See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined
Source:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
URL Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: M Rivero
Post Date: 2007-02-10 20:28:49 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 36294
Comments: 467
WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue: Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ... In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building. Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State] There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7: "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report] "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics] "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times] Let's have a look at Silverstein's full statement: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." WMV video download (490kB) In summary, the fire department commander said the fire could not be contained, Silverstein said "the smartest thing to do is pull it", and the fire department made the decision to pull. "Pull" is a term used in building demolition... "We're getting ready to pull Building 6" ... "We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6..." WMV video download (564kB) ...but the US Department of State contends that Silverstein's "pull it" statement refers to withdrawing firefighters from WTC 7. If this was the case then firefighters should have received a message which said something like "World Trade 7 is unsafe. Abandon the building and withdraw from the area." Okay, let's have a look at the language used by firefighters withdrawing from the area of WTC 7: "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..." WMV video download (1 MB) The above indicates the message received by the firefighters was "We are going to demolish 7 World Trade. Clear the area." INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down." HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?" SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..." [Prison Planet] It has also been stated that a 20 second radio countdown preceded the collapse of WTC 7. The statement by Silverstein Properties and the US Department of State also contends there were no deaths in WTC 7 because "pull it" was an evacuation order. This is factually incorrect: Speakers for voice evacuation announcements were located throughout the building and were activated manually at the Fire Control Center (FCC) [WTC 7 Report] It would be impossible to miss an evacuation order. "...I'm on top of building 7 just pulling out rubbish. Pulled out a Port Authority cop at about 11 o'clock in the morning..." WMV video download (597kB) "When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished..." [PDF download (link expired)] "The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center ... Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts." [PDF download] The death of Master Special Officer Craig Miller is another inconsistency in the official explanation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment. Why aren't the numerous inconsistencies questioned by the mainstream media? See also: Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis What Really Happened Email This Page To A Friend
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
Here are the statements of firefighters who were there: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt " "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski" http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department" http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers" http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt "Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan" *********** http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html "A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned." Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. ****************** http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in. ************ http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html "WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11." ************ Furthermore, according to http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm "Daniel Nigro said there were RESCUE OPERATIONS that were ongoing. He also says it was HE and not Silverstein who ordered the firemen out. "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. - Chief Nigro" *********** So the claim that firefighters weren't in danger if WTC7 collapsed or that they weren't "pulled" out is simply false. Either that or all the above firemen are liars.
This is from ImplosionWorld, experts in building demolition: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf "We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway." ************* http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective” regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever. The editors of implosionworld.com have created this page to answer a few of the most frequently asked questions that fall within our area of knowledge and expertise. But first we’d like to be clear in stating that any conversation relating to “implosions” and what causes structures to fail is undertaken with reverence and respect to those who perished as a result of this event. As many of our frequent web visitors are aware, Implosionworld.com’s offices are located close to New York City, and several of our employees were personally touched by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of those lost and injured, and our intent here is to help foster a constructive base of knowledge and understanding through education, while dispelling false rumors related to the attack. DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site. WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE? Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level. DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE? To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack. HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.” ***********
Photos of FDNY in Action Before & After WTC Buildings Collapsed
WTC Fire Covering Several Floors, Heating Metal Red-Hot
There is no shortage of audio, video or qualified observers to attest to the controlled demolition of the buildings. Can you even spell "integrity?" You continue as a deceiving piece of shit, BAC.
Ha, ha. That is an image of the south tower right after impact. That isn't the perimeter girders "red hot" its the jet fuel burning. According to NIST/FEMA around 4500 gals were avalable, and in less than 10 minutes all the jet fuel was gone, and also according to NIST, the towers were an oxygen and fuel poor environment. Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist? I won't waste my time with you long. You'll get your so richly deserved beating and I'll move on. Your LIHOP, bungling government theory won't hold up here.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
So wrong. I am not going to chase the rabbits for you. I don't know why you would post such obvious nonsense. It hurts your creadibility, IMO.
Uh huh. So because the "terrorists" didn't evacuate the WTC before hitting them, we can conclude that the WTC was not hit. What bizarro logic you weave BAC...
Instead of relying on mainstream media and the doubtful testimony of the men who covered up the crime of the century by pulling the building you can go to http://www.WTC7.net and see Tower 7 collapse from 3 different angles. All 3 videos show Tower 7 collapsing in 6.5 seconds. None of the three videos show damage sufficient for a collapse of the steel girders. Soon after 911 a 24 story steel girdered skyscraper in Madrd burned for 36 hours without collapsing.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Flames are now red instead of orange? On the highest level of the fire, the picture is clearly showing a dull red glow, which is not of any jet fuel, which would be orange flames. Something in the interior is being heated red-hot from the flames. Posting a photo is "commenting on fire or structural issues?" It would have to come from somebody with enough brains to know what color flames are, and the difference between posting a photo and a comment. That rules you out.
Sorry, there are no photos of "glowing red" structural steel. There may be "something" burning, but it isn't steel. Again, the "something" whatever that is burning, is burning around 1100-1200 degrees gas temps. This would line up perfectly with the steel temps of 480-600. According to NIST, the jet fuel was burned off in minutes and the WTC office floors were fuel poor and the fuel in a given area would burn up in around 20 minutes. The west side of WTC 2 never even had any fire or heat at all. The south tower fires were basically out in around 40 minutes. Much too short to heat any steel to any degree. NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel from the impact/fire zones and it survived the impacts and preformed great, just as the main designers and architects said it would. The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved. NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600. For structural steel to "glow red", you are talking temps of physical steel reaching 1700 and higher and then staying at those temps. Like at the Madrid fire. NIST again states that fuel was gone in minutes and it was a office fuel poor fire. The photo is taken right after impact and the fuel dump involved. There is no way steel reached that temp that fast. It takes time. Its impossible, plus there is no scientific evidence of this. NIST doesn't claim this. If you have some inside knowledge of the temps, that NIST doesn't, I think you should notify them with this breaking news!! Your photo is your comment. Its misleading and deceptive. I would like to see another photo of the same shot taken 25 minutes later. You know why that photo isn't shown? Because it would show that the fire and flames were out and gone. Like I said, deceptive and misleading. Boy, when things don't go your way, the accusations, name calling and such comes out right away. I won't waste much time on you, so don't get your panties in a bunch.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
It must be appreciated that the siding on the building was an aluminum alloy. If that remained intact at the heat exit point; how hot could it have been?
