4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 10966
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1582) not displayed.
.
.
.

#1583. To: Rotara (#1581)
LOL!
"Private! Your responses are FAILING PRIVATE!"
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-27 15:01:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1584. To: Original_Intent (#1582)
Oy Vey!

It just has to suck AND blow to be them.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara posted on 2009-03-27 15:04:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1585. To: Original_Intent (#1583)
EHEHEEEEEEEE !

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara posted on 2009-03-27 15:04:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1586. To: bluegrass (#1574)
Odigo said they were warned. `

Warned yes...about the Towers...no...

war posted on 2009-03-27 20:18:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1587. To: TwentyTwelve (#1579)
Post a primary source to Skilling's quote...thanks...
You Moonbats are famous for making shit up...like NORAD 'standing down" and UL approviong the steel..and WTC 7 collapsing in 6.odd seconds until you're shown a video that it was actually 13 odd...

war posted on 2009-03-27 20:50:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1588. To: bluegrass, war (#1534)
Helpful hint to war: You'd come off as a better disinfo artist if you questioned one or two aspects...

Trutherism or anti-Trutherism as performance art with points awarded for technique, kind of like professional ice skating but not quite as gay.
You guys have passed through the looking glass.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-27 23:45:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1589. To: TooConservative (#1588)
Come on now, only a total ignoramus or paid shill believes the Official 911 Fairy Tale® at this point.
There's no 'tween ground left to stand on. Our government is run by a treacherous cabal and the butchers are way way way way out of control.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara posted on 2009-03-27 23:50:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1590. To: war (#1587)
2001
“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[6]
[Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[7]
[Frank A. Demartini:] “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8]
[6] [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001]
[7] [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17]
[8] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/ 141104designedtotake.htm

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 0:43:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1591. To: war (#1587)
Post a primary source to Skilling's quote...thanks...

[4] [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993]

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 0:44:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1592. To: TwentyTwelve (#1591)
Don't expect me to lie...
Don't expect me to cry...
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Dakmar posted on 2009-03-28 0:50:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1593. To: war (#1572)
Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:
“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:
Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 0:53:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1594. To: war (#1572)
Do you know that those jet fuel fires only lasted a few minutes? They did not last long enough to significantly contribute to any temperature rise of the structure. Sorry, thats shear nonsense.
From Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Page 52, E.8.2 Characteristics of the Fires
The dominant fuel for the fires in the towers was the office combustables. On the floors where the aircraft fuselage impacted, there was a significant, but secondary contribution from the combustables in the aircraft. Most of the jet fuel in the fire zones was consumed in the first few minutes after impact, although there may have been unburned pockets of jet fuel that led to flare-ups late in the morning.
Page 53, E.8.3 Capability for Large Fire Reconstruction
Jet fuel sprayed onto the surfaces of typical office workstations burned away within a few minutes. The jet fuel accelerated the burning of the workstation, but did not affect the overall heat released.
Page 104, 3.2.1 Nature of Combustables
While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes. By contrast, typical office furnishings can sustain intense fires of at least an hour's duration on a given floor (see, e.g. Nelson 1989)

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 0:55:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1595. To: war (#1572)
A far more extensive fire occurred in WTC-1 on February 13, 1975, which burned at much higher temperatures for three hours and spread over 65% of the 11th floor, including the core, yet caused no significant damage to the steel structure and no trusses had to be replaced.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 0:56:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1596. To: war (#1572)
www.wtc7.net/location.html
Building 7's Location
WTC 7's location Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. WTC 1 through WTC 6 were on the superblock bounded by West, Church, Liberty, and Vesey Streets. Building 7 was wedged between the Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings across Vesey Street from the WTC complex. It straddled an electrical substation that filled the first two stories of about half the block.
People who have heard of Building 7 tend to assume that 'ancillary damage' from the collapses of the Twin Towers had something to do with Building 7's collapse. It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex. The wall of Building 7 closest to the WTC complex was more than 300 feet from the nearest wall of the North Tower. It appears that nearly all of the heavy fallout from the disintegration of the North Tower landed short of Building 7. Building 6 stood between the North Tower and Building 7.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 0:58:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1597. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1596)
bzzzzzt

The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Dakmar posted on 2009-03-28 1:03:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1598. To: TwentyTwelve (#1591)
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
By Eric Nalder
Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200- pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.
Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved

war posted on 2009-03-28 7:18:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1599. To: TwentyTwelve (#1590)
Robertson admitted that they could not plan for how devistating the fires were. Skilling's article is posted above. Skilling's interview, posted above, doesn't seem to make his comment as cut and dry as you'd like. DeMartini was not a design engineer.

war posted on 2009-03-28 7:21:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1600. To: TwentyTwelve (#1593)
November? How much of the study into why the collpases happened had bene completed? People usually are baffled until they research imnto why something happened.
You still have yet to answer any of my questions. I am beginning to believe that your point here is to simply spam the thread hoping that I will go away. It's not going to happen.

war posted on 2009-03-28 7:23:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1601. To: war, TwentyTwelve, all (#1600)
People usually are baffled until they research imnto why something happened.

