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: 28443
Comments: 2261
Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1604) not displayed.
.
.
.
#1605. To: wudidiz (#1604)
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.
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.
Yes, it does. Yeah maybe it does, but it was brought down by explosives anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
That is total bullshit...the whole "free fall speed" has been the LYNCHPIN of your C/D nonsense.
Your job is disinfo. Anyone with a brain knows 911 was an inside job.
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
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?
That would still disqualify you...
You need to go back and look at that video...one side of the top visibly sags before the other...
Attaboy - keep clutching at those straws. The cracks appear so close together as to be materially insignificant. The structure observably collapsed symmetrically in 360 degrees with collapse being initiated uniformly in those 360 degrees. The entire support structure then just ceases to exist, as one sees in a controlled demolition, and the building collapses neatly into its own footprint. NIST to date has avoided the building 7 collapse and then finally came up with their thermal expansion "hypothesis" to explain away the observable data and thence became a laughingstock everywhere but in the controlled American Media. At this point the most you do is quibble and throw up whatever hoping it will stick as you continue to try to defend the Official Fairy Tale. How much DO they pay you? Do you have to sneak up on the mirror to shave? 'bot on duuuuuuuuuude!
""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
My ass...you can "say" that all you want to as the we watch the left side sag visibly and collapse well prior to the building falling...we also see the top of the structure collapse well before the building does...link those to 13 seconds and that's STRIKE THREE... Where did Jones get his samples?
www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1152446814/911_WTC_Squibs After watching this, it may be tough to see the fall of the buildings without ever noticing the squibs again. A squib is a demolition term for the unique plume of smoke seen immediately after an explosion.
911review.org/Wiki/King,Jeff.shtml video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8533904938803031452 www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jAS4Zk059w 9/11 Truth: MIT Engineer Jeff King Proves WTC Collapses Were Controlled Demolitions Sep 3 '06 at 12:36 PM - 137 views - 0 comments World - Jeff King, and Engineer at MIT, uses his expertise in the topic to prove that the only way the World Trade Center towers (and building 7) could have come down in the manner they did was if they were brought down by controlled demolitions. Jeff King's been a critic of the official story for a lot longer than the Scholars group or any of that has been around.
HOW TOUGH WERE THE TOWERS? A lead engineer who worked on the WTC expressed shock that the towers collapsed from plane crashes. Lee Robertson, the tower's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism in the plans for the building, claiming he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." Lets examine Mr. Robertsons handiwork a bit more and take a look at how these towers were made... Those 4 cranes you see in the photo, are perched atop the central support core of the tower. This core is built of sheer concrete reinforced by 44 beams of construction grade steel , which, were sealed in asbestos. (1) As you can see, it takes up the majority of the towers footprint. Here is a more accurate sketch of the floorplan... Compare it to the BBC version further above...Funny how millions of people will see this drawing with 4 steel beams and think it is accurate! Moving on, check out the approach angles of the planes in relation to the positioning of the cores... Notice how the North Tower takes a direct hit, perpendicular to the core, while the South Tower takes more of an angular hit, almost parallel to the core structure. Take at Look: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm (1) Source:
Bwahaha, you honky suckas...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, Another particularly important part of this is to note that Towers one, two, and seven have all of the 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition, a building collapsing from fire and plane impact damage having one of the characteristics of controlled demolition is astronomically rare, the chances of this damage having all 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition and not being a controlled demolition is next to nil. These characteristics are. 1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed; 2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint; 3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into very fine dust; 4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more; 5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air; 6. Videos of the collapses reveal "demolition waves", meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" 7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long; 8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings; 9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions); 10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in "hot spots" that remained for months.? Source: Professor David Ray Griffin
The structures failed uniformly and symetrically which is a signature of a controlled demolition not a an asymetrical catastrophic failure. The rate at which the buildings collapsed was at a near freefall rate. In the case of WTC 7 it was only 0.6 seconds greater that a pure freefall. The only way that can happen is if the opposition i.e., the structural support of the building, its steel and concrete reinforced core, is removed virtually all at once. If it pancaked the pancaking of the outer structure should have left a spire of the central core sticking up above the rubble and each floor would have offered enough resistance to slow the collapse if only for short time. Certainly the aggregate time would be more than 0.6 seconds, but without further experimentation and analysis, costing some millions of dollars I don't have, the exact amount of time is undetermined. Further the buildings essentially collapsed into their own footprint, again we would not expect this in an asymetric catastrophic failure, but would expect it in a controlled demolition. No. No matter how you slice and dice it the evidence points at controlled demolition over and over and over again. That is without looking at, or taking into account, any of the other anomalies such as the tower struck second (WTC 2) failed first - in only 56 minutes, or that one of the towers did begin to topple (again WTC 2) but for some strange reason the structure under it collapsed under it allowing it to drop straight down. How lucky can you get!? Could it be someone hit the switch to set off the demolitions charges so that it would not tip?
