Saturday, March 1, 2008

The New "U.S.S. Evidence"

Thousands of people have gathered in Louisiana for the christening of a US warship built partly from steel salvaged from the World Trade Center.

The twin towers in New York were destroyed in the hijacked planes attack of 11 September 2001. Just in case you forgot.

Friends and families of 9/11 victims were among those at the ceremony for the new amphibious assault ship, the USS Evidence errr New York, in the base of Avondale.

The bow contains 7.5 tonnes of steel taken from Ground Zero.

It also bore a shield with two bars to symbolise the towers and a banner with the slogan: Never Forget. Never Investigate.

Hurricane Katrina (A Two-fer!)

The wife of Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England broke the champagne with the traditional salute of "May God bless this ship and all who sail on her, and hope it don't catch fire and melt!"

Mr. England said the name of the ship would be a source of strength and inspiration to the crew.

In the US Navy, state names are normally reserved for submarines, but former New York Governor George Pataki had asked for the ship to carry the name.

During construction the ship also had to survive the onslaught of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

The USS New York will be commissioned into service next year.

Lee Ielpi, president of the September 11th Families' Association, told Associated Press: "We're sending a message that we're standing strong. This ship, as it cuts through the water, is going to send a ripple. That ripple will say, 'We cherish our freedoms, or what's left of them."


Shirley Heezgay! said...

wait wait wait

i thought ALL the metal was shipped out to asia and the like...

and now we find out they built a ship out of it?

shameless and disgusting!

this is a complete obstruction of justice and evidence tampering...

Shoes4Industry said...

We agree completely!

H Nicole said...

What a joke.

There wasn't even enough scrap steel from the WTC towers left to make even a small fraction of a ship, after the towers were dustified and most of the steel just blew away, that is.

Just to put things in perspective, a standard ship is made of about 3000 tonnes of steel, give or take a 1000 tonnes. Since each tower was made from about 100,000 tonnes of steel, there should have been about 200,000 tonnes of steel left after the towers "collapsed" -- plenty of scrap steel left to build quite a few ships (at least 60).

Only 7.5 tonnes of scrap steel from the world trade center towers was used to make what must have been only a very small part of the hull of this ship! It looks to me like whoever brainstormed this facade couldn't even come up with enough trade center steel to make more than just a small part of the bow of this ship.

And no, the "rest of the steel" was not shipped to China. If so, prove it, Big Brother -- let's talk to the captain (or any crew member for that matter) of at least one ship that purportedly took some steel to China. Is that too much to ask or is this a "national security" issue, too?

H Nicole said...

Does anybody (other than Judy Wood, I mean) ever question why ground zero gave off dust clouds for so many months after 9/11? And no, it wasn't super hot "molten steel" causing so much heat that the ground "steamed" for months and months.

Gotta do better than that explanation, Big Brother, since there is no evidence of molten steel nor heat nor steam at ground zero (BTW, I can't wait until my political action committee GWICAAC, or Get Women in Congress At All Costs, achieves its goal of at least 50% women in Congress so I can start calling it Big Sister -- at least by then the amount of corruption will have decreased proportionately because studies show that women individually, and even more so as a group, are less likely to be corrupted when in positions of power).

Anyway, the big white clouds coming from ground zero that we see in the satellite pictures even months after 9/11 is definitely not hot steam made from water. A more reasonable explanation supported by the facts so far is that a highly explosive chemical reaction, in which the steel itself is one of the reactants, dustified the steel frames of the towers on 9/11. After the initial explosion, the chemical reaction continued a much slower breakdown of whatever steel was left until, over the course of months, most of it finally turned to fine dust and flew away.

Big Brother did what it could to cover this up by dumping huge amounts of dirt all over everything at ground zero after 9/11 (the workers and media were probably told that it was to "put out or lessen the likelihood of fires from the molten steel"), but the steel nevertheless continued its chemical breakdown (at regular temperature) below and through and around the dirt for months, a large amount of the steel eventually flying away in the form of relatively cool steel dust, not hot steam from water.

Cocked45 said...

The insipid ignorance and lack of apparent everyday knowledge by you people has never ceased to amaze me.

They announced shortly after 9-11 that they were going to use some of the steel from the towers for various projects in memorials.

And a typical ship uses 3000 tons of steel? Where do you come up with this crap at?

"after the towers were dustified and most of the steel just blew away, that is" !??!?!?!!

Mental illness is a sad thing when not treated.

Lee said...

Recently read an article (in the newspaper NOT the web. so don't be asking for sites).

