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: 11832
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 (1-1833) not displayed.
.
.
.

#1834. To: TwentyTwelve (#1829)
Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed?

Debunked.

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:54:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1835. To: James Deffenbach (#1832)
Try this:
9/11 Truth: NOVA's WTC Pancake Collapse

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:54:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1836. To: war (#1830) (Edited)
The sagging floors? It is more like your sagging brain. Do you think the mass of a floor changes even if it did sag? DO YOU? If not then how the HELL could it pull anything inward? No more force on the columns than before you DUMB ASS GOVERNMENT STOOGE!
God is always good!
RickyJ posted on 2009-03-30 21:55:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1837. To: war (#1833)
Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:55:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1838. To: TwentyTwelve (#1835)
That one worked, thanks.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 21:58:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1839. To: war, TwentyTwelve (#1834)
Debunked.

Oh, and how long DID it take each tower to collapse then?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 22:01:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1840. To: war (#1830)
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse,

Right, the evidence indicates controlled demolition.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 22:03:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1841. To: war (#1827)
Standard office fires are started by a plane impacting and exploding inside of it?

Desks, paper, carpeting, various office equipment, those are all that could burn, and that is what burned. Are you trying to state that the cement was on fire or something?
BTW, all of the fuel was burnt up in the first few minutes. Most of it burnt outside the buildings in the huge fireballs as seen in live footage of the event. A plane itself can't explode, it's the fuel that catches on fire due to sparks, and it doesn't explode unless that spark occurs in a confined space such as a fuel tank.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 22:07:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1842. To: FormerLurker (#1841)
Aren't you getting tired of beating your head over that wall? You would come closer to getting through to a stump or fence post.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 22:09:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1843. To: war (#1825)
Yep...all those other engineers...shills.. Yep...that structural engineer...a shill Yep...those firemen shills all...

"Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible."
Indeed, I have read that a gag order was imposed on the firemen. I wouldn't doubt, as well, that .GOV has, in whatever way it wished, threatened anyone who was a witness and dare to tell the truth. They would lose their job, or be demoted, or lose their retirement, etc.

I am aware, personally, of particular individuals during my lifetime, some fairly high up in the government (or, when I was younger, their father was), who were under DIRECT ORDERS not to tell what they know or witnessed surrounding particular events. They don't want the public to know things.
Fool!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:11:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1844. To: FormerLurker, war (#1841)
A plane itself can't explode, it's the fuel that catches on fire

Pay particular attention here, war, try to wrap your mind around an idea like that.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Dakmar posted on 2009-03-30 22:14:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1845. To: litus (#1843)
They don't want the public to know things.

Neither does war, that is why he is here.
God is always good!
RickyJ posted on 2009-03-30 22:14:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1846. To: litus, war (#1843)
infowars.net/articles/march2007/280307blueprints.htm
WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower
Unseen documents show official investigations used flawed construction details
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction.
The documents were passed to physics Professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who has done extensive research into the collapse of the buildings and contends that explosives were used to bring them down.
Little is known about the identity of the whistleblower at this point, however the blueprints provided consist of 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast on top of the North Tower.
Most of the drawings can be viewed here.
The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.
The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell.
The buildings more or less fell into their own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished and there are only a few companies on the planet that can do it.
Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.
Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:
"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."
Below is an examination of the official reports in more detail.
The Official Explanation of the collapses of the Trade Towers and Building 7
The official explanation says that the towers collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building".
And building 7's collapse according to FEMA was also due to fire, however FEMA could not give specific details:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses. It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost immediately. The structural steel was quickly removed and loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India and China. Meanwhile, FEMA's investigation of the collapses consisted of assembling a group of volunteer investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). The group was headed by W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer from Chicago who led the investigation of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
FEMA's investigation of one of the worst and most pivotal events in history was farcical:
*No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.
*Except for an early "tourist trip", The BPAT volunteers were barred from Ground Zero.
*They did not see a single piece of steel until almost a month after the disaster.
*They had to guess the original locations of the few pieces of steel they saw.
*They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study (out of millions of pieces).
*Their report, which called for "further investigation and analysis", was published after Ground Zero had been scrubbed.
A key facet of the FEMA report on the towers' collapse was the pancaking floors theory, whereby each floor successively gave way due to buckled columns and the weight from above. This theory has since been roundly dismissed as it totally ignores the fact that the building's central core columns even existed and also ignores the toppling effect witnessed during the collapse of the South Tower and the explosive pulverizing of all materials into fine powder.
NIST's Investigation
It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began: NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million.
Where as the FEMA investigation in understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center could be chalked up as a farce, the NIST's investigation cannot. NIST's results strongly indicate a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:
*NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question their investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
*NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomalous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
*NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study.This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
*NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".
The report explains the collapse of both towers with the following sentence:
"The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued."
So NIST promulgates a theory of "progressive collapse" - ie once the top started coming down, the whole lot came down with it, even the undamaged sections of the building.
NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation".
The excellent research website www.911review.com, which everyone should visit, succinctly sums up the cover up perpetrated by the NIST report:
In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetrically of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.
Despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, and despite the fact that they published models of the plane impacts, NIST has refused to publish visual simulations from its computer models of the collapses.
In an even more startling admission in its own report, NIST reveals that it "adjusted the input" of variables in tests beyond the visual evidence of what actually happened in order to save its own hypothesis:
"The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted..." (NIST, 2005, p. 142)
NIST simply "discarded" realistic tests based on the empirical data because they did not cause the buildings to collapse.
If this is not indicative of a cover up then what is? The investigation is the wrong way round, NIST has already decided what happened and is manufacturing data to prove it!
INFOWARS.net
Copyright © 2001-2007 Alex Jones
All rights reserved.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 22:16:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1847. To: RickyJ (#1845)
Neither does war, that is why he is here.