I never said anything about gas temps, structural steel, non-structural steel, or building construction. I posted a photo and said that metal was red-hot. Now you're quoting the government agencies you say are lying. Interesting. I'd like to see photo of the **thermite,** which burns white-hot and gives off a flame brighter than a welder's torch. Right, Toots. That explains your "panties in a bunch" remark below. That's why you've addressed 5 posts to me in the last 2 days. Best to look after your own panties, Toots. You're Bozo #2.
I'll admit, all the nonsense about the thermite only shows the people who believe in it know nothing about it. I made thermite as a kid. All it is a combination of aluminum dust and iron oxide - - which is rust. I set it off with a sparkler. It doesn't "pour" out of buildings. It goes whoosh, burns white-hot, burns holes through metal, and leaves no residue. I won't even address the rest of the nonsense about remote-controlled airplames and explosives at the base of the buildings.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
I warned/told you so, AGAviator. This is a webite populated by Art Bell types.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Amen.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And it's an incendiary, not an *explosive* either. If you mix it with real explosives like RDX, 1 of 2 things will happen (2) The explosive (RDX) will detonate and splatter the incendiary (thermite) all over the place before it has a chance to do any cutting. Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
So nice of you to 'warn' posters about this forum.. this is a free speech forum .. your opinion is as valid as others.. believe as you will.. but I will say I certainly do not appreciate the implication here.. If you think that others are incorrect in their opinions... prove them wrong just as they're trying to do.. to dismiss people as "Art Bell types" seems to reveal that you are the one in fact that wants to control opinions by labelling .. is it that you want everyone to believe in one way or is it that you want discussion?? You cant have it both ways Destro.
You are probably right in critiquing my statement but be honest anyone who takes a contrary position on 9/11 against the 9/11 truth conspiracy is not welcome here - which is fine.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Who said youre not welcome here for disagreeing? Not Chris nor I..
I was called a disinfo agent and there was a campaign to have be shut off. Fine by me - their right.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
A campaign? A bit of an overstatement IMO..
(2) The explosive (RDX) will detonate and splatter the incendiary (thermite) all over the place before it has a chance to do any cutting. As I said, people who talk about thermite in buildings know nothing about thermite. I made it once, and never again. The stuff is extraordinarily dangerous. And you're right: it didn't explode, it just burned like crazy.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
I was mistaken.. it was of thermite but on a block of ice which exploded..here is what I saw.. Now a question.. some say the explosions were caused by thermite which I dont believe .. if in fact it was conspiracy of some type ...other than the conspiracy the gov says it is. is it possible that thermite was used to weaken the structure plus other explosives.. here is the video of the explosions
Here's a passage from the Wiki article on "Thermite reaction": Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite was originally used for repair welding in-place thick steel sections such as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location. It can also be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment. Like you, I'll let people judge for themselves whether a thermite reaction (and there are different types) could have been used to quickly cut the steel in the WTC buildings. ;)
guess what i think. :P
Where have you been? You have been missing some good beatdowns!!
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Got a "cutting" remark? :P
I normally don't bother dealing with the pig-headed arrogance of the 9/11 Truth opponents. Aided by capable proponents such as you, most people are capable of seeing through the badgering and haranguing and phoney expertise touted by them. When they start getting shitty with a couple of fine ladies...that's where I draw the line.
This has been my thought on this topic.. btw thank you *
If you were not welcome, you'd be on Bozo or be banned. However, banning only occurs on LP and FRaud. But don't call me Art Bell. I may believe TheStateInc lied about 9-11, but I don't believe the aliens did it! They live under the sea and can't come up in daylight. ;) [sensitive eyes]
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Yeah I know it becomes a giant waste of time and energy, but I've wanted to get a piece of a couple of these morons, but I wasn't going to register at some other forum. Its always good to get out some new info that just destroys the 911 fairytale. The bootlickers just stick to their tired old shtick.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
:P
Is that the expertise you consider necessary to make a judgement about the WTC tower collapse? Then why do you ignore the fact that except for one or two examples (and I'd be happy to chat about those), NO structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in steel or fire, or macro-world physicist have signed on to your demolition theory. Why do you think that is, Mark?
But not from the South Side where a huge hole in the structure was located. It was obscured by smoke from big fires. The Windsor Tower in Madrid was NOT a 24 story steel skyscraper. The core was reinforced concrete and from the 17th floor on down the frame supporting the floors was primarily reinforced concrete. And all the portions of the tower that did depend solely on a steel frame did in fact collapse. But you will not find the truth if you start your investigation with a foundation of "facts" that aren't facts.
6.5 seconds, with the elevator motor cab starting the collapse. How utterly convenient. BAC, you're returned to your usual slimy bullshit - as though you know anything else. "Get back BeOcho!"
If you want me to look at something, you will have to link me to it. I'm not interested in wading through someone's myspace account looking for whatever this is. And if it's a video that starts out by claiming the WTC towers collapsed in 10 seconds, I have to tell you that it starts out with a demonstrable falsehood. Enjoy!!! www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
As far as I'm concerned, 911 whodunits are quite a waste of time. The events happened nearly 5 1/2 years ago, you can make a case there are certain elements who welcomed them, and instead of stopping the insanity that has resulted from it, there is this endless speculation bordering on obsession...
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala AGAviator posted on 2007-02-11 18:29:20 ET Physics, engineering and aviation [our specialty] aside, I wonder how TheStateInc 9-11 believers account for the mathematical statistical improbability..no, impossibility.. of 3 buildings, on fire, all with different damage profiles, all collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN, when they were designed to withstand such damage, and when none ever have before in history. Talk about winning the Progressive Jackpot. We need to take these believers to Vegas and see if some of that good Mojo rubs off on us! AGAviator: Me too, me too!!! Bozo me!! While you're at it, since these events happened so long ago, let's stop discussing history altogether. It's all irrelevant according to you. You've demonstrated your lack of intellect. And that is as politely as I can state it. In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Yeah, but in your usual deceptive nature, you fail to tell everyone that the localized area of the collapse took 4 HOURS for it to collapse!!! It was so slow, it was like watching a slow motion car wreck on your dvd player.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Gravity.