Building 7 Controlled Demolition 9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001 Landmark Tower Implosion March 18,2006, Fort Worth, Texas
hmmmmm ~ .24 seconds into implosion, bottom video (the Landmark Building controlled demolition) of post #1632...."look at that video...one side of the top visibly sags before the other..". Does this "evidence" mean that, contrary to claims otherwise, the Landmark Building demolition wasn't in fact controlled...or does the fact that, it, too, showed similar "sagging" as in the WTC 7, where "one side of the top visibly sagg[ed] before the other", indicate that "sagging" itself cannot be used as evidence to negate the likelihood or fact that there was a controlled demolition?
Every builder/tradesman to whom I've shown the WTC 7 collapse video immediately falls off the fence. It's funny how those who make their living building things can see the utter BS that is the Official Fairy Tale once they see the evidence that's been actively hidden from us hoi polloi.
Odd how 9/11 turned truth into an "ism".
How much DO they pay you? Seriously. What's the going rate for a National Globalist Party shill these days ?
We have eyewitness accounts that tell us specifically that building 7 was demolished. Anyone that is pushing anything else is the enemy within. What do we do with the enemy within ? We better get to it.
We better get to it. There's so many now, I don't know if there's enough rope any longer!
Top down and eliminate any tool that gets in the way. When the military is deployed they're going to have to take sides.
If you're talking about those in the military, some already have:
Should be interesting. If they decide to go with the globalists it's going to be bloody, short and THE END. imo We can 'hunt deer' all day long but when entire neighborhoods get burnt down..I'm just sayin'.
They're planning for that. Why else do you think there is this "new" GIVE Program...except to "take" the children/youth and indoctrinate them? Hitler's youth program also started out as voluntary, but eventually became mandatory. The brainwashing effects could be seen within as short a time period as three years...perhaps earlier, given the decayed state of American families, morals, values, and ethics.
hehehe..in their own words...thanks for posting these, postpunk.
What is also interesting is when the BBC stated WTC 7 had collapsed, while they were live on air, but it was visibly still standing in the background behind the reporter. Now, how could a reporter report the collapse of a particular building so "prophetically"?
Comments (1646 - 2261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIt doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.
#1606. To: TooConservative (#1605)
"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
#1607. To: TooConservative (#1605)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 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
#1608. To: wudidiz (#1601)
#1609. To: wudidiz (#1607)
Yeah maybe it does, but it was brought down by explosives anyway.
#1610. To: wudidiz (#1606)
The sky's blue. Someone can say it's green. They can show me pictures of a green sky.
#1611. To: TooConservative (#1603)
#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.
#1613. To: wudidiz (#1602)
#1614. To: war (#1611)
IN point of fact, some of their blatherings are directly contradicted by visual records; yet, cling to them they do.
#1615. To: TooConservative, Wudidiz, christine, Rotara, TwentyTwelve, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, all (#1605)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.
#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.
#1617. To: Original_Intent (#1615)
The rate of the collapse has always been a secondary datum
#1618. To: war (#1616)
#1619. To: war (#1617)
#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.
#1621. To: Old Friend (#1618)
#1622. To: Original_Intent (#1615)
The collapse began symmetrically in 360 degrees meaning it was uniform completely around the perimiter of the building.
#1623. To: Original_Intent (#1619)
#1624. To: war, Wudidiz, TwentyTwelve, all (#1622)
#1625. To: Original_Intent (#1624)
The structure observably collapsed symmetrically in 360 degrees with collapse being initiated uniformly in those 360 degrees.
#1626. To: war (#1625)
#1627. To: war (#1625)
#1628. To: war (#1625)
#1629. To: TwentyTwelve (#1628)
So, TT, what's gonna happen in 2012?
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#1630. To: war (#1625)
#1631. To: war (#1625)
#1632. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1631)
No matter how you slice and dice it the evidence points at controlled demolition over and over and over again.
#1633. To: war, Original_Intent (#1632)
(Edited)
The collapse began symmetrically in 360 degrees meaning it was uniform completely around the perimiter of the building.
#1634. To: war (#1625)
#1635. To: Original_Intent, TooConservative, Wudidiz, christine, Rotara, TwentyTwelve, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, war (#1615)
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.
#1636. To: TooConservative (#1588)
Trutherism or anti-Trutherism
#1637. To: Original_Intent (#1624)
At this point the most you do is quibble and throw up whatever hoping it will stick as you continue to try to defend the Official Fairy Tale.
"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 
#1638. To: litus (#1632)
"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
#1639. To: Rotara (#1638)
Anyone that is pushing anything else is the enemy within. What do we do with the enemy within ?
#1640. To: litus (#1639)
There's so many now, I don't know if there's enough rope any longer!
"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
#1641. To: Rotara (#1640)
When the military is deployed they're going to have to take sides.
#1642. To: litus (#1641)
"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
#1643. To: Rotara (#1642)
#1644. To: postpunk (#1634)
#1645. To: war, Original_Intent, TwentyTwelve (#1625)
.
.
.