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: 10836
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2182.
#4. To: Itistoolate (#0)
It could just be that Goldi has gone away for the weekend and doesn't know the site is down,or that there has been an equipment failure of some sort and they are working on getting it fixed.
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug. I doubt the last one,though. I think she would post a notice if she were going to do this.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 9:21:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: sneakypete (#4)
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug.

Crap????

Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????
I dont think so. Ass kissing goys make me and this forum sick.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 10:00:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Cynicom (#8)
Crap????
Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????

I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.
BTW,I was called a anti-Semite there the day before the site went down,and it wasn't the first time. I see no evidence of the Jews and Israeli-Firsters there having any more influence with her than anybody else. In fact,she even banned Margueritte a couple of years ago under another of her screen names.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 11:28:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#25. To: sneakypete (#22)
I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.

Perhaps there is a thought...
You also like magician, Marge and the others see nothing but Jew haters.
If you look at LP, that is nearly all you see, people that see anti semitism under their bed, in the closet and are afraid to deal with it.
No one on LP has ever raised the specter of anti goyism, have you ever wondered about that Pete????
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 11:51:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#28. To: Cynicom (#25)
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Missed this one.
I can't speak for anyone else,but you would hear protest there from me.
What you seem to be missing is most of the people there (and everywhere else) that cheer the suggestion we nuke the A-Rabs aren't Jewish. Most are Christians,if in name only. They are people who bought into the whole terrorism thing at face value,and they are scared.
BTW,I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city. Once that happens,all bets are off. Even I will be cheering to see the mushroom clouds over Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 12:03:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#33. To: sneakypete (#28)
I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city.

Maybe that's why I thought you to be the enemy. Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 14:31:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#76. To: Critter (#33)
Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

It pained me to believe it so without reservation, but the complicity by purposeful neglect indicts the globalist Bush Administration puppetmeisters is obvious IMO.
Oh...And, no, I don't believe Bush himself was capable of masterminding a lemonade stand.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:32:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#78. To: F16Fighter (#76)
complicity by purposeful neglect

Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 20:38:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#85. To: sneakypete (#78)
Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

Gray area there, Pete.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded - along with an open cash register - then claiming no responsibility for the thievery.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:47:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#127. To: F16Fighter, sneakypete (#85)
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded -

If you both are going to say the WTC 1, 2 and 7 came down because of fire then you're both either very ignorant or trolls. There is too much evidence to the contrary to believe otherwise.
Once you believe that the collapses were helped by explosives, then you have to believe that the Bush administration was complicit.
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.
So which is it? Ignorance? Or shilliness?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 23:53:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#137. To: Critter (#127)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

wonderfully succinct

christine posted on 2009-03-22 0:06:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#149. To: christine (#137)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

Before 911,
a Logistics employee I am good friends with, for Fed Ex told me about a system of vectored red lights that DC had in place to warn of any unauthorized aircraft from even getting near the capitol, and if the craft did not turn around, anti aircraft weapons were at the ready.
He flys a lot Alot.
I believe him.
However I have never broached the subject of the 911 attacks - for reasons of just getting along. I think he has got to go along with the ruse.

tom007 posted on 2009-03-22 0:15:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#163. To: tom007 (#149)
What is more likely? Our domestic air defense systems were hopelessly unprepared, or our government set it up, then perfectly executed the plan? Shit during the Clinton admin, a plane hit the white house, on accident.
Our government is incompetent, that much is clear.
It can't even torture people in Iraq in secret, do you think they can pull off a 9-11 without anyone knowing? Probably not.
Our foreign policy caused 9-11, and silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth. Playing chess with other nations has fucking consequences.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 0:27:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#196. To: Rhino369 (#163)
silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth

Not only that,but those same conspiracy theories are LOVED by the government because it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct as being linked to "those insane conspiracy freaks".
Instead of helping the cause of freedom,all they are doing in hurting it and helping the government.
AND....it does no good at all to argue with them because they are obsessed with every little detail,and have reams of false "Facts" to back up their arguments. What makes it so hard to argue against any conspiracy theory is that the best ones are all believable because there is a basis in fact to all of them.
For example *I* am the one that started the conspiracy theory Hillary Clinton being behind the crash of JFK Jr's airplane and his death. I started this rumor on FR and used the fact that he had been talking about running for the same Senate seat ("his" family Senate seat) that she was running for,and this is the reason she had a had the airplane rigged to crash. Within a hour this was accepted as the gospel,and I was being called a DNC shill for saying it was made up,and a liar for saying I was the one who made it up. DESPITE the fact that the proof I was the one who made it up was right there on that very thread!
Everybody jumped on the one little fact about the Senate seat,and that was all they needed or wanted to hear.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:08:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#198. To: sneakypete (#196)
it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct

LOL
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Rotara posted on 2009-03-22 1:10:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#229. To: Rotara (#198)
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Sometimes the right answer is the simple one,not the one that makes you feel good or vindicated.
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:42:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#237. To: sneakypete (#229)
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 1:49:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#265. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

BullBarack! Saudi Arabia had EVERYTHING to gain from it. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to either Israel OR the US,but he was very much a threat to the House of Saud.
Just like every other tribal leader/king in Arabia,the King there dreamed of being the King of a United Arabia. Saddam Hussein had this same dream,and he had the means and the willpower to do it. We invaded Iraq to protect the House of Saud.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 2:07:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#281. To: sneakypete (#265)
Sneak...I spent a whole 'nother thread being logical with them and it didn't work...
You're arguing with people who do not believe that a planes impact, exposion and ensuing fires caused more than even MINIMAL damage. IN some cases, some believe the planes were remote controlled. Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.
You're also arguing with people who believe that a well financed international terrorist group doesn't exist.
Good luck, mon frer..

war posted on 2009-03-22 8:28:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#520. To: war, sneakypete (#281) (Edited)
Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.

If you believe that a 110 story building (make that TWO 110 story buildings) can collapse in slightly more than free fall speed, then you must also believe that the tooth fairy is really the Easter bunny in drag.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 17:44:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#550. To: FormerLurker (#520)
Helloo...McFly...anyone home McFly??
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

war posted on 2009-03-22 19:10:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#591. To: war (#550)
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

Excuse me? The idiotic report you linked gave a minimum collapse speed LESS than the time it would take for a free fall through air, and the chart simply reflected the actual times of the collapse vs an object dropping through thin air.
Did you miss the one that I posted to YOU, indicating it should have taken about 97 seconds?
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 21:17:54 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#836. To: FormerLurker (#591)
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

You really are a tool...er fool...er what the hell...both...
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...

war posted on 2009-03-23 8:38:28 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#992. To: war (#836)
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...

You have been a nasty mouthed little troll here war, I thought higher of you back on LP. Do you always resort to that sort of tactic when you are shown to be wrong?
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.
There was a HUGE loss of mass due to that, therefore there would be SUBSTANTIALLY less load on the lower portion of the structure. In fact, there was probably less loading force due to the kinetic energy of the upper part of the tower collapsing than the usual static loading force due to the potential energy of the upper part of the structure.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-23 16:20:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1136. To: FormerLurker (#992)
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.

Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.
Thanks...

war posted on 2009-03-24 8:22:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1145. To: war (#1136)
Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.

Here's one for you to ponder;
The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Now explain to everyone how a dust cloud can cause an intact floor to collapse, as the upper structure was pulverized into dust as it collapsed, leaving very little mass to actualy impact the lower floors.
BTW, do you have calculations as to how much energy would be required to cause an entire floor to fail instantaneously by impact? There would be VERY little energy left over after the pulverization of an upper floor as it impacts a lower floor, and the lower floor must be caused to fail by the remaining energy if the "pancake" theory can be taken seriously.
So go ahead, give us the equations and the details.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 9:38:51 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1148. To: FormerLurker (#1145)
Now explain to everyone how a dust cloud can cause an intact floor to collapse, as the upper structure was pulverized into dust as it collapsed, leaving very little mass to actualy impact the lower floors.

Geezus fucking Crickets...
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
BTW, do you have calculations as to how much energy would be required to cause an entire floor to fail instantaneously by impact?
dude...did you even GLANCE atthat report?

war posted on 2009-03-24 9:47:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1150. To: war (#1148)
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...

The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
Are you retarded? You contradict yourself within the same sentence. That "concrete, glass, and drywall..." along with furniture and office equipment had WEIGHT, in fact, MOST of the weight of any particular floor. The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing even WITH a "pancake" collapse. In fact, the core could not collapse per se, it would have needed to have been shredded and torn apart for it to totally fail.
Anyways, what kinetic energy there was due to the momentum of the upper structure was largely expended in pulverizing the upper structure to dust, where there could have been very little kinetic energy left to break all the trusses and supports of the floor below

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 10:12:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1220. To: FormerLurker (#1150)
The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing

What steel columns?

war posted on 2009-03-24 15:41:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1222. To: war (#1220)
What steel columns?

Those which were part of the steel core.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:15:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1225. To: FormerLurker (#1222)
Those which were part of the steel core.

What makes you believ that they should have been left standing? You do know that they were sectional? You do know that they were tapered?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:19:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1229. To: war (#1225)
What makes you believ that they should have been left standing?