We know that, and he knows that we know that, yet his handlers continue to pay him to post his propaganda.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:20:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1848. To: TwentyTwelve (#1846)
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction. . . .

bttt!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:21:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1849. To: litus (#1848)
infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm
Huge Amounts Of Smoke Came From WTC 5 & 6 NOT WTC 7
Photos aid debunking of WTC 7 "raging fires" claims
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Photographs taken on the afternoon of 9/11 have recently emerged on the web showing that huge amounts of smoke poured forth primarily from the buildings closest to the collapsed towers, not from the further away building 7 which mysteriously collapsed later the same afternoon.
Despite the fact that the official NIST report cannot officially explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, debunkers of the controlled demolition theory continue to cite "raging infernos" inside the building.
The following set of images highlights the fact that the majority of smoke emanating from the complex was coming from the smaller buildings 5 and 6, which WERE engulfed by fire after suffering major structural damage from falling debris.
We can clearly see the fire crews dousing building 5 and putting out the fires, thus causing a great deal of smoke to be emitted as the flames are deprived of oxygen.
We have previously shown photos of WTC Building 7, provided to us by an anonymous rescue worker who was at ground zero on 9/11, in comparison with buildings closer to the towers that sustained significantly more fire and debris damage yet did not collapse. Here are those photos once more.
CLICK ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IMAGES FOR HIGH DEFINITION ENLARGEMENTS.
Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11.
The burned out husk of Building 5 two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse.
Here is a separate image revealing the extent of the fires in WTC 5. Despite raging infernos and debris gouging huge holes in the building, and in comparative size significantly more severe fires than the twin towers or Building 7 - the building stood while the other three all collapsed.
In addition, Building 6, which was even closer to the north tower (seen here moments before its subsequent planned demolition months later), suffered even more extreme fire and debris damage, but the building did not fall down implosion style like the towers and Building 7.
A wider perspective shot of the rubble of Building 7. The Fiterman Hall building and the U.S. Post Office building across the street show little damage. Building 5 in the background is completely charred but still stands.
The rubble of WTC Building 7 lies in front of the Fiterman Hall building. The building has fallen in its own footprint - another sign of controlled demolition.
As can be seen in the photo below (from Knoxville News Sentinel Sept. 11 photo gallery, this particular photo reportedly from the New York City Office of Emergency Management), WTC 6, which was immediately adjacent to WTC 1, has a large hole in the middle from falling debris, yet did not collapse.
Above is a map showing the relative position of the buildings in the WTC complex. Though Building 7 was hit by flying aircraft parts, it was not significantly effected by the collapse of the towers due to it being shielded by buildings 5 and 6 - which despite being closer to the towers and suffering far more extreme fires - did not collapse.
Remember that firefighters were at no point engaged in tackling the fires inside building 7. The official FEMA report stresses this in chapter five, stating "...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."
Incidentally this is exactly the reason why Silverstein's explanation of his "pull it" remark doesn't hold water. He said late in the afternoon that the decision was made to "pull it", by which he then later explained that he meant evacuate the firefighting operation. The problem is, according to FEMA, there was no building 7 firefighting operation.
The photograph below (click for slightly bigger enlargement) was taken at around 3PM on 9/11, approximately 2 hours 20 minutes before the collapse of WTC 7 (or around 1 hour 54 minutes if you're the BBC). It shows small fires confined to just two floors of the building. Later images from news reports (such as the afore mentioned BBC one) show no signs that the fires had worsened significantly enough to collapse such a huge building.
Officially eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires before its collapse. The official NIST report concluded that it could not therefore comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.
Remember also that experts stated about building 7:
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" .
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. Do these fires look like they could do that?
In the most infamous debunking piece to date, Popular mechanics relied on a combination of all kinds of theories to explain away the collapse of building 7, realizing themselves that neither the fires nor the falling debris could explain the collapse of 7:
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.
However as we have previously reported, building 7 was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing. It was essentially a 'building within a building', as the New York Times put it. To suggest building 7 would have been weakened as an overall structure by damage to limited portions of it is TOTALLY untrue. Besides, who in their right mind would design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one column would cause the entire thing to collapse? This is total harebrain logic.
Building 7 has become the key to unlocking the fraud that is the official story behind 9/11.
INFOWARS.net
Copyright © 2001-2007 Alex Jones
All rights reserved.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 22:34:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1850. To: TwentyTwelve (#1846)
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:35:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1851. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1846)
FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.
The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:36:50 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1852. To: litus (#1850)
"Besides, who in their right mind would design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one column would cause the entire thing to collapse? This is total harebrain logic."