The article was about how girls are now catching up to the boys regarding bad behavior and crime. According to the "experts" as girls achieve on all levels as boys (whether it is sports, academics, etc.) and are able to do and become and the things boys do (which is a good thing) along with that naturally comes the bad behavior that was usually reserved for the males. Juvenile crime is becoming just as bad among girls as it is boys.

So, if you think that a majority of women in Congress will mean there will be less corruption, you are delusional. The girls or young women mentioned above will grow up to be women and will be corrupt, too. After all, we all know how so many women today truly want to be men in every sense of the word.

H Nicole said...

Try looking up a little something called "hull steel weight" sometime, Cocked45. Maybe you didn't take high school physics, where you built a little aluminum boat and tried to see how many pennies you could put in it before it sank? Well, never mind.

First, a tonne (1000 kg) is slightly more than a ton (about 907 kg), and I've seen the two used interchangeably in articles about this ship being "built from WTC steel," so not sure if it was 7.5 tonnes or 7.5 tons used, but I digress...

Here's the article about the specific ship we are talking about

Where it says, "The billion-dollar, 25,000-ton vessel is 684 feet long, 105 feet wide."

Not sure what the hull steel weight is, though, but I'd say 3,000-4,000 tonnes is probably a big underestimate here, not an overestimate, as you seem to think.

It is not uncommon for some of the biggest ships in the world, like cargo ships, to have a hull steel weights of 40,000 tonnes.

Anyway, this supports my arguments even more so in that an even smaller fraction of this ship is made from WTC steel, probably less than 1/1000th of the total steel going into the ship!

And "using some of the steel for various project and memorials" is a far cry from melting probably the entire collection of steel evidence (7.5 tonnes) and putting it all into one ship to make it appear as though there was a lot of steel recovered from that dust bowl.

H Nicole said...

P.S. -- Most of the steel recovered came from WTC7 anyway, and not the WTC towers as reported. WTC7 was the only one of the three buildings purposely destroyed that day that was not destroyed via chemical dustification of the steel.

Also it seems very inappropriate (and creepy) to call this ship a "memorial" to 9/11 when it very well may be Silverman just getting as much bang for the bang. Did he donate the 7.5 tonnes of evidence (whoops, I mean steel) to this project or did he sell it to the military?

H Nicole said...

Women acting like men is only a part of the progression toward a better world, Lee.

When women entered medical schools for the first time or the military for the first time or wherever for the first time, they always played by the men's rules because that was the only way to get ahead, and many of them corrupted themselves against their natural instincts because that is what the male-dominated system demanded.

However, once the numbers started evening out to 50% in all the medical schools, law schools, etc., the uncorrupted women (and men), without even thinking about it, sort of went from the silent minority to the outspoken majority and said, "wait a minute, this 'hazing' crap, where we have to stay awake for 48 hours straight during our residence training just to prove how 'manly' we are is pure stupidity and is a public danger as well." I'm sure many male medical students thought this for years, but never said anything until the women began saying something.

Many things have changed for the better in a lot of places as a result of a large number of women (as well as their male colleagues, once they woke up and stopped following the male-group mentality, that is) pointed out how stupid, inefficient, and detrimental certain previously unchallenged practices and procedures were.

For now, we are at the "corrupted women" stage of the process in Congress (Diane Feinstein being the poster child for this), as well as in many executive boardrooms, etc. Once the number of women (as well as minorities for that matter) goes up, certain systematic changes will start to occur naturally, for the better, and w/o much effort since the changes will seem so obvious to a majority at this point.

A large group of women, with men only in the minority, can be just as dangerous and inefficient for separate reasons. I am just an equal opportunity criticizer of the dangers of homogeneity, that's all!

Lee said...

Don't know if I necessarily agree that "women acting like men" is always considered progression.

So many women do not seem to be comfortable in their own skin anymore. They don't seem to be happy unless they look, smell, act,etc. like men. I recently saw a sign at the gym that was an ad for a spinning class that read "women don't want to just perspire they want to sweat like the men." Why? What's wrong with just perspiring?

It is great that women have come as far as they have but now it has taken on a whole new life. We have seem to forgotten that there still is a big difference in the sexes just by nature. Some women think "different" means "not as good as."

How many times do you see or hear men worrying about being more like a woman? They are very content with who they are as compared to females.

When women learn to accept the differences and realize those differences aren't negative then I think they'll be much happier.

Cocked45 said...