If the (non-existent) Superevil Supergeniuses were that brilliant, they would have been able to make the WTC fall to the side and maximize all the death and destruction.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
Gravity Foolish answer. They were designed to fall sideways? They were designed not to fall at all, ChipShot. And yet another foolish comment. Your dialogue has grown tiresome. Touch my monkey. Love him! Touch him! Liebe mein shmenke! Your foolish observations will earn you Bozo until further notice. Your foolishness deserved no serious reply. Update: And...Velcome back to Sprockets from your short bozo. Dieter has missed you and seen fit to extend clemency. I think we were discussing how damaging a skyscraper...3 of them...by fire and/or impact..would not result in a symetrical fall unless symetrical damage had occurred...such as a demolition. That's called physics.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell BeOcho, Would you believe 13 seconds? What figure did the 9-11 Commission cite? The figure is still a free-fall - even if you insist that a dog is factually a misrepresented "animal," not a dog. You came here to watch people line up to call you an asshole? If you're into pain, you hit the proper address!
Why would the top 20 or 30 floors fall straight down to begin with? If the building collapsed due to weakened steel, do you seriously think all four corners of the top of the building would have fallen at the same exact time, and at the same rate of collapse, considering there were 80 to 90 stories of undamaged steel and concrete that it had to crash through? If the collapse happened as the official story describes, where the steel was weakened by fire, then the top of the building would have tipped, and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building. Additionally, even if the floors pancaked as described by the official story, the building would not have collapsed at the same rate as if it were falling through thin air, but would have taken at least 96 seconds to collapse, as per Dr. Judy Wood, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University. A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory One must also take into consideration that the building turned to dust as it fell, so the available energy to break floors below was diminshed by the pulverization of the concrete and steel. Thus, the floors should not have pancaked, as there was not enough energy left over.
If you could read and comprehend it would be nice. He asked me in a prior post if I was a pilot, insinuating that is what I needed to comment on matters surrounding the Pentagon. All one needs is to have reason, deduction and conclusions based on real hard science. Not some computer models that you can tweek the sofware anyway you want to get the desired outcome. Bad data in, bad data out. Ask this question. Whats in it for the whistleblowers to step out and tell the truth? Nothing but hassles, lawsuits and heartaches, job losses. I come from a family of firefighters. In private my relatives know what happened, but in public, they would never make such claims. I did some work in the pyrotechnics industry. I still have a close friend there. We have talked privately and he KNOWS it was a demo job, but he would deny it in public on a bible. I've asked him to come forward, but he has a wife and kids, a long standing job and flat out told me, NO. I've seen some of the computer tech gear used in firework shows. This was back in 2001. He was then talking about radio controlled shows with no wires or anything was very close. He had seen demos of it at testing grounds. This was for firework shows, can you imagine what we have that we don't know? Anything can be done, the tech hard ware he saw was developed elsewhere, more than likely from the military. There are 1 1/2 million engineers in this country. Why do we keep using the same ones? The same ones with ties to govenment funded projects. The same engineers who gave us the OKC report. In any real independent investigation, there would be no ties as to taint any conclusions or research. This wasn't the case in any of 911's investigations. These government experts were involved in the BPAT/FEMA report. The Silverstein/Weidlinger report, and the NIST report. All 3 reports contradict each other. Even though the same engineers worked on them. Very strange "experts".
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Thats correct. If you look at the videos and photos, NIST wants us to believe that the building and gravity crushed itself. To this day, NIST does not explain the mechanics of the collapse. So lets take WTC 1. We are supposed to believe that 14 floors crushed the entire tower? If you look at the videos, as the building explodes, there is nothing above it but concrete dust. The debris is being ejected out and away from the tower. The steel and dust is outside the tower itself. What is crushing the tower? Air? The real kicker is, as the debris is falling, the tower explosions/collapse almost keep pace with debris falling through the air. Now, I don't subscribe to the 9 sec collapse trap. It took both towers around 15 seconds total. That still is WAY too fast for a "progressive gravity collapse". I think the average time of collapse per floor was around 1/5-1/6 of a second for the towers and 1/8 of a second for WTC 7.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
There is only one account of a giant scoop hole in the face of the south WTC 7. Why don't you ccp the account of employees being escorted right through the WTC 7 lobby by rescuers and reporting light damage and a light dust in the lobby of WTC 7. If there was this giant scoop, the damage would have been massive, and debris would have blocked the lobby and promenade of the building. The hard facts are, there is no proof of a giant scoop, and even if there was, asymmetrical damage and fire cannot result in a symmetrical collapse. I would like to see this damage/diesel hypothesis tested. Not with computers either.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
According to BAC's experts, I guess so. Now, I don't subscribe to the 9 sec collapse trap. It took both towers around 15 seconds total. That still is WAY too fast for a "progressive gravity collapse". The 9 to 11 second figures are what NIST and the 9/11 Commission stated, and correspond to the seismographal evidence, but you're right, an extra six seconds doesn't account for the breaking of 90 or so solid undamaged stories of concrete and steel.
Because, as you say, the honest ones would end up in Gitmo or harrassed to death by the SS arm [IRS] of TheStateInc, or be terminated from their positions...or worse.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell you mean not wet noodles?
Former NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer: As I approached, I came down and saw the big hubbub going on around Building 7. I walked around it, I saw a hole, I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though. There was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any creaking or any indication that it was going to come down. It had some damage to it but nothing like what they're saying...nothing to account for what we saw. I am shocked at the story we've heard about it, to be quite honest.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Quite true. Also, why are the world's architects, physicists, civil engineers, and contractors credible when they say they have built a structure that could never, ever, fail from an airplane impact? Yet, when one does fail shortly after said airplane impact, their qualifications and credentials are instantly irrelevant? Suddenly they don't know what they're talking about.
Some photos show the top floors actually starting to rotate. However for that rotation to continue, the building would have needed to have enough structural rigidity to continue rotating, and also would have needed something to rotate against that would not move as it was being pushed by the section that was falling. Unlike trees, buildings are mostly empty space inside.