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 22:37:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1853. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1846)
Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell.
The buildings more or less fell into their own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished and there are only a few companies on the planet that can do it.
Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.
Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:38:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1854. To: TwentyTwelve (#1852)
who in their right mind would design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one column would cause the entire thing to collapse? This is total harebrain logic."

One would think!!!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:39:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1855. To: war, TwentyTwelve (#1825)
Yep...all those other engineers...shills... Yep...that structural engineer...a shill

Maybe just shills who went along to go along?
Maybe just the type to sign their name to a document they knew was nothing but partial truth, partial fraud.
Maybe paid just enough to say anything .gov wanted about what .gov let them see.
Maybe just a quid pro quo

And building 7's collapse according to FEMA was also due to fire, however FEMA could not give specific details:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses. It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost immediately. The structural steel was quickly removed and loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India and China. Meanwhile, FEMA's investigation of the collapses consisted of assembling a group of volunteer investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). The group was headed by W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer from Chicago who led the investigation of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
FEMA's investigation of one of the worst and most pivotal events in history was farcical:
*No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.
*Except for an early "tourist trip", The BPAT volunteers were barred from Ground Zero.
*They did not see a single piece of steel until almost a month after the disaster.
*They had to guess the original locations of the few pieces of steel they saw.
*They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study (out of millions of pieces).
*Their report, which called for "further investigation and analysis", was published after Ground Zero had been scrubbed.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:47:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1856. To: litus (#1855)
www.septembereleventh.org...e/2004-11-25-disgrace.php
A National Disgrace: A Review of the 9/11 Commission Report
by David Ray Griffin
Thursday, Nov 25, 2004 Link to Original
Many people have said that this Report "reads like a novel." It is indeed surprisingly good when judged in terms of criteria appropriate to works of fiction. But the 9/11 Commission was supposed to conduct a serious investigation into the question of who was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Instead, it simply presupposed the official conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks were planned and carried out solely by al-Qaeda. The Commission entirely ignored all evidence for the alternative conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks succeeded only because of complicity by members of the US government.
Having written a book that summarizes much of the evidence supportive of this alternative theory ("The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11"), I read "The 9/11 Commission Report" to see how it handled this evidence. I found that it simply omitted most of it and distorted the rest.
For example, the Report simply repeats the official story about the 19 Arab hijackers, failing to mention that at least six of the named men have shown up alive. It even suggests that Waleed al-Shehri, who visited the US embassy in Morocco after 9/11, stabbed a flight attendant on AA 11 before it hit the North Tower (page 5). This sloppy scholarship proves to be no aberration.
With regard to why jet fighters failed to intercept any of the flights, the Report provides a radically revisionist account of 9/11. Claiming--in contradiction to the timeline provided by NORAD on September 18, 2001--that the FAA never notified the military about Flights 175, 77, and 93 until after they crashed, the Report fails to explain why NORAD had earlier said otherwise. This new timeline also changes the starting times of all the teleconferences, in order to claim that they could not have been the means for the military to have learned about the hijackings from the FAA. Also, to bolster the claim that the shootdown order was not given until after Flight 93 had crashed, the Report also contradicts by 45 minutes all prior testimony--including Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's eyewitness testimony to the Commission itself--as to when Vice President Cheney descended to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.
With regard to the World Trade Center, the Report fails to mention that fire had never caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. It also, by way of suggesting why the Twin Towers could have collapsed so easily, says that the core of each building consisted of "a hollow steel shaft" (541n1), whereas in reality the core of each consisted of 47 massive steel columns. While mentioning that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds (305), the Report otherwise fails to mention the fact that the collapses manifested 10 standard features of controlled demolitions. The Report handles the collapse of Building 7, which even FEMA admitted it could not explain, by simply failing to mention it.