For one, it is highly unlikely the supporting bolts and rods holding the trusses onto the core would have been strong enough to rip the core apart. If the floors pancaked then the floors should have slid over the core. However, there wasn't much left to slide since the upper floors pulverized as they collapsed, so there was not enough energy to cause a collapse of the lower floors in the first place.
Thus, not only should the core have remained standing, but the 100 or so UNDAMAGED floors of both towers should have survived the collapse of the upper structure of both buildings, except for perhaps the top section of the remaining undamaged structures.
And sure, the top was tapered, BUT strong enough to hold most of the weight of the WTC structure at that level. In fact, it was highly improbable for a total collapse even at the damaged section to occur at all.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:28:52 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1231. To: FormerLurker (#1229)
For one, it is highly unlikely the supporting bolts and rods holding the trusses onto the core would have been strong enough to rip the core apart.

You are basing this upon what? The inane belief that the only force being exerted was DOWNWARD? What was one of the functions of the outer support structure? LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:36:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1233. To: war (#1231)
LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?

Nothing unless there are high winds or a hurricane taking place. The towers didn't start swaying back and forth. Is that what you trying to say, the collapse was caused by SWAYING?
Besides, only a relatively tiny part of the exterior columns were damaged.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:38:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1236. To: FormerLurker (#1233)
Nothing

You're out of your mind...what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:42:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1251. To: war (#1236) (Edited)
what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?

Oh and BTW, the WTC towers were not just a bunch of stacked cans, they were rigid structures. There would have virtually no loss of lateral strength anyways due to the minimal damage to the exterior columns, yet it wouldn't have mattered if there WAS a total loss of lateral strength (which would be impossible due to the construction of the buildings themselves).
There were no hurricane force winds that day, and even if there had been, there was no overall loss of lateral strength as the purpose of the exterior walls was to DISTRIBUTE the lateral load across the entire building, and a missing section of column would not affect that.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 17:15:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1252. To: FormerLurker (#1251)
Oh and BTW, the WTC towers were not just a bunch of stacked cans, they were rigid structures.

Not when the links between the two support structures failed...

war posted on 2009-03-24 17:21:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1255. To: war (#1252) (Edited)
Not when the links between the two support structures failed...

Huh? There was a relative pinhole in the exterior wall, and the inner steel core was ALSO still there.
There are also apparently some huge inaccuracies concerning the makeup of the floors themselves, where rather than flimsy trusses it appears that there were steel girders bridging the gap between the core and the outer walls.
I need to read up on that before I post the actual article, but your post makes zero sense, there was no horizontal failure or movement, otherwise the top of the tower WOULD have toppled. As I posted on another thread, the top of one tower did in fact start to lean, but that was due to a loss of integrity in one corner of the supporting structure below it, it didn't begin to sway or lean as you are apparently trying to concoct. If it HAD begun to sway or lean due to horizontal forces, and there was a loss of horizontal integrity as you are trying to claim, it would have fallen over, not straight down.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 17:39:43 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1285. To: FormerLurker (#1255)
, and there was a loss of horizontal integrity as you are trying to claim, it would have fallen over, not straight down.

You're assuming that the WHOLE structure would have to move...it wouldn't....all it would take would be continuing stress on the building to keep its center of gravity moving enough to compromise its support structure.

war posted on 2009-03-25 8:32:14 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1294. To: war (#1285)
You're assuming that the WHOLE structure would have to move...it wouldn't....all it would take would be continuing stress on the building to keep its center of gravity moving enough to compromise its support structure.

You are grasping at straws. You are trying to make it sound as if it was an inherently unstable structure and was performing a balancing act. It was not a disjointed unbalanced structure, it was a ridid structure supported by a steel core, so there was no shifting of center of gravity taking place.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-25 11:46:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1298. To: FormerLurker (#1294)
You are grasping at straws.

Wha...huh?
Dude...firmly anchor a 10 foot pole in the ground 2 feet and shake the bottom and then shake the top...this is BASIC stuff you're arguing against...
A whip's TAIL breaks the sound barrier but where you are holding it, it does not...

war posted on 2009-03-25 12:20:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1306. To: war (#1298)
Dude...firmly anchor a 10 foot pole in the ground 2 feet and shake the bottom and then shake the top...this is BASIC stuff you're arguing against...
A whip's TAIL breaks the sound barrier but where you are holding it, it does not...

Huh? Are you trying to say that someone at the bottom of the WTC picked it up and tried snapping it like a whip? I always knew you were a whackjob, but I wasn't aware that you were a stark raving lunatic.
In reference to your analogy of a pole, are you trying to say that the towers were swaying all over the place? You are a jackass.
The towers were solidly in place and NOT experiencing ANY abnormal sway, if they swayed at all from the VERY slight wind that morning.
You are acting like a cartoon character that even little children would see as an idiot.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-25 17:13:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1362. To: FormerLurker (#1306)
In reference to your analogy of a pole, are you trying to say that the towers were swaying all over the place?