There's nothing baffling about it. One only has to watch the video of the disintegration of the towers to see that they were pulverized.
If the floors 'pancaked', then where is the stack of floors at the bottom?
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 8:17:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1602. To: war (#1587)
WTC 7 collapsing in 6.odd seconds until you're shown a video that it was actually 13 odd...

You can show a video that it was 13 seconds?
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 8:53:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1603. To: war, wudidiz (#1600)
I looked around YouTube a bit, couldn't find a 13 second clip of WTC 7's collapse.
It would seem to me that this is a fact that we should be able to establish from video.
6 seconds or 13 seconds. Pick one.
I think WTC 7 has always been the Truthers' strongest argument.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 9:39:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1604. To: TooConservative (#1603)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds. It was obviously a controlled demolition.

There's no room for argument.
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 10:03:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1605. To: wudidiz (#1604)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.

Yes, it does.
In debate, if you can't establish facts that both sides will stipulate to, you have no grounds for any kind of debate.
You have to start with shared facts. This matter of how many seconds the collapse took should not even be a matter for debate, there should be plenty of evidence for any reasonable person, plenty of cameras you can time to determine the time for collapse.
Start with the facts you agree on. Then you can have a proper debate.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 10:21:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1606. To: TooConservative (#1605)
The sky's blue. Someone can say it's green. They can show me pictures of a green sky. It doesn't matter. The sky's still blue. There is no room for debate. People can argue about whether Bush or the CIA or the Mossad were responsible for 9/11, but not about Building 7 being a controlled demolition or not. Not in the real world.
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 10:26:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1607. To: TooConservative (#1605)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.
Yes, it does.

Yeah maybe it does, but it was brought down by explosives anyway.
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 10:29:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1608. To: wudidiz (#1601)
Pancaked referred to the fact that they fell on top of each other....not how they ended up at the bottom. And posting a pic of a 6 story building which pancaked is a well over the top of disingenious.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:01:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1609. To: wudidiz (#1607)
Yeah maybe it does, but it was brought down by explosives anyway.

The videos of the collapse are suggestive.
You get nowhere in debate if you don't establish the facts both sides will stipulate to.
For instance, none of us argues that WTC 7 never collapsed. If someone won't agree to that, then you can't argue with that person because they're not fact-based.
Similarly, you need to establish the whys and hows of WTC collapsing, how long it took, some of the similarities to a demolition. But you have to start with things like how long did it take to collapse.
The facts are the facts, no matter which side you're on. Without facts, there is no way to apply science or reason and you end up arguing something like a religion, a faith-based belief system. This applies to both Truthers and anti-Truthers.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 11:01:22 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1610. To: wudidiz (#1606)
The sky's blue. Someone can say it's green. They can show me pictures of a green sky.

Those would be fake pictures. That has nothing to do with 9/11.
Try to stop arguing things from analogy. It's always weak, always distorting. And if you want to convince science-based persons, they get suspicious the second you start arguing from analogy.
You don't need to argue from analogy if you have facts.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 11:03:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1611. To: TooConservative (#1603)
I still believe that their strongest argument is the reaction of the executive branch that day. I have yet to find that any of their other blatherings stand up to scrutiny. And while I will confess that some aspects take more research than other, I have yet to discover any aspect of their blatherings regarding the actual collapse of the towers to be truthful. IN point of fact, some of their blatherings are directly contradicted by visual records; yet, cling to them they do.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:04:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1612. To: TwentyTwelve (#1594)
Do you know that those jet fuel fires only lasted a few minutes? They did not last long enough to significantly contribute to any temperature rise of the structure. Sorry, thats shear nonsense.

Yea so? Are you claiming that there was nothing inside the Towers that could catch fire after that fuel was consumed?
I have never claimed that jet fuel brought those Towers down...ever...nor have most of the analyses that I have read.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:07:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1613. To: wudidiz (#1602)

CBS Video of the World Trade Center 7 Collapse -

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:08:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1614. To: war (#1611)
IN point of fact, some of their blatherings are directly contradicted by visual records; yet, cling to them they do.

Maybe you could post a video of the 13 second collapse and of the Truthers who repudiated their earlier position.
Facts are good for both sides, war. Unless a video has been faked, it is a neutral record. There should be enough videos of WTC 7's collapse to establish such a basic fact, something fundamental to the arguments offered by both sides.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 11:11:26 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1615. To: TooConservative, Wudidiz, christine, Rotara, TwentyTwelve, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, all (#1605)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.
Yes, it does.
In debate, if you can't establish facts that both sides will stipulate to, you have no grounds for any kind of debate.

Actually I would argue that you are both correct.
I am even willing to accept the stipulation that it was 13 seconds.
Of course that is because it does not materially affect the conclusion. The rate of the collapse has always been a secondary datum which supported the argument but was not essential to the argument.
The primary data to be observed, and which are not in dispute as they are recorded on the video is:
The collapse began symmetrically in 360 degrees meaning it was uniform completely around the perimiter of the building.
One can observe in the video that the building collapses in upon itself. Visible evidence of this fact is the two cracks that appear in the facade along lines approximating the physical presence in the building of the central core structure - the strongest part of the structure. The center of the building then begins to subside pulling the rest of the structure inward. This again supports the observation that the collapse was initiated simultaneously in 360 degrees and thus was thus symmetrical. This is directly at variance with known observations of catastrophic failure of a structure wherein there is always a weak point that gives way thus causing the failure to proceed in the direction of the point of initial failure. For it to collapse symmetrically means that it had to fail simultaneously in 360 degrees thus indicating a causal mechanism initiating a uniform collapse. In a normal catastrophic failure the failure occurs asymmetrically as their is a single point of initial failure which then compromises the structure thus resulting in failure proceeding in that direction. Simultaneous collapse is again buttressed by the appearance of the two cracks allong the core lines in the same unit of time. Were there only one point of failure the buildings collapse would have shown a definite slump in the direction of the point of failure. So, again we are brought back to the observable fact that the collapse was uniform and symmetrical in 360 degrees. This we can all observe without including the disputed datum of the rate of collapse which despite the disputation is measured in mere seconds from the time the first signature occurs until the structure collapses neatly into its own footprint - with the strongest part of the structure failing first.
If we compare the collapse of building 7 to known instances of explosive demolitions of buildings the observable similarity is one of the most striking aspects of the building 7 collapse.
I could build further on the argument but don't have the time at the moment, but I think this demonstrates clearly enough that the collapse of bldg. 7 does not conform to a normal engineering failure and there are elements unaccounted for which initiated the collapse above and beyond a normal structural failure.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-28 11:22:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1616. To: TooConservative, Original Intent (#1614)
Maybe you could post a video of the 13 second collapse and of the Truthers who repudiated their earlier position.

I had posted that previously...
That is what is frustrating...Troofers make a statement to which they are given either video or analytical evidence that stands in direct contradiction of their assertion but they simply ignore it.
OI posted an entire litany and I took the time to address each and everyone one of his points as well as to question some of his points. Ditto 2012...not one of my questions have ever been addressed.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:24:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1617. To: Original_Intent (#1615)
The rate of the collapse has always been a secondary datum

That is total bullshit...the whole "free fall speed" has been the LYNCHPIN of your C/D nonsense.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:26:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1618. To: war (#1616)
Your job is disinfo. Anyone with a brain knows 911 was an inside job.

Old Friend posted on 2009-03-28 11:31:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1619. To: war (#1617)
Not at all as illustrated in my argument above (#1615) in which I placed no reliance on it. The argument simply becomes a little longer since one has to develop a little more background and it requires a little more knowledge to put together. The rate of collapse was a convenient datum to shorten the argument but is not and was not an essential datum - as my argument proves.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-28 11:32:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1620. To: Original_Intent (#1619)
The rate of collapse was a convenient datum to shorten the argument but is not and was not an essential datum - as my argument proves.

BULLSHIT...the TIME it took to fall was your entire case...
You still have the problem of why, if it was a CD, did the top collapse before the building?
So, where did Jones get his samples and why are you ignoring that question?

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:38:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1621. To: Old Friend (#1618)
That would still disqualify you...

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:39:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1622. To: Original_Intent (#1615)
The collapse began symmetrically in 360 degrees meaning it was uniform completely around the perimiter of the building.

You need to go back and look at that video...one side of the top visibly sags before the other...

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:40:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1623. To: Original_Intent (#1619)

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:52:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.
Comments (1624 - 2261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um