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: 28166
Comments: 2261
Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2239.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
wonderfully succinct
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.
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.
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.
LOL 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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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?
You really are a tool...er fool...er what the hell...both... 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.
Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did. Thanks...
Here's one for you to ponder; 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.
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?
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
What steel columns?
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?
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.
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?
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.
You're out of your mind...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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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 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.
too many to be believed as coincidental. 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".
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.
I've seen no evidence of that...
At least flag the person you're deriding, you rude-ass backstabber.
Go soak yer head. This thread is a one long example of what you're barking at me about. Go bark at them too...
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.
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.
[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.
They don't have to worry about that anymore. They only made one batch of the Magickal Jet Fuel™.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds. It was obviously a controlled demolition. There's no room for argument.
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.
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.
Every builder/tradesman to whom I've shown the WTC 7 collapse video immediately falls off the fence. It's funny how those who make their living building things can see the utter BS that is the Official Fairy Tale once they see the evidence that's been actively hidden from us hoi polloi.
Good heavens, I thought that The Thread That Dare Not Speak Its Name had disappeared altogether. What a hoot. You guys are like Rottweilers with a locked-jaw death-grip on this thing.
#2240. To: TooConservative (#2239)
arrghhhh..that was 600 posts ago and you bumped it again! ;)
Rather than put the focus on 'us guys', address the points being made in my post. Thanks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#22. To: Cynicom (#8)
Crap????
#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.
#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.
#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.
#76. To: Critter (#33)
Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?
#78. To: F16Fighter (#76)
complicity by purposeful neglect
#85. To: sneakypete (#78)
Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
#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.
#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.
#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.
#163. To: tom007 (#149)
#196. To: Rhino369 (#163)
silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth
#198. To: sneakypete (#196)
it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct
#229. To: Rotara (#198)
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?
#237. To: sneakypete (#229)
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.
#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.
#281. To: sneakypete (#265)
#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.
#550. To: FormerLurker (#520)
#591. To: war (#550)
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.
#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?
#992. To: war (#836)
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...
#1136. To: FormerLurker (#992)
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.
#1145. To: war (#1136)
Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.
#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.
#1150. To: war (#1148)
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
#1220. To: FormerLurker (#1150)
The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing
#1222. To: war (#1220)
What steel columns?
#1225. To: FormerLurker (#1222)
Those which were part of the steel core.
#1229. To: war (#1225)
What makes you believ that they should have been left standing?
#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.
#1233. To: war (#1231)
LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?
#1236. To: FormerLurker (#1233)
Nothing
#1251. To: war (#1236)
(Edited)
what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?
#1252. To: FormerLurker (#1251)
Oh and BTW, the WTC towers were not just a bunch of stacked cans, they were rigid structures.
#1255. To: war (#1252)
(Edited)
Not when the links between the two support structures failed...
#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.
#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.
#1298. To: FormerLurker (#1294)
You are grasping at straws.
#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...
#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?
#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
#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.
#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.
#1474. To: Rotara, war, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, FormerLurker, all (#1468)
#1487. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker (#1474)
The building's collapse from initiation to completion took 6.6 seconds.
#1511. To: war, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, Rotara, Wudidiz, tom007, litus, bluegrass, all (#1487)
The building's collapse from initiation to completion took 6.6 seconds.
#1515. To: Original_Intent (#1511)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
#1518. To: litus (#1515)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
Fu Manchu Osama Ben Goldstein.
#1519. To: Original_Intent (#1518)
Lots of coincidences.
#1522. To: litus (#1519)
the probability of this many coincidences is mathematically impossible prior to such a catastrophic event!
#1534. To: Original_Intent, war (#1522)
#1541. To: bluegrass (#1534)
O_I thinks
#1544. To: Original_Intent, war (#1541)
#1548. To: bluegrass (#1544)
#1552. To: war (#1548)
(Edited)
This thread is a one long example...
#1558. To: bluegrass (#1552)
#1560. To: war (#1558)
#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.
#1565. To: James Deffenbach (#1564)
ehehe
#1567. To: Rotara (#1565)
#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™.
#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
#1593. To: war (#1572)
#1600. To: TwentyTwelve (#1593)
#1603. To: war, wudidiz (#1600)
#1604. To: TooConservative (#1603)
#1605. To: wudidiz (#1604)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.
#1615. To: TooConservative, Wudidiz, christine, Rotara, TwentyTwelve, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, all (#1605)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.
#1635. To: Original_Intent, TooConservative, Wudidiz, christine, Rotara, TwentyTwelve, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, war (#1615)
If we compare the collapse of building 7 to known instances of explosive demolitions of buildings the observable similarity is one of the most striking aspects of the building 7 collapse.
#2239. To: bluegrass (#1635)
Replies to Comment # 2239.
#2244. To: TooConservative (#2239)
You guys...
End Trace Mode for Comment # 2239.