Had you ever been in the towers? You could feel the sway in the upper floors. This one is the easiest of your rantings to bitch slap. The towers swayed...it 's why lateral support was so important. And, uh, the design engineers after they had tested their prototypes that determined how much sway both the building and the occupants could take, they then developed a MASSIVE system of viscoelastic dampers that mitigated the sway. Guess where they put these dampers....BETWEEN THE TRUSSES AND THE PERIMETER COLUMNS.
Your problem is that you've assumed a conclusion, i.e. "BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!" and are trying to construct a fairy tale based upon Moonbatism Your further problem is, there are several REALITIES that stand in the way of your paranoiac fanrasy. So to cut to the chase here and answer your question...yes, Alice IN Wonderland, the towers did sway and the lost of perimeter support exacerbated that sway.

war posted on 2009-03-26 7:44:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1386. To: war (#1362)
Your problem is that you've assumed a conclusion, i.e. "BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!" and are trying to construct a fairy tale based upon Moonbatism

You stupid assed dork, NOWHERE have I EVER said ""BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!", only drooling retards such as yourself have ever thought ANYONE has ever honestly said that.
What is clear is that there are MANY lies and distortions being given as the "official truth" that are simply improbable or impossible, and not only is that reason to investigate what really DID happen, but to wonder why those in the US government and the media would try to coverup what DID happen.
Might Bush have known about the plan? More than likely he was kept in the dark in terms of operational details but knew SOMETHING was going to happen, and didn't blink an eyelash when it did. More than likely Cheney was fully aware and in fact part of the operation, along with a few other high ranking members of the administration.
That is simply an observation of what they did AFTER the attacks to stifle any sort of real investigation of what happened.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-26 11:55:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1466. To: FormerLurker, war, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, all (#1386)
What is clear is that there are MANY lies and distortions being given as the "official truth" that are simply improbable or impossible, and not only is that reason to investigate what really DID happen, but to wonder why those in the US government and the media would try to coverup what DID happen.

Exactly. We do not have to have a complete solution to know that the Official Fairy Tale is contradicted by multiple documented datums and is thus not the correct solution. Without even getting heated about it we can point out the contradictions in the players who were trained at U.S. Fedgov installations, the known incompetence of the pilots, the stand down of NORAD and their inability to intercept (or so they say) ANY of the 4 aircraft, the failure of even one of the 4 aircraft to transmit the 4 digit hijack code (which takes about 2 to 3 seconds),the transfer of monies from the CIA connected Pakistani ISI to Mohammed Atta, the presence of Thermate residue on girders from the towers, the fact that the structural steel was protected from examination by ARMED GUARDS, and the list goes on to several hundred to several thousand anomalies all of which contradict the Official Fairy Tale.
This is even before we get to the government obstructionism and prevention of an honest review and analysis of the data:
A Fema Report which has had to be revised and re-explained because it has been shredded and is little better than a laughingstock.
NIST, which has several top experts on nano-thermates, which has refused to consider and has steadfastly avoided examining the residue. They had to invent an entirely new physics to try to explain away Building 7's collapse - which is laughed at everywhere but the controlled U.S. Media.
The firing of an environmental scientist at Underwriter Laboratories for pointing out that the structural steel in the towers had been certified for higher temperatures, by UL, than were known to have occurred in the towers.
Professor Stephen Jones' work on the physics of the collapses and chemical analysis of thermate residues. (Which resulted in massive heat on BYU, where he was a well respected Professor of Physics, and he was forced out with a Golden Handshake). His work was repudiated by Administrators but not the faculty who turned out in his support. (BYU has a lot of programs dependent on FEDGOV funding.)
The Popular Mechanics Hit Piece which has been shredded, shown to be false, and which used doctored photographs, misrepresented as Bldg. 7 but were actually of Bldg. 6 but had been reoriented, to try to push the cover legend.
I could go on for several pages on the anomalies surrounding 911. Take for example the famous Dancing Troupe from Israel - "The Dancing Israelis" who were set up and photographing the towers BEFORE their collapse. In fact the reports seem to indicate they were setting up BEFORE the first plane hit.
Then their was the e-mail warning to employees of Odigo, an Israeli owned company, warning them to stay away from the towers that morning.
The more layers of the cover story you peel back the more that onion disappears as the chimera it is.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 13:30:59 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1468. To: Original_Intent (#1466)
They had to invent an entirely new physics to try to explain away Building 7's collapse - which is laughed at everywhere but the controlled U.S. Media.