where oh where have I read that before?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Pretty soon, the BLoviator will be adding you to his bozo list and eventually, he'll be talking to only himself...mucking up the thread as much as possible to dissuade real debate and purpose. The real purpose of his existance on this forum.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
These people think Silverstein - a landlord in New York was leading sapper units on 9/11 - I guess in their views being a New York landlord builds in the expertise to command sapper units under combat conditions. Must be because he is a Jooo and they get super secret Mossad training from birth.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I'm curious, Mark. What created such high temperatures in the Windsor (Madrid) tower? There was no jet fuel ... no fuel of any kind. It was an ordinary office building. Yet temperatures of over 1400 F were MEASURED. Can you explain that for us? In your *expert* opinion must every side of the tower have been engulfed in fire to initiate a collapse? Many other experts with degrees and experience in structural engineering, fire and steel don't seem to agree that's required. In fact, I haven't seen a single name of someone with credentials in those areas that says what you apparently believe is a requirement for collapse. Why is that? Again, no recognized, named experts in structural engineering, fire or steel seem to agree with you. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps it's that just because conspiracy websites claim something is true, doesn't make it so? Here, listen to what a real expert says ... New York Times, December 3, 2003 " ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." Still, Dr. Sunder said, "The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse." According to an alternative theory of the collapse, the planes that smashed into the towers damaged the towers' vertical structural columns so severely that the buildings were virtually certain to fall. In that view, none of the buildings' many structural novelties — the towers were daring engineering innovations in their day — would have played a significant role in the collapses. Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below. Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said. "That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully." ... snip ... The studies of the floor trusses and the design of the towers are just two elements of the investigation, which is carrying out computer calculations of the collapses, rebuilding pieces of the towers in order to test them in real fires, and piecing together a highly detailed chronology of the response to the attack. In one set of laboratory tests concerning the floor trusses, researchers used earthquake simulators to violently shake assemblages much like the ceilings in the twin towers. The shaking was meant to simulate the impact of the aircraft. The findings, said Richard Gann, a senior research scientist at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, showed that many of the fire-protecting ceiling tiles near the impact probably crumbled, exposing the undersides of the trusses directly to the fires." Here are pictures of the south tower in the minutes before the collapse. I sure see fire. And notice the sagging floors well before the collapse occurred. Did bombs cause those sagging floors? Hydrocode calculations show this is the corner where remnants of the plane ended up and this was the fire it was experiencing just minutes before the collapse. And note that NIST fire code calculations show that the temperature in that corner of the tower at that time would likely have been over 1000 C before the collapse (see http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf figures 6-33, 6-34 and 6-46). Do you have any experts in structures or fires who say those calculations are wrong? And what about the North Tower. This image shows fires visible on several floors of the North Tower more than an hour after the jetliner impact (and long after the jet fuel was gone). They do not appear to be "oxygen-depleted. Also, I take it that you don't believe what the state of the art fire codes are telling experts in fire. They indicate that the fires in the towers reached upwards of 2000 F for periods that would be enough to severally weaken any steel that had lost its fire protection coatings. So it just seems to me your claims are at odds with the facts. This is a complete distortion of the truth. First, NIST and FEMA engineers did not test steel from the impact/fire zones for impact. They performed hydrocode analyses that show the impact of the planes would have severed many structural members and severely compromised any fire protection coatings. And investigators found plenty of hard physical evidence that the impact severed and deformed dozens of structural members. Furthermore, as I already showed, using statements from the designer himself, the towers were NOT designed for impacts at "any" speed. They were designed for a relatively low speed impact. The difference in energy between the design impact and the actual impact was nearly an order of magnitude. Furthermore, Les Robertson, the head designer, also stated that fire following an impact was NOT considered in the design. I would be curious to know where you are getting your "facts", Mark. This is not true. NIST did not perform fire temp tests on steel from the area where their fire code models show the most intense fires occurred. What those tests do, actually, is confirm the fire codes because they show the temperatures in the tested locations agree with what the fire codes say the temperatures would have been in those locations. Furthermore, NIST did not find a reliable, robust method to test temperatures much above 250 to 300 C. They based their conclusions only on tests (using the condition of paint). Those tests would not have worked in regions where steel reached a 1000 C ... which is what the fire codes show happened and experts around the world believe happened. Like I said, Mark, explain how the Madrid fire in an office with no fuel produced temperatures of over 1400 F (measured)? Here's what real experts say, readers. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html " The fires spread, and there are significant temperature variations throughout those areas where the fires are located, depending on the type and arrangement of combustible material being consumed and the availability of air supporting combustion. The advancing fires elevate the temperature within the tower. Future estimates will place it between 1,700º and 2,000ºF—further stressing the structure. At the 80th floor of WTC 2—in the northeast corner, where office furnishings had been deposited by the rapid path of the plane—the fire burns at such a high temperature that a stream of molten metal begins to pour over the side of the tower." http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf “It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photographs indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 a.m. and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of collapse. Some of the material can be seen falling in Fig. H–21. Close-up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is, floor 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit. The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggests that significant wreckage from the plane passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 and closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temperature, but melt over a temperature range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of liquid increases. The Aluminum Association handbook (Aluminum Association 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500 °C to 638 °C and 475 °C to 635 °C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1,000 °C), and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.”
Regarding the possibility of thermite at the WTC site:
That's because of three factors. First, the Madrid tower didn't have a impacting jet to instantaneously spread an inferno across the structure. It took time for the fire to spread. Second, the steel in the Madrid structure still had intact fire proofing coatings. Those coatings are designed to protect steel members for hours from intense fires. Third, the Madrid fire was fought by firefighters. So it's no surprise that the Madrid fire took 4 hours to collapse the steel while the WTC with intense fires across several floors from the very beginning, damaged fireproof coatings and no firefighting collapsed in an hour. Which is why so few (and I mean FEW) structural engineers, experts in steel and fire, and demolition experts around the world share your concern, Mark.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
An excellent documentary that looks in extreme depth at the question of whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 fell on their own due to structural failure, or if they were taken down in carefully planned controlled demolitions using pre- planted explosives. DVD available at http://911weknow.com 9/11 Mysteries (Full Length, High Quality) 1 Hour 30 minutes 41 seconds
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
It did. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 It didn't. As the videos prove. Ah, yes ... the dental structure expert: http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf. Notice the emphasis in her resume on biological materials and STATIC analysis/tests. NOTHING on buildings or fire or steel or concrete or dynamics or impact. Here's a even more complete resume: Judy Wood - http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html Check out her research papers. Here's a typical one "Mapping of tooth deformation caused by moisture change using moiré interferometry." , Dental Materials, Volume 19, Issue 3, Page 159. You won't find ANY on structures or buildings or impact problems of the sort that occurred in the WTC towers. But you will find plenty on DENTAL ISSUES. And let's let everyone know Mr. Wood's theory about the collapses ... http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html "Ambrose I. Lane talks with special guest Dr. Judy Wood about her evidence for the use of high-energy weapons in destroying the WTC Towers." Not bombs ... Star Wars. Finally, the problem with Dr Wood's billiard analysis ... *********** http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm Judy Wood is a mechanical engineer. Yes, it's true she specializes in dentistry but that doesn't mean she's wrong about her Billiard Ball from the towers. She produced a graphic showing how long it would take a billiard ball to fall from every ten floors of the towers. She starts from the 110th floor, drops a billiard ball, goes to the 100th floor, drops another billiard ball and so forth on down to the tenth floor. Apparently, her only experience with pool is hitting the cue ball off the table. She forgets a little ditty called "Transfer of Momentum." As Greening points out in his paper, the speed of the collapse increased as the floors above collected the floors below. These are not impacts as you would find on a highway. These impacts are being sped up by gravity. Think of billiard balls in a vertical track. ****************
This is not accurate. There was one person that did get killed when WTC7 came down.