It 's pretty obvious when dealing with a woman of your pedigree and narcosis that logic is something that you failed to qualify for.

3,000 ton's is a BIG yacht or a small boat. Most military vessels(ships) are at least 20,000 tons and usually a hell of a lot more.

Of course, you're still stuck in your "dustification" chemical laser bullshit mode so any rational discussion with you about any subject is pointless.

And, boy howdy, we sure have come a long way as a nation since women have "progressed". Out of wedlock births, depressed job market, wild ass tattooed, pierced, sloppy dressed kids, yeah, women sure have helped this country get on the right track. They should have stayed home cooking 3 square meals, raising their kids, taking them to church, and going to PTA meetings. And, DEFINITELY out of the military except administrative logistical secretarial and nursing duties. Women in combat, what a joke.

H Nicole said...

Yea, Lee! Loved that post for sure. I'm a big proponent of celebrating and valuing differences, as you suggest, and not just gender differences -- cultural differences, age differences, race differences, etc.

As for Cocked45, nice attempt at saving of the face on that one. Come on, admit it -- you were clueless, had no idea how many tons of steel were used to make ships, thought that 3,000-4,000 tonnes (3333-4444 tons) was way too big of a number (not too small) and now you are suddenly an expert, after I showed you where to go to get the information. Bravo. Very manly of you (to hide your cluelessness by calling me dumb, that is) except for one little detail... the total weight of the ship and the hull steel weight are two completely different things.

Anyway, this time I'll let you tell me (since you are the expert) how much steel was used to make the hull of the 25,000 ton ship we are talking about here. I'll give you a little hint: it's not the 20,000 tons you claim...

Cocked45 said...

"Just to put things in perspective, a standard ship is made of about 3000 tonnes of steel, give or take a 1000 tonnes." YOUR words nutso, not mine.

"And a typical ship uses 3000 tons of steel? Where do you come up with this crap at?" My words, as in, only a clinical moron would make the first statement.

And after 12 years in the USN, I'm not even gonna' bother trying to have any rational discussion from some so called "scientist", who is obviously deranged and deluded.

You're bisexual, married a gay man, and are now wondering why you are having marital/child/family/court issues?? I'm not the one who is "clueless" lady.

I've forgot more about ships than you will ever know.

H Nicole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
H Nicole said...

Hi, LifeBeginsAt200MPH (aka Cocked45),

I thought that was you, the guy who has had a career and years of experience in whatever happens to require expertise at the moment!

Perhaps the more pertinent quote of mine from the past came after I discovered and reported the weight of the ship to be 25,000 tons...

"Not sure what the hull steel weight is, though..."

Not sure.

Repeat after me...

Not sure.

How about this one...

I don't know.

Well, okay, let's not give you a heart attack for today. Maybe we'll work our way up to the phrase "I don't know" over the next few months after practicing "I'm not sure."

So again:

H Nicole Question:

How much steel was used to make this 25,000 ton ship (almost sounds like a trick question, doesn't it)?

H Nicole Answer (Correct):

Not sure, but (my previous guess of) 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes may have been a big underestimate.

Cocked45 Answer (Incorrect):

You are stupid. It's obviously 25,000 tons. What an idiot. I hate women, especially women scientists.

Not your fault, Cocked45. It's a guy thing. Most guys would much rather give an assertive answer of some kind (even in cases where they know for sure it's totally wrong!) then say, "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "this is something we need to find out" or "I got my numbers and information from (source)." Makes for interesting science and even more interesting visits to most male doctors' offices.

Cocked45 said...

Once again, your delusional mind has made an error.

Repeat after me


I know him. He lives about 1000 miles east of me. So what. He never served in the military, I did. So what.

I talked to him the other night and he was asking if you were still on this blog. I told him you were still your same paranoid, nut ball self. Old news to those few who waste their time here.

Shirley Heezgay! said...

let's review.


any remaining scrap metal that was salvaged from the WTC site was shipped away. also, some metals would be used in memorial projects true.

That was the official story.

Now, just over 7 years later, we learn that the USS New York's hull contains metal from the WTC site.

Who the hell cares how much it weighs or how much metal was actually salvaged from the PULVERIZED buildings and airplanes.

There are hangars full of terrorist remnants from crashed/blown up airplanes (lockerbie)...but not the metal from WTC.

7 years later, a military ship AND a skyscraper has been built and the WTC 1&2 sites are still JUST HOLES IN THE GROUND.

What's going on underneath the facade of the "floor" of the worksite?

Just asking. Asking is not crazy. Not asking is just choosing to be a lemming.