The suspension of belief is required to accept any of it, but especially building 7.
*ESPECIALLY* 7.
The fairy tale believers won't even touch it no matter how many times the evidence is put before them.

Rotara posted on 2009-03-26 13:34:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1474. To: Rotara, war, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, FormerLurker, all (#1468)
No matter how they try Building 7 is the one element for which no Official Fairy Tale has ever come close to explaining and they won't touch the obvious conclusion observable in the physical data i.e., it was "pulled". Explosive demolition is the only hypothesis that accounts for ALL of the data known about the collapse of Building 7.
One need only look at it objectively:
The building's collapse was symmetrical i.e., it collapsed at all points in 360 degrees simultaneously.
Viewing the films you can slow it down and watch it in slow motion and note that the first cracks appear simultaneously along two lines along the reinforced central core and then the building proceeds to collapse in on itself and neatly into its own footprint.
The building's collapse from initiation to completion took 6.6 seconds. A pure freefall from the buildings top, say if you dropped a Bowling Ball, is 6 seconds. So, the obvious conclusion is that the structure offered little or no resistance to the collapse of the structure. The only way that occurs is if the underlying structure is removed and the only way you do that is with explosives.
So you have the following signature items:
Symmetrical Collapse in 360 degrees.
It fell at an effectively freefall rate.
The rubble accumulated in the footprint of the structure.
These are all signatures of an explosive demolition not of a catastrophic collapse. If one studies the history of catastrophic collapse one finds that there is always a first failure point and that the failure is not uniform throughout the structure. Having a first failure point the structure fails, collapses, in the direction of the weak point not uniformly in 360 degrees nor symmetrically.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 13:50:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1487. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker (#1474)
The building's collapse from initiation to completion took 6.6 seconds.

You need to phone home for new instructions, ET.
(BNN - May 19, 2007 - New York, NY) - In the first candid admission on record by a 9/11 Truth Movement leader of being wrong, Steven Jones (above, left) admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."
For years, Jones and others have claimed that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, nearly free fall speed....
Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse.
"We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.

war posted on 2009-03-26 14:38:26 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1511. To: war, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, Rotara, Wudidiz, tom007, litus, bluegrass, all (#1487)
The building's collapse from initiation to completion took 6.6 seconds.
You need to phone home for new instructions, ET.
(BNN - May 19, 2007 - New York, NY) - In the first candid admission on record by a 9/11 Truth Movement leader of being wrong, Steven Jones (above, left) admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."
For years, Jones and others have claimed that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, nearly free fall speed....
Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse.
"We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.

Delightfully dishonest ploy there - which took all of about 2 seconds to spot. Conflating the collapse time of the twin towers with time to collapse of WTC 7 is a comparison of unlike items. Whatever time it took for the towers collapse is irrelevant to the time to collapse for WTC 7.
Anyone can take a stopwatch and measure it for themselves. The video is readily available (where it hasn't been scrubbed). It takes approximately 6.6 seconds (that is O.6 seconds greater than a pure freefall) for WTC 7 to collapse. From the time the cracks appear in the facade as shown in the street level video to the time the structure collapses, implodes, neatly, symmetrically, in 360 degrees, into its own footprint is about 6.6 seconds. Even if you add another second or two for the penthouse the rate of collapse is impossibly fast for a normal structural failure. You are clutching at straws to avoid the conclusion demonstrated to anyone with eyes, brains, and a stopwatch - WTC 7 was collapsed via explosive demolition. Even adding a second or two does not take away from the visible and obvious evidence i.e., that the structure collapsed uniformly, symmetrically, in 360 degrees into its own footprint.
This is without taking into consideration the fact that the core of the building, as in the towers, was a massive interlaced network of heavy steel girders which had been further hardened and reinforced by Rudy Ghouliani to be the NYC command center in the event of a major natural castrophe.
Adding further circumstantial data:
Rudy Ghouliani admitted in a press conference that they had evacuated at least 6 hours ahead of the collapse.
CNN reported the collapse was imminent an hour before it happened.
The BBC reported it had collapsed a half an hour before it did - the Reporterette giving the report was filmed with it still standing in the background. The BBC scrubbed the video and then tried to deny its existence but too many people had already downloaded copies and so they were forced to backtrack.
You could probably sell your Schlock on Freeptard Republic but it is no sale here.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 21:33:08 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1515. To: Original_Intent (#1511)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United by Margie Burns

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

litus posted on 2009-03-26 23:15:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1518. To: litus (#1515)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United by Margie Burns
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