With regard to the Pentagon, the Report fails to mention that the West Wing would have been the least likely target for terrorists, that its facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike, and other facts in tension with the idea that the Pentagon was struck by Flight 77. And while claiming that al-Qaeda operatives did not strike a nuclear plant for fear that their plane would be shot down (245), the Report fails to point out that the Pentagon is even better protected, so that any aircraft without a military transponder would have been automatically shot down.
With regard to the FBI, the Report fails to mention many stories that are damaging to the official account of 9/11. These omitted stories include attorney David Schippers' report that several FBI agents told him of their advance knowledge of the New York attacks, the complaint by Coleen Rowley (Time magazine person of the year) that FBI headquarters sabotaged the Moussaoui investigation, and the damning allegations made by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds in her 3.5-hour testimony to the Commission.
What about the allegation by Craig Unger (popularized in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11") that the White House authorized a private flight carrying Saudis on September 13, before private flights were otherwise allowed? The Report "refutes" this allegation by simply saying that US airspace had been reopened at 11 AM that day (329, 556n25), thereby ignoring the crucial distinction between commercial flights, which were then allowed, and private flights, which were not.
The Report also provides radically ahistorical accounts of the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring all the evidence that these attacks were motivated by desires to establish military bases and to take over the oil (rather than by desires to protect human rights and promote democracy). In this and other ways, the Report omits all evidence that the Bush administration had plans of the sort that could have provided motives for allowing or even engineering the attacks of 9/11.
I have documented these and dozens of other problems in my book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. These problems are so great that the Report, instead of being nominated for a National Book Award, should be designated a National Disgrace.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 22:52:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1857. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1846)
Where as the FEMA investigation in understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center could be chalked up as a farce, the NIST's investigation cannot. NIST's results strongly indicate a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:
*NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question their investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
*NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomalous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
*NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study.This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
*NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:53:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1858. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1846)
succinctly sums up the cover up perpetrated by the NIST report:
In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetrically of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.
Despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, and despite the fact that they published models of the plane impacts, NIST has refused to publish visual simulations from its computer models of the collapses.
In an even more startling admission in its own report, NIST reveals that it "adjusted the input" of variables in tests beyond the visual evidence of what actually happened in order to save its own hypothesis:
"The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted..." (NIST, 2005, p. 142)
NIST simply "discarded" realistic tests based on the empirical data because they did not cause the buildings to collapse.

war, you call the above a "scientific" study based upon the scientific method? You think such kinds of "scientific" findings are credible?
It's just the opposite of the scientific method and completely incredible!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 23:02:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1859. To: TwentyTwelve (#1849)
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Photographs taken on the afternoon of 9/11 have recently emerged on the web showing that huge amounts of smoke poured forth primarily from the buildings closest to the collapsed towers, not from the further away building 7 which mysteriously collapsed later the same afternoon.
Despite the fact that the official NIST report cannot officially explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, debunkers of the controlled demolition theory continue to cite "raging infernos" inside the building.
The following set of images highlights the fact that the majority of smoke emanating from the complex was coming from the smaller buildings 5 and 6, which WERE engulfed by fire after suffering major structural damage from falling debris.

TT....everybody "knows" the pictures are FAKE!! /s endsarcasm!!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 23:11:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1860. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1849)
Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11.
The burned out husk of Building 5 two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse.

Images follow (not from above article)....these photos, separately described below....are all FAKE war?:

Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11.

Here is a separate image revealing the extent of the fires in WTC 5. Despite raging infernos and debris gouging huge holes in the building, and in comparative size significantly more severe fires than the twin towers or Building 7 - the building stood while the other three all collapsed.

The burned out husk of Building 5 two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 23:33:35 ET (4 images) Reply Trace Private Reply
#1861. To: James Deffenbach (#1842)
Aren't you getting tired of beating your head over that wall? You would come closer to getting through to a stump or fence post.

