relevant to her credibility and to the credibility of her accusations,

that blunt fact is, no, it isn't. A couple of DUIs and a single altercation with her ex-husband are not relevant to her ability to judge Ivins' state of mind. (Sidebar: What the hell does the fact that one of DUIs was at 1:30am have to do with anything? Would it have been less serious if it was at 5:30 in the afternoon?) Trying to make them relevant, even central, is not the practice of a media or news analyst but the tactic of a defense attorney trying to smear the character of, and so discredit, a hostile witness. Which are you again, Mr. "I have no opinion?"

Even cheap slams have a place:

It has nothing to do with her handwriting

Then why in heaven's name did you find it necessary to describe it as a "scrawl?"

Ultimately, you do not address my charges that you intended to assail Duley and her qualifications and to imply she's emotionally unstable except to confirm them, justifying yourself solely on a spurious claim of "relevance." Bottom line here, and I will leave it at this, is I do not believe and cannot believe that you have "no opinion" about Ivins' guilt. You may not think he's innocent, but you clearly suspect he's being railroaded, ala Dr. Wen Ho Lee, and so set out to destroy part of the "case" against him by destroying an accuser. To insist otherwise is disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst.

And the piece remains a disgrace.