The "Coincidence Theorists" will of course pooh-pooh it. I was aware of the connection though. It is interesting though to look at all the coincidences:
Marvin Bush on the Board of Securacom.
Orrin Hatch telling the press on the Capital Steps, on the evening of 911, that it just had to be the work of the dastardly ~~Fu Manchu~~ Osama Ben Goldstein.
FEMA disaster people flying into town the day before.
An exercise involving multiple simultaneous hijackings is scheduled and run the morning of 911 - while the "hijackers" are in the air.
The chief NIST Investigator is an expert on Nano-Thermites but NIST will not examine the residue for Nano-Thermites.
Hundreds of millions in Stock and Options trading the week before 911 on the airlines involved.
Lots of coincidences.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 23:46:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1519. To: Original_Intent (#1518)
Lots of coincidences.

too many to be believed as coincidental.

the probability of this many coincidences is mathematically impossible prior to such a catastrophic event!

litus posted on 2009-03-26 23:49:07 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1522. To: litus (#1519)
the probability of this many coincidences is mathematically impossible prior to such a catastrophic event!

Not to the believing mind of the "Coincidence Theorist". Everything bad in the whole wide world occurs "coincidentally".

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 23:52:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1534. To: Original_Intent, war (#1522)
Helpful hint to war:
You'd come off as a better disinfo artist if you questioned one or two aspects of the 9/11 Official Story rather than acting as though everything on the matter that came out of DC was gospel.
O_I thinks you're a pro. That little ol' me has to point this out to you shows you to be an amateur.

bluegrass posted on 2009-03-27 13:36:02 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1541. To: bluegrass (#1534)
O_I thinks

I've seen no evidence of that...

war posted on 2009-03-27 13:42:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1544. To: Original_Intent, war (#1541)
At least flag the person you're deriding, you rude-ass backstabber.

bluegrass posted on 2009-03-27 13:44:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1548. To: bluegrass (#1544)
Go soak yer head. This thread is a one long example of what you're barking at me about. Go bark at them too...

war posted on 2009-03-27 13:47:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1552. To: war (#1548) (Edited)
This thread is a one long example...

This thread is one long example of your dedication to the art of disinformation. The rest of us are here because we don't believe the Feds. You're here because you do believe them.

bluegrass posted on 2009-03-27 13:54:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1558. To: bluegrass (#1552)
Cite one link that is to the government report...in pooint of fact, this thread is testimony to me dealing with each and every one of the points that you Moonbats have raised while each and every one of you ignoring not only my points of rebuttal but my questions surrounding your blatherings.
So, you can also feel free to answer the questions that I have raised. You can begin with the fact that UL did not certify the steel and where Professor Jones got his samples as well as his admission that WTC 7 took twice as long to fall as he had been promoting.
Thanks.

war posted on 2009-03-27 14:01:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1560. To: war (#1558)
[21] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel: www.911research.wtc7.net/...nce/metallurgy/index.html
“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.” 1
“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”
“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”
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 2009-03-27 14:08:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1564. To: TwentyTwelve (#1560)
A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

They don't have to worry about that anymore. They only made one batch of the Magickal Jet Fuel™.

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-27 14:13:22 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1565. To: James Deffenbach (#1564)
ehehe

Rotara posted on 2009-03-27 14:14:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1567. To: Rotara (#1565)
Well, think about it. How many skyscrapers caught on fire and never fell into their own footprint before 9/11? How many after? And of course the answer is that it never happened before or since. Ergo, Magickal Jet Fuel™.

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-27 14:23:38 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1568. To: James Deffenbach, Rotara (#1567)
Well, think about it. How many skyscrapers caught on fire and never fell into their own footprint before 9/11? How many after? And of course the answer is that it never happened before or since. Ergo, Magickal Jet Fuel™.

www.prisonplanet.com/arti...st2007/190807Building.htm
Ground Zero Building Catches Fire, Doesn't Collapse
Prison Planet
Sunday Aug 19, 2007
The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing.
This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours. This building had even suffered structural damage on 9/11 and had been partially dismantled.
The raging fire, which killed two firefighters, was finally declared under control late saturday afternoon, a full seven hours after it had begun to burn.
On 9/11 the south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses.
The saving grace that could have prevented Deutsche Bank from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11.
However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon.
Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, experts simply decided to reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics to make it easier for everyone to understand.
Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous collapse.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-27 14:28:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1572. To: TwentyTwelve (#1568)
Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently

How many more times, to the nearest 10,000th, does it need to be pointed out to you that those buildings were of an entirely different framing construct than WTC? And don't ***think*** I didn't notice your use of the word "facade", weasle.

war posted on 2009-03-27 14:32:10 ET Reply Untrace 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 Untrace 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 Untrace 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 Untrace 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.