Yes, that's why I stepped away from the "discussion" last week, I just got fed up trying to get through to someone who has no intention of trying to use their brain or allowing any bit of what they hold dear to be proven wrong.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 23:39:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1862. To: FormerLurker, litus, Original_Intent, TwentyTwelve, James Deffenbach, all (#1861)

"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 2009-03-30 23:44:38 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply
#1863. To: litus, war (#1860)

Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 23:49:05 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply
#1864. To: wudidiz (#1862)
My, what a big eye you have, lol!!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 23:50:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1865. To: wudidiz (#1862)
Keeping an eye on us wud? LOL...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 23:50:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1866. To: wudidiz (#1862)
Thanks for the warning.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 0:03:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1867. To: war, Litus (#1404)
I suppose the US government wants us to believe that 300,000 pounds of aircraft parts collided with over 13 million tons of steel (a weight estimate of 7 world trade center floors) and 14,000 cubic feet of concrete (estimate) and that a paper passport navigated it's way through all of that including an explosion that was at least 100 yards in diameter (estimate) to land safely on top of the rubble below?
Get real.
And if that were even possible, you would think the chances of it happening were once in a lifetime, right? Well how about twice?
You may remember that after the planes hit the World Trade Center towers--an epic disaster that melted structural steel designed to withstand a Hellish temperature of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, incinerated both planes? cockpit recorders and black-box recorders, and vaporized the flesh and bones of nearly 3,000 human beings--the passport of suspected hijacker Mohammed Atta was found intact, in pristine condition, lying on the sidewalk below.
Well, guess what. It happened again. I am not kidding. Both CBS News and the Associated Press are reporting that the passport of another hijacker, one Satam al-Sugami, floated down to Earth along with Mohammed Atta's passport. And not just a charred piece of a passport but , like the other passort, it was IN PRISTINE CONDITION.
Here's the original link (before it was removed:
www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=42069
Taken from: www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=43653

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 0:07:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1868. To: war, Litus (#1404)
Amazing stuff! This is yet another "magic passport" found in the rubble in addition to "mastermind" Mohamed Atta's discovered passport at the WTC site.
Let's see if I can get this straight:
1. The fireballs of the WTC attacks melted structural steel that was designed to withstand heat of 2000 degrees F.
2. The fireballs of the WTC attacks completely destroyed both airplanes cockpit voice-recorders (situated at front)*and* the black-box data recorders (located in the rear of the aircraft). 3. The fireballs of the WTC attacks vaporized human bone and flesh.
4. And yet those same fireballs somehow weren't strong enough to do anything to a pair of surviving passportsfound in pristine condition. No surface scratches, scuffs, abrasions or burns. Perfect. My Question: Why doesn't Boeing design a new black-box data recorder manufactured from the same indestructible material used to produce magical Saudi passports?

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 0:09:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1869. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1867)
the passport of another hijacker, one Satam al-Sugami, floated down to Earth along with Mohammed Atta's passport. And not just a charred piece of a passport but , like the other passort, it was IN PRISTINE CONDITION.

Aw...just chock that up to "another 9/11 coincidence!"

litus posted on 2009-03-31 0:10:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1870. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1868)
Why doesn't Boeing design a new black-box data recorder manufactured from the same indestructible material used to produce magical Saudi passports?

haaaaaaaaaa! They could make a mint on it!

litus posted on 2009-03-31 0:11:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1871. To: litus (#1869)
Aw...just chock that up to "another 9/11 coincidence!"

Make that coincidence #575.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 0:12:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1872. To: TwentyTwelve (#1867)
Well, guess what. It happened again. I am not kidding. Both CBS News and the Associated Press are reporting that the passport of another hijacker, one Satam al-Sugami, floated down to Earth along with Mohammed Atta's passport. And not just a charred piece of a passport but , like the other passort, it was IN PRISTINE CONDITION.

That's phenomenal. I really would like to know what kind of fireproof paper those passports are made of.
Gosh ....the anomalies just keep piling up. Maybe there was some kind of space warp on that date where materials interchanged their structural qualities for a few hours. Yes.... that must be it!!!!!!!!!

mininggold posted on 2009-03-31 0:15:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1873. To: mininggold (#1872)
Gosh ....the anomalies just keep piling up. Maybe there was some kind of space warp on that date where materials interchanged their structural qualities for a few hours. Yes.... that must be it!!!!!!!!!

"Why doesn't Boeing design a new black-box data recorder manufactured from the same indestructible material used to produce magical Saudi passports?"

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 0:18:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1874. To: TwentyTwelve, mininggold (#1871)
Make that coincidence #575.

I would love it if someone would actually compile such a list of all the "coincidences" from that day.

litus posted on 2009-03-31 0:20:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.
Comments (1875 - 2261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um