God is always good! Greening's hypothesis did not purport to disprove the possibility of cutter charges using thermite reactions---it merely proposed an alternative explanation relying on aluminium supplied by the crashing planes! His hypothesis however cannot be replicated empirically. See Dr. Steven Jones' paper here.
Apparently, you don't take into account a floor of the WTC is not a pool ball sitting on a pool table, but a solid structure held up by beams, trusses, and connected to a steel core and outer shell. It takes ENERGY to break those bonds, more so than simply another floor dropping one story on top of it. Even IF the initial collapse would have crushed the immediate floors underneath, the failure would have been a slow gradual drop, not a collapse like that caused by a brittle object breaking. Thus, there would not have been enough energy to cause a catastrophic failure, especially when it was apparent that the concrete was pulverized into fine dust, as that would consume much of the available energy.
It didn't. As the videos prove. Of course it DIDN'T, but it SHOULD have if it had been a collapse caused by the mechanism described by your "experts".
You won't find ANY on structures or buildings or impact problems of the sort that occurred in the WTC towers. But you will find plenty on DENTAL ISSUES. And as much as you love to disparage Dr. Wood's background, here's her bio. From Brief Biographical Sketch for Judy D. Wood, Ph.D. Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEMâs Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. Dr. Wood received her One of Dr. Woodâs research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports. Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told. Yes gravity would indeed be a factor here but the billiard ball example is not a good one at all. The towers weren't just suspended in mid air waiting for a transfer of momentum so they could go merrily on their way. The towers were backed up with 47 huge steel columns in the core and many more smaller ones around the perimeter. If only the floors and the outer smaller perimeter columns came down that day, then I might agree with you that the towers coming down was just a case of bad engineering by the designers of the WTC towers. But that is not the case with the WTC towers. The whole building came down including the 47 massive steel columns that were bearing the weight of the building and had done so for almost 30 years. Fire didn't bring the core columns down.
God is always good! Ah yeh, what does she know?
That might be a pretty interesting book. Any idea if the gag order on the NYFD about talking of 9-11 is true??
Excellent clear point. The floors
of the Towers were not independent masses. The billard analogy is not
applicable.
911 Mysteries available on Google here
You ain' supposed ta' know that unless you is one of the chosen ones too bro. You must not be a goyim like dese otha' foke heah. Shalom.
Q: Even if we take it as a given that the planes impact could cause the towers to fail - WHY did they fall the way they did? That is the whole purpose of this thread - to explain the tilt of the cap of the south tower, the tilt that suddenly stopped and corrected itself so that the tower fell straight down. As soon as the pivot point on the opposite side of the tower was broken, the entire upper portion of the tower was pulled straight down, accelerating at 32 ft./s2. This downward force was much greater than the angular force as evidenced by the very slow speed of the inititial tilt compared to the relatively fast speed of the free-fall. Therefore, while it looked like the tower stopped tilting, it actually continued to rotate very slowly as it fell straight down. The additional rotational movement was obscured by the cloud of smoke. Imagine somebody balancing on a tight-rope, and tipping over to one side before they fall. The free-fall will appear instantaneous compared to the slight wobbling before the fall. I think this may be the same effect that happened with the South Tower." Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
Ask this question. Whats in it for the whistleblowers to step out and tell the truth? Nothing but hassles, lawsuits and heartaches, job losses. I come from a family of firefighters. In private my relatives know what happened, but in public, they would never make such claims. I did some work in the pyrotechnics industry. I still have a close friend there. We have talked privately and he KNOWS it was a demo job, but he would deny it in public on a bible. I've asked him to come forward, but he has a wife and kids, a long standing job and flat out told me, NO. I've seen some of the computer tech gear used in firework shows. This was back in 2001. He was then talking about radio controlled shows with no wires or anything was very close. He had seen demos of it at testing grounds. This was for firework shows, can you imagine what we have that we don't know? Anything can be done, the tech hard ware he saw was developed elsewhere, more than likely from the military. There are 1 1/2 million engineers in this country. Why do we keep using the same ones? The same ones with ties to govenment funded projects. The same engineers who gave us the OKC report. In any real independent investigation, there would be no ties as to taint any conclusions or research. This wasn't the case in any of 911's investigations. These government experts were involved in the BPAT/FEMA report. The Silverstein/Weidlinger report, and the NIST report. All 3 reports contradict each other. Even though the same engineers worked on them. Very strange "experts". All good points - and particularly the "fear factor" which does much to explain why people with credentials, whose income depends upon those credentials, will not come forward - they are AFRAID. Government is the biggest contractor and employer, both direct and indirect, in the country. For Engineers, and some other types of Professionals, being blackballed by the goobermunt means you get a job driving a cab - if you can get a cabby license. Those with the courage to buck the official fairy tale are few and far between. Look at Dr. (formerly Professor) Stephen Jones. He had tenure so they couldn't really fire him but he was forced to take a golden handshake and leave BYU. However, what I actually started to comment on was this: This is a point I've made before, on LP, that observers and analysts who study what the "Black Budget" people are doing estimate that the "Black Budget" people are, at any given time, working with technology a minimum of twenty years in advance of anything the public is allowed to know. My favorite example is the SR-71 Blackbird - which went operational in 1958. That means that it had been in development, on the drawing board and in prototype, for at least 5 years or more. Think about that. A Mach 3+ aircraft was fully operational in 1958. Chuck Yeager had only broken the Sound Barrier in October of 1947 (14 October to be exact). Yet a mere 11 years later a Mach 3+ aircraft is fully operational - and remained in use up until just a few years ago. The government would not even admit that it existed until 1972. Lord only knows what is operating now (there are hints that there are craft operating at hypersonic speeds, mach 6+, and rumors of partial anti-gravity assists) (there are even rumors of a "Black Budget" Space Program - which would go some distance in explaining why NASA has been kept using antiquated technology - as a cover and diversion). The point being that we do not know what we do not know i.e., we do not know the governments true technologic capabilities because they are buried under layer after layer of secrecy. We do not know whether, and what, some type of technology not in the public domain was used to bring down the Towers. What we do know is that the official fairy tale does not account for all of the available observations and evidence and is therefore not accurate.
Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary
This is pseudo-scientific abble-gabble. Statements such as "The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force" are essentially meaningless. You are confusing momentum and force---which shows you don't even understand basic physics. Gravitational force should have accelerated rotation of the top of the South Tower consistent with conservation of angular momentum of the top around its center of gravity and linear momentum of its center of gravity away from the vertical axis of the building. The downward force on the building structure would in fact have decreased as the top continued tilting. Instead, we witness a deceleration of rotation as the top collapses straight down. This indicates that the block on which the top was rotating had simply disintegrated, which is precisely what we witness in videos of the event. There is no explanation for this disintegration that can rely on gravitational force alone.
There have to be at least 100,000 PhD physicists in the world. Exactly how many of these real-life *physicists* agree with your version of events, then? LMAO!
How many physicists think gravitational force can destroy conservation of angular momentum? Not one. You should stick to your model airplanes---but next time make sure the area is well ventilated when using the glue.
I notice you've dodged the question and are instead blathering about technical terms which you just finished accusing me of doing. You claim I don't understand physics. So how many physicists agree with your version of events?
The transfer of momentum from the huge 767 that hit the towers at 500 MPH plus did not cause the towers to tip over or fall down. It would have made that billiard ball take flight, but the towers only responded by swaying no more than they would on a windy day, just as they were designed to do. Which collision do you think produced more force from the transfer of momentum? A 767 impacting the side of the towers at 500 MPH. OR One floor of the WTC free falling onto the floor beneath it impacting at around 20 MPH. Which do you think the towers were designed to handle the greater of, horizontal or vertical force? BTW, I don't think it is a coincidence that you and other pro-government theory posters are just happening to come here at the same time. I didn't think this site was getting that popular, maybe I was wrong.
God is always good! Since the WTC was constructed as a tightly interwoven system of steel plates and girders, the relevant question is how fast a shock wave can travel through solid steel. The answer, for all intents and purposes, is instantaneously...
You are right Rick. I think it was Craig Miller, a SS employee.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Does BAC ever read anythng? Its all CCP. Links and long paragraphs of nothing. It like throwing a giant glob at the wall, hoping some will stick.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Tactic: Disrupt the thread with long winded goop.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Magnesium was the main fuel source at Madrid. Quit being deceptive. 1400 degrees may have been the physical temps, but the gas temps were over 2000 degrees. The localized steel section that failed had slab concrete floors on top of the steel girders. Concrete isn't like steel, concrete is like a charcoal briquet, it holds and radiates heat. This MAY have contributed to the failure also. Look at the photos of WTC 2 just before the collapse. The fires are just a black, smokey, fuel poor and O2 starved office fire, just as NIST as written. If you compare the photos right after the impact, and then just before it was "poised" to collapse, the photos show the fires dieing out. If the floors were hanging loose, then how do disconnected floors pull? NIST has no scientific proof of sagging floor systems. All live scale floor model experiment preformed by UL for NIST bare this out. Another NIST deception was that in their computer models, NIST used 9 floors for their model, instead of the known 5 floors of damage. Again, doubling and tweeking software to get the pre desired results. Molten liquid aluminum from the skin of an aircraft? This metal shown in photos, glows bright in the daylight. Aluminum is silvery in a liquid nature. There is no scientific proof of this phenomenon. When these claims can be reproduced in scientifically controlled experiment, get back to me. If there were no fires on the western side to heat all the structural steel of the WTC 2, how did it symmetrically collapse. In your ccp post, there is alot of "maybe" and "probably" and could of. "My claims" are not mine, they are FEMA/NIST. NIST has no scientific proof of gas temps of 1800 or higher for anytime. NIST got gas temps by increasing the known jet fuel load, then over ventilating the fire. Totally unscientific and based on nothing. FEMA/NIST had engineers from Berkley look at the steel from the impact zones. The steel saved was marked from its construction and was known to be from the location of the impacts. The steel was deemed to have preformed great, and the impacts did very little to the towers. Skilling, the main designer/architect said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump and the fires that would follow. DeMartini said he truely believed that the towers could take multiple airliner impacts. MIT engineers hired by FEMA/NIST concluded the airliners energy was expeneded upon impact. Just as the towers were designed. There was no energy left to "dislodge" or scrap clean all the fireproofing on 5 floors. You need to READ more, not just ccp stuff you find. Right in and included in the NIST primary appendix is a research white paper signed by Skilling, the main designer/architect, in 1964, PLANNING FOR HIGH SPEED IMPACTS OF 600 MPH by airliners, this was in conjuction with the Port Authority. The airliners size were comparable in size, weight and length. The 707 was a faster jet. All the skeptics like to quote Leslie Robertson. HE has been caught lying and has lots of ties to government funded projects. Why don't ever mentioned that the fireproofing was upgraded in the mid 90's to 2.2 inches and a much more robust type was used. This is stated in the NIST report. NIST claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off, yet they tested the steel from the fire zones, they had the serial construction numbers of the girders and such, and only found temps of 480 degrees. NIST can't have it both ways, either there was still plenty of fireproofing left in the impact zones, or all of it was "blown" off. The real NIST tests bare out that the steel only reached around 480. By the time the fires had move out of an area, which NIST concludes it had 20 mins of office fuel, it moved on. It took about a hour for the fire to work its way around WTC 1. By that time, the north face was cool, and employees were standing in and around the impact zones. How does cool structural steel fail? NIST has diagrams showing what it believes how the temps rose and fell. There is no proof of these temps. Its all speculation. I use their models to show how preposterous their claims are. All I'm doing is pointing out all the deceptive, misleading conclusions in the reports. These are not my claims, but the actual reports and designers involved.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
How do you get all your information, and how do you find the time to get it all?
So far, BAC is obviously hiding from me. That's unusual for even his magnitude of cowardice. BUT, not particularly surprising. "Get Back, BeOcho; go home." I think he wants his gal Goldi to feel sorry for him & invite him back (BAC?)
Mostly from old NewsMax articles from what I saw on LP.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
The aluminum alloy used in aircraft skin doesn't melt in the fashion of a beer can. It usually turns into a flaking powder. If there are solid and predominantly aluminum pieces, those can be melted, but that's not much material on an aircraft.