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 10:03:27 ET Reply Untrace 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 Untrace 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.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-28 11:22:39 ET Reply Untrace 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 Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1624. To: war, Wudidiz, TwentyTwelve, all (#1622)
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!

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-28 11:55:32 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1625. To: Original_Intent (#1624)
The structure observably collapsed symmetrically in 360 degrees with collapse being initiated uniformly in those 360 degrees.

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?

war posted on 2009-03-28 12:34:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1634. To: war (#1625)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-28 13:32:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1709. To: postpunk (#1634)
That guy is a moron...the left side of that building had CLEARLY begun to sag on the top left side in frame 30.
Also. in the NIST guy in Part II states that it was the time that 7 disappeared behind the two buildings...that is NOT when it was done falling.
More smoke and mirrors...

war posted on 2009-03-28 20:01:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1949. To: war (#1709)
That guy is a moron...the left side of that building had CLEARLY begun to sag on the top left side in frame 30.

and that's relevant how in regard to wtc7 collapsing at free fall speed?
who's the moron now, mooooarooon?

Also. in the NIST guy in Part II states that it was the time that 7 disappeared behind the two buildings...that is NOT when it was done falling.

see reply above

More smoke and mirrors...

as you wish, mr. 95%er...

Forensic Metallurgy Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.
---------
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel
Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.
...
"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

do you agree with hopeful-of NIST-funding-biederman that the presence of sulphur in that steel from wtc7 which FEMA volunteer investigators could have inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel" resulting in "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese" may have been introduced by exposure to scary, scary acid rain (hahaha)????
(around here, when it rains, water comes right through the roof and runs right down the walls, but i figured nycitiers were more sophisticated and had overcome the raining-inside-a-building problem with ingenious engineering)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 13:42:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1953. To: postpunk (#1949)
and that's relevant how in regard to wtc7 collapsing at free fall speed?

13odd seconds is not freefall speed. So, that's a non starter right there.

war posted on 2009-03-31 13:54:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1966. To: war (#1953)
13odd seconds is not freefall speed. So, that's a non starter right there.

true, "13odd seconds" is a duration, not a "freefall speed" which makes no sense because any instantaneous earth-bound velocity could be on some differential curve for free fall; more accurately free fall is an acceleration which the high school math teacher's presentation of wtc7's collapse made abundantly clear was achieved.
did it fly over your head like the glorious albatross taking flight, freeing you of your crushing ignorance?
how's that for a starter? if only in aid to relieve you of a feigned or real condition...

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 14:54:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1968. To: postpunk (#1966)
which makes no sense because any instantaneous earth-bound velocity could be on some differential curve for free fall

WHA...CHUCKLE....HUH?
"Free fall speed" is 32 feet per second per second or 10 meters per second squared FOR ANY OBJECT. There is no "differential curve" for free fall...

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:05:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1970. To: war (#1968)
jokes are fun!
32 feet per second per second is acceleration due to gravity, i.e. speed increases (not fixed in respect to barreling toward mama earth)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:11:53 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1971. To: postpunk (#1970)
32 feet per second per second is acceleration due to gravity, i.e. speed increases (not fixed in respect to barreling toward mama earth)

I just typed that.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:16:14 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1974. To: war (#1971)
speed is distance per second; acceleration is distance per second per second and is the second derivative of a motion curve, remaining constant when an object is subject to gravity only (no additional forces)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:19:57 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1979. To: postpunk (#1974)
speed is distance per second; acceleration is distance per second per second and is the second derivative of a motion curve, remaining constant when an object is subject to gravity only (no additional forces)

Free fall speed has a direct correlation to the accelerative force of gravity...
You cannot claim that an object fell at free fall speed while also claiming that it did not accelerate as such.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:24:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1995. To: war (#1979)
speed has a direct correlation to the accelerative force of gravity

way past correlation, we're talking cause and flipping effect, pal!

You cannot claim that an object fell at free fall speed while also claiming that it did not accelerate as such.

yes, i erred, hopefully not a capital offense.
whatsoever i cannot claim, that sentence above does not help to disconfuse matters.
acceleration = faster (increasing speed)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:40:27 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1997. To: postpunk (#1995)
we're talking cause and flipping effect

Neither your cause nor your effect are steeped in anything remotelyuresembling reality.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:44:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2011. To: war (#1997)
Neither your cause nor your effect are steeped in anything remotelyuresembling reality.

what?
cause-->gravity
effect-->unsupported objects gather velocity in a calculable manner due to said gravity
your reality differs?

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 16:10:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2014. To: postpunk (#2011)
what?