H Nicole said...

Good point, Shirley!

I am NOT SURE the answer to your question. I DON'T KNOW, but it sure sounds like SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK INTO for more answers.

H Nicole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
H Nicole said...

Yes, sorry about that pissing contest I got sucked into, but it's important. Women scientists, and women in general, tend to speak the way I did in the previous post, and because of it, men tend to dismiss anything that comes from what they are saying.

I think the "I don't know, but let's explore this further" is just one of many different approaches to a problem. It is not better or worse than the male approach, just different. The male approach, which is more aggressive and usually automatically dismissive of any fact that they just don't know the answer to or think will never have a definitive answer to begin with, has its strength in the area of not wasting time on something that may lead to nothing.

The male approach excels in areas like math, physics, and areas where you have black and white answers to questions. The female approach excels in areas with highly complex problems that will probably never have black and white answers, like the types of problems you find in biology (i.e., how to cure cancer) or global warming -- areas which are currently relatively stagnated, I think (though you would never know it to hear men speak of all their "accomplishments" in these areas) until more women are allowed to participate, beginning with money and granting systems that stop shafting women and women's approach to solving problems.

H Nicole said...

"Heavy snow buries parts of Ohio, Indiana"

Ohio is being punished by the powers-that-be for turning this race around for Hillary! (This is a joke only in that they missed their target slightly and hit parts of Indiana).

Okay, all kidding aside, I've noticed this stuff always tends to happen like this. There will be a big news event in a region or state in the US, and then a few days later, after the news event has passed, some regular news event for the area makes national headlines like it's a big deal. I think it just shows you that news happens to happen wherever you get a large congregation of lazy reporters who are dawdling behind, that's all.

H Nicole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
H Nicole said...

Some of you may have seen this last Sunday on 60 minutes about the ray gun that I mentioned in my faxes to Congress last fall...

Glad this technology finally made it to 60 minutes.

Now lets see the next step, which is a 60 Minutes investigative story on 9/11. An interview with the captain or crew of at least one ship that brought steel to China would be a good start -- or not, considering I am claiming that no such ship exists!

H Nicole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...


How Could We Know? I didn't know!
YOu didn't know! How could we know?

Did you know that 47 COUNTRIES have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

DYK that the Iraqi government currently EMPLOYS 1.2 MILLION IRAQI PEOPLE?

DYK that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?

DYK that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

DYK that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in Jan. 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?

DYK that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5-100foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

DYK that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

DYK that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

DYK that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

DYK that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

DYK that theree are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities?



DYK that there are 1,192,000 cell phones subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up by 158%?

DYK that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 TV stations?

DYK that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

DYK that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?


Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidental motorcades. Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq SERVES THREEE MAJOR PURPOSES OF THE LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA:

1. It is intended to undermine the worldd's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and

2. It is intended to discourage American citizens andd erode their support for the war (and freedom).

3. It is intended to help the Democratic Party gain more power in the next election, (a major push towards Socialism in America).

...And you will probably receive even LESS "twisted" news should they make it into office!

Shoes4Industry said...


Lee said...

Well, I guess that comment finally brought Shoes out of moth balls...

And the point of is what?

Shoes4Industry said...

Here is one of the common conservative myths: "Most Founding Fathers were serious Christians."

Of course it depends on how one defines the term, but if we use the definition of Christianity offered by those who make this claim – i.e. conservative Christians – then the Founders studied in this book were not Christians. Adams became an active Unitarian, rejecting much Christian doctrine. And Franklin, Jefferson and Adams abhored the Calvinist idea that salvation was determined by divine preference rather than good works. Madison and Washington remained the most silent on matters of personal theology and continued to attend Christian churches but in their voluminous writings never seemed to speak of Jesus as divine. If they must wear labels, the closest fit would be “Unitarian.”

Jefferson & Franklin overtly rejected the divinity of Jesus. Jefferson loathed the entire clerical class and what had become of Christianity. It's really quite amazing to read Jefferson spew venom toward religious leaders. Imagine a president saying some of these things today:

On the Apostles: "ignorant, unlettered men" who laid "a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications."

The Apostle Paul: "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

The doctrine of the Trinity: The "abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus" and the "hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads.”

Immaculate conception: would some day be “classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Calvin: Best response was the "strait jacket alone"

Priests: "Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies."

And… "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty." And they've "made of Christendom a slaughter-house."