BAC is supposed to be the new site kook for people to beat on. Buckeroo pissed off Christine and Ponchy was too nasty. BAC is an obsessed nut that is sober most of the time (I think). And he's just enough of a sociopath that he doesn't catch on to what people think of him and his ideas. Hence, he won't run off like a normal person would.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
AND ..... For all the distracting information, one has to wonder what caused the simultaneous collapse of 47 steel columns, resulting in the free-fall of BOTH towers; add WTC-7. All that supposed temperature, without the aluminum siding warping, in concert. Damn, BAC, you're as full of shit, as ever! {Goldi still loves you; I know it.}
You claim I don't understand physics. So how many physicists agree with your version of events? Au contraire. Your silly "appeal to authority"---challenging me to find a "physicist" that "agrees" with a "version of events"--is the attempt at diversion. Your claim that angular momentum in the fall of the top of the South Tower was somehow not conserved because "the gravitational vertical force was much stronger than the horizontal force," is arrant, unscientific nonsense. That's not a "version of events"---it's a concoction that is knowingly false and contrary to physics. Forget about the physicist---find readers of the thread an explanation consistent with physics for the sudden and complete disintegration of the base upon which the top of the South Tower was rotating, within a couple of seconds after it begins to rotate. "Gravitational force" cannot explain that disintegration---otherwise, every high-rise would be in danger of collapse every day.
BAC is almost a source of entertainment. At least we get the disinformationist viewpoint. In that fashion, BAC did a really good job of constructively editing my 9-11 Web site. There's supposed to be another 9-11 book coming out, relying in part on my observations. I won't know for certain, until it hits the store shelves, however. I do owe BAC, in that respect. Otherwise, he's so much brown and smelly slime.
Let's not forget this part: Published on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 by the Prince George's Journal (Maryland) 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. ...its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998. Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Could be a set up. I remember a poster at FR named "Kevin Curry" who did an opus thread pretending to criticize Bush in February 2004, "The Paradox of Unified Control," or some pompous title like that. It was "ban bait," and of course he was banned. He was then welcomed as a hero at LP as "kcurry". Soon after that, however, he began to be "buds" with BAC, and published the most vicious, vitriolic attacks on anyone criticizing Bush's Iraq War, calling them "blood dancers" and the like. He suddenly disappeared around Christmas 2004. I later saw him ID'd on another site as a DEA agent. I bet there're lots of posters like him, disrupting threads and being paid tax dollars for doing it.
Sudden Building Collapse Syndrome (SBCS) is not well understood. Perhaps that is why the 9/11 Commission Report made no mention of the sudden collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 late in the day on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 Commission Report didn’t include any information about the President’s brother, Marvin Bush either. Marvin Bush was a principal owner of the security firm, Securecom, aka Statesec, the company that held the contract to provide security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport on Sept 11th, 2001. But with the new popularity of online video the public is beginning to discover video tape evidence showing that the collapse of Building 7 occurs at free fall speed identical to what happens in a controlled demolition. In a controlled demolition explosive charges are used to liquify weight bearing joints causing the walls to collapse directly into a building’s footprint with no resistance at free fall speed. Which may explain why traditional media outlets have never allowed the public to see video clips of Building 7 as it collapsed. No airplane hit building 7 yet it collapses at free fall speed as did the twin towers earlier that same day. But the work required to wire a 47 story building for a controlled demolition would have had to begin some time before Sept 11, 2001 and that points to Marvin Bush’s security company. Was Marvin Bush sleeping on the job or very much awake? Or did Building 7 commit suicide in an act of solidarity with the other two buildings?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
9/11 Memorial Service
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
In other words, there are no physicists who agree with your version of events so now you are once more trying to obfuscate your claim that you know more about physics than all the physicists in the world. Your blathering about angular momentum is simply more obfuscation. You people claim there was a conspiracy because the buildings allegedly fell straight down. I then show a photo depicting one starting to fall sideways. You ask how that could happen. I then post an explanation saying that it started falling sideways, but then the part it was rotating against collapsed which caused all sections to start falling straight down. And once all sections started falling, they fell much faster than any section that was previously rotating. Plain and simple English beyond your comprehension - as is physics. You then start some diversion about "conservation of angular momentum" and claiming I don't know physics. I ask you how many physicists will back you up. Your response is so say I'm "appealing to authority." Well, who's more of an *authority* on physics? You or people who are physicists in the real world? Finally, I posted a picture of one building starting to fall sideways. Since you allege that controlled demolition conspiracies make buildings fall straight down, what is making that building fall start to fall sideways? And, if you're foolish enough to say a controlled demolition, not only are you contradicting yourself, but you're also not explaining why "they" wouldn't want the building to continue falling sideways so as to maximize the death and destruction.
what's with the smiles on the faces of ma and pa there?
Gee 911 Mysteries fully explains this, explicitly and implicitly. I suggest those wishing for substantiation to watch it. Link provided on Reply # 63.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Mission Accomplished, darlin'.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
"Tightly interwoven system of steel plates and girders"?? What the hell does that mean? That the Twin Towers were the functional equivalent of a mass of solid steel? That's just purple prose bullshit, and contrary to what we know about the construction of the Towers. the relevant question is how fast a shock wave can travel through solid steel. The relevant question is whether the Towers were designed to absorb the impact of an airliner such as did hit them on 9/11 and stay standing. They were, and they did. The answer, for all intents and purposes, is instantaneously... "For all intents and purposes"? More bullshit. The energy of a shock wave dissipates relatively quickly with distance and it does not propagate "instantaneously." Even if it did, the relevant question once again would be whether the structure was designed to withstand the disturbance. It was. It did. After just a couple of posts, it's obvious to me and to everyone that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Whoever's paying you to post here is not getting their money's worth. Hand the computer back to Mom, and go sign up for some extension courses in physics.
So we agree: It is this fact---the disintegration of the fulcrum---that explains the failure of the Tower top to conserve angular momentum and continue---indeed accelerate---rotation, not "gravitational force." So, explain the disintegration. We're all waiting.
They weren't getting their money's worth at the last targeted op, either. He was canned from the disinfo gig at the LF site a little over a year ago. He threatened with ominous predictions of those that would come after him (bigger, better and more powerful) and then disappeared as AGAviator from the LF fourm. His associates remain.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Junior's now a made member of the Family...
The indications I got were that the steel beam links to the central core were not totally severed, as the 'cap' began to tilt. Thus, when the base abruptly collapsed out from under the 'cap,' there was enough tension to pull the cap with it. That tension was enough to keep the cap from falling over.