Did I stutter?
cause-->gravity blah blah blah
You don;t tap dance very well. You claimed thatg something "caused" those buildings to effectively collapse at free fall speed.
They did not collapse at free fall speed.

war posted on 2009-03-31 16:15:24 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2023. To: war (#2014)
Did I stutter?

yes

You don;t tap dance very well. You claimed thatg something "caused" those buildings to effectively collapse at free fall speed.

They did not collapse at free fall speed.

not dancing with your clumsy self, i'm trying to help you perceive simple, basic physical concepts.
never mind about collapsing structures for a moment.
if you drop a penny from you hand it will accelerate towards the earth because the earth is massive and nothing hinders the penny in the interval.
acceleration (the rate of change of velocity) due to gravity means precisely that speed will increase.
this is calculable.
there is no such thing as a set "free fall speed" (sic) (unless we're discussing orbiting bodies, as the more exact term velocity will change since it is expressed as a vector, and thus change in direction will be included in the term (not just scalar speed) (unless a vector for orbital free fall were presented in polar coordinates perhaps or as a path integral maybe, but lets keep it simple, sweety: gravity causes acceleration which by definition is increasing speed)).
back to buildings: the nice high school math teacher has shown (to any reasonable, informed person) that wtc7's collapse didn't merely approach free fall, but, in fact, balls-to-the-wall was equivalent to free fall for a significant portion of the collapse.
are you following?

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 17:04:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2142. To: postpunk (#2023)
are you following?

I'm following you blather on...yes.
You claimed that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed. "Free fall" is EXACTLY what it sounds like...NOTHING between the interval of beginning of a fall and the end of it...given the accelerative effect of gravity on a body at rest dropped, calculating the speed of a free fall is a simple exercise of conversion.
In other words, you're trying now to deflect because you assumed that you were dealing with someone who doesn't know what they are "talking" about. That was a faulty, borderline moronic, assumption on your part.

war posted on 2009-04-01 8:45:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2165. To: war (#2142)
You claimed that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed. "Free fall" is EXACTLY what it sounds like...NOTHING between the interval of beginning of a fall and the end of it...given the accelerative effect of gravity on a body at rest dropped, calculating the speed of a free fall is a simple exercise of conversion.

gobbeldygooky, yet indicative of an inkling of comprehension while mishmashingly dishonest. the calculations have been done; the free fall collapse of wtc7 is compelling evidence of demolition, however you spin.
why depart from the official version? NIST admits free fall for wtc7, why can't you?

In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at freefall, but the coverup was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged freefall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance.

at least the studied obfuscations and the practised delusions are consistent...

In other words, you're trying now to deflect because you assumed that you were dealing with someone who doesn't know what they are "talking" about. That was a faulty, borderline moronic, assumption on your part.

to deflect? this coming from one who blithely edits his idiocy as if dishonesty were a commodity (is it?--serious question). stupid child, why do you lie?
actually my mistake was assuming to deal with someone who does possess a modicum of perceptiveness, allowing him to recognize and affirm simple, basic, and consequential facts, but instead has shown himself to be stubbornly evasive.
good day

postpunk posted on 2009-04-01 13:07:35 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2169. To: postpunk (#2165)
gobbeldygooky, yet indicative of an inkling of comprehension while mishmashingly dishonest. the calculations have been done; the free fall collapse of wtc7 is compelling evidence of demolition, however you spin.

Of course, missing from that statement is exactlY WHY it is "gobbeldygooky". That seems to be the MO wityh you Mooonies...i.e. "Fuck all your expert analysis, photos, videos, and eyewitnes saccounts...we believe a radio talk show host!!!"
NIST admits free fall for wtc7
Starkly missing from the NIST report is that admission. OIN point of fact...here is the NIST timeline:

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9% 20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

war posted on 2009-04-01 15:23:32 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2177. To: war (#2169)
BTW, are you still trying to sell your "the wind blew down the WTC towers" story? Have you passed off Building 5 as Building 7 yet today?

FormerLurker posted on 2009-04-01 16:13:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2179. To: FormerLurker (#2177)
BTW, are you still trying to sell your "the wind blew down the WTC towers" story?

LOL!

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-04-01 16:15:08 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2180. To: James Deffenbach (#2179)
LOL!

I kid you not, that's what he was saying a couple of days ago...

FormerLurker posted on 2009-04-01 16:16:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2182. To: FormerLurker (#2180)
I have him on my clown filter and didn't know he was making such claims. Clearly, it is time for the men in the white coats to capture him and adjust his meds.

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-04-01 16:19:05 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 2182.
#2185. To: James Deffenbach (#2182)
Clearly, it is time for the men in the white coats to capture him and adjust his meds.

Him along with most of the other whackjobs over at LP and FR.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-04-01 16:25:38 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 2182.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um