In fact, it was because he thought Christianity had been so thoroughly corrupted that he created his own Bible, slicing out the miracles and thereby "rescuing" Jesus and separating the "diamonds" from the "dunghill" that was the rest of the Bible. Imagine the attack ads that could be made out of that!

Shoes4Industry said...

More "good news", Lee?

Shirley Heezgay! said...

WOW! Things are totally frakkin' AWESOME in Iraq! GOSH! How did they PAY for all that??

Oh, that's right.

Lee said...

So, your point is that you are anti-American and an atheist???

Did you catch the comment regarding statistics of lives lost in the military according to year?
1996 - 2,318 In 8 Clinton years-13,417

2002 - 1,007 In 7 Bush years 9,016

As one person notes,"these statistics show that more of our wonderful military were lost when Clinton wasn't protecting us than have been since Bush has stood up to these radicals".

Lee said...

Didn't say everything was perfect in Iraq but we NEVER hear the progress being madeand obviously there is plenty.

Given a choice I'd rather have my tax money paying for national security in the form of keeping the enemy busy over there rather than here. Better our dollars are used for that rather than all the ENTITLEMENT programs over here especially WELFARE where we continue to actually PAY people for sitting on their lazy assses.

Shirley Heezgay! said...

the record's stu~the record's stu~the record's stu~the record's stu~the record's stu~

Lee said...

Awfully quiet around here. For a site that is always up in arms concering racism, one would think the Rev. J. Wright's video would be the lead post. HMMMMMMMMM!

Shoes4Industry said...

Rev. Wright was right. He spoke nothing but the truth...

Lee said...

So, I guess you would agree that RACISM goes BOTH ways?

And who didn't know you would agree with his anti-American rants.
Now that I think of it, maybe from all the bullshit on this site, you are a member of this church.
All I know is that if this was a white preacher screaming this poison from his pulpit, the church would be in ashes.

And since you agree with eveything Rev. Wright said I guess you disagree with Obama because he denounced his rants of hate.

The only thing "right" about this "preacher" is his name...

Cocked45 said...

"Rev. Wright was right. He spoke nothing but the truth..."

That might be true if he said you were an idiot.

Cocked45 said...

"Rev. Wright was right. He spoke nothing but the truth..."

That would be true if he'd said you were an idiot.

Lee said...

Here's what an intellectually black, Shelby Steele, had to say:

He says that racism is such a distant memory that racial victimologists like Rev. Wright are now left with concocting wild-eyed conspiracy theories* to maintain their power.

They see their power slipping, so "they rub racism in the face of the whites", said Steele, who like Wright and Obama hails from Chicago's South Side.

It's self-serving black leaders such as Wright who hold back blacks today. In fact, Steele says their victim-focused, racial-identity politics has stifled black advancement more than racism itself.

"The No. 1 black problem is not racism," Steele says, its groupism and a desperate clinging to the black power movement of the 60's. Obama's church requires allegiance to this movement, recast as the "Black Value System."

"The pursuit of black power is the worst thing we can do," says Steele. "It's the kiss of death," because it falsely convinces blacks they can't succeed on their own as individuals in "racist white America", a mantra of Obama's church of hate.

The ignorance and paranoia is bred by something called "black liberation theology," preached by Wright and his own mentor, Rev. James H. Cone. This theology is the core of the "black experience" and "blalck perspective" and "legacy of the African-American church" that whites are told they wouldn't understand.

According to Cone's writings and lectures, it teaches them that Jesus was black and blacks are the chosen people, and that the white man is "the devil."

It also teaches that black values are superior to American values, and as Cone himself said, "all white men are responsible for white oppression" and will be held accountable and unforgiven until blacks are "completely emancipated" from white society.

We need to take these beliefs out of the shadows, because unlesss and until we do, this ignorance will breed more paranoia, which will just continue to fester into the kind of misplaced anger that ignites more Juneteenth violence, or worse, another South Central-scale riot.

Without elaborating, Obama concededd that some of the "ignorance" in the black church is "shocking". He has a duty to lead blacks out of that ignorance and heal the racial scab Wright and other race hustlers keep infecting with such beligerent bacteria. As a new generation of black leader, Obama must disabus blacks of Wright's crazy talk, family friend or not.

Our racial problems stems from ignorance on both sides. It's not just the David Dukes spreading racist garbage; it also is the Jeremiah Wrights. If Obama is a leader worthy of the White House, he would lead us all out of that ignorance, blacks included, and not simply try to make excuses for it.

* conspiracy theories - guess that is why Wright is so well-liked here

文章 said...