Well, he was then. I wonder if his rejection of the Iraq Study Group report made him unmade.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
I think this proves you wrong. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Actually, very little steel debris was ejected out and away from the tower. Most of what is seen is the aluminum siding. And why would one expect that not to be ejected outward during the collapse. Remember, the building was 95 percent air. As it collapsed that air had to go somewhere. And it took along a few things with it. http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html Why is it that the folks pushing the bombs in the towers theory can't seem to make up their mind whether the steel in the structure collapsed into the footprint or outside the footprint? Not true. In fact, in the time it took the tower to collapse, debris falling through air could have traveled two to three times as far. Isn't it odd how with so many phenomena that the bombs in tower crowd say is obvious proof of a deliberate demolition, so few structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists have come forward to support them. In fact, one could count the number of named individuals on one hand (actually, a couple fingers), yet there are tens of thousands of such experts around the world. And even that tiny amount of conspiracy theory *support* can be explained away when one understands that all the individuals in question were shown by the conspiracists who *interviewed* them were hand picked images. And the individual did not look at any other material before reaching his conclusion. Nor was he told the full story behind what he was shown. And, based on certain quotes by those persons, it would appear they also had a certain pre-existing bias against the US. Not to mention the individuals in question aren't even talking to the conspiracy community any more. It's almost like they are embarrassed. And how does one arrive at this conclusion? By waving hands? By ignoring the many large and small structural analysis models that have been performed? Again, if it's as obvious as all that, why aren't ANY of the tens of thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists around the world quoted saying that? Are they all incompetent, Mark? Do you think they are all part of this great conspiracy? Even the ones in France?
Just a show to distract the masses. BushBackerSaudiCheneyInc are trillions to the good. Ain't like junior's really the main man now, is it?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Not true. Multiple firefighters noted this large hole and expressed concern that WTC 7 was going to collapse. There is photographic evidence of a large hole. See http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm Here is what Steve Spak is quoted saying in the above link: "Hours before the collapse of 7 WTC, Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers. They had no water to fight the blaze and the building was damaged from the collapse of the North Tower. You can see a big hole on the lower floors in this photo." Here are some more accounts that show what you claim isn't true. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone." http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html "So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. ... snip ... Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. "
The 9/11 Commission did say the towers collapsed in 10 seconds ... but they got a lot of things wrong. NIST did not say the towers collapsed in 9 to 11 seconds. What they said is this: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." And neither does seismographic evidence suggest a collapse of 9 to 11 seconds. As the above source notes: "The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers." And here are videos that you can time yourself to determine the collapse time was more like 15 seconds. In this one, http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=9%2F11+eyewitness the collapse occurs at around 6:40. Here's a source that shows frames at half-second intervals from a real-time CNN broadcast feed aired during the attack (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/tower1_dust_cloud_afterglow.mpg). According to http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html "the CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground. The following composite timeline combines timing estimates of collapse events from the CNN video and the PAL seismic record. It assumes rubble hitting the ground caused the large ground movement, and thus that the crumbling of the tower prior to that caused only minor ground movement. Given that, the times from these pieces of evidence match up remarkably well.
From http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html "And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html "WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11."
Here's a good rebuttal video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934 "Screw 9/11 Mysteries - Clunkity Clunk Edition This is a counter-video to the first edition of "9/11 Mysteries". Using their own video and words, "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" aims to point out ... all » not only the bad science used in the film, but also the several accounts of lying, quote mining, tricky editing and strawman arguments."
No, Dr Greening also provides an alternate source for the other components in thermite. For example, he points out that sulfer was present in large quantities in building materials. Furthermore, in his paper ( http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) he shows that there are other explanations than thermite (or thermate) for the heat needed to explain the heat and the molten materials observed at the WTC site. Sorry, but you are misrepresenting Greening's work if you are trying to suggest to readers that he wasn't trying to dispute the thermite theory. He was. And unlike *EX-professor* Jones (a sub atomic particle physicist), Dr Greening actually does have a PHD in CHEMISTRY. He also observed that *EX-professor* Jones' test "lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Prof. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results." And as far as I know, *EX-professor* Jones has done neither.
So you claim now that the air in the building was the prime agent in the sidewards expulsion of heavy metal building materials in the collapse of the Towers? Back up your assertion with proof. Photos of the collapse show 30 foot steel sections blown as much as 70 meters to the side. The aluminum cladding was also not weightless, but weighed many tons. You've made the claim that compressed air was sufficient to blow these heavy metal pieces over half a football field clear of the collapse, and now you're going to have to show that the collapse generated energy sufficient to allow the air in each floor space to compress and blow out that steel and aluminum to such a lateral distance. Your "breezy" ipse dixit that the air in the building "took along a few things with it" doesn't begin to prove your claim. Quantify it, or link to someone who has.
Slurpy, You're all so stuck in arguing that it's not a dog; it's an animal. You never learn.
And you think Conservation of Momentum doesn't apply to vertical structures made of beams, trusses, steel and concrete? ROTFLOL!
By all means, supply us with the name of ONE expert (you know ... someone with a degree in structural engineering, demolition or macro-world physics) who agrees with you. Afterall, you are claiming this is obvious. So surely you can come up with the name of some expert (your own but one with a relevant degree) who supports what you are claiming to be the "physics" of the situation. No? ROTFLOL!
Better tell that to FormerLurker and Dr Wood. ROTFLOL! The interior columns weren't the only members bearing the weight of the building.
Again, you better tell FormerLurker and his Dr Wood. ROTFLOL!
Screw 9/11 mysteries (a good rebuttal video) available on Google here
Of course he was "disputing" the thermite hypothesis if he was trying to provide alternatives. My point was that he failed to falsify the hypothesis he was disputing---he never claimed to have done that. And unlike *EX- professor* Jones (a sub atomic particle physicist), Dr Greening actually does have a PHD in CHEMISTRY. He also observed that *EX-professor* Jones' test "lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Prof. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results." And as far as I know, *EX-professor* Jones has done neither. This is simply irrelevant. Jones was pressured to take early retirement from BYU because of his questioning of the 9/11 official story, but that does not delegitimize his credentials. The fact that he has a PhD in physics instead of chemistry does not mean that he has no expertise in chemistry in general or thermite reactions in particular, as you would know if you had any inkling what you were talking about. Finally, Greening's challenge (and I notice you don't provide a link to it) to Jones to exactly replicate the conditions in the Towers on 9/11 is nonsense and he knows it: according to the terms of Greening's hypothesis, Jones should have been able to replicate Greening's hypothesized "violent thermite reactions" using molten aluminum pouring onto crushed gypsum, concrete and rusty steel. He couldn't: For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact no "violent thermite" reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 oC per minute (measured with an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. [Jones, 2006; available at http://www.scholarsfor9 11truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc ] These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion [see Greening, 2006] that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with liquid aluminum. F. Greening’s latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC2. [Greening, 2006] Note that the latest proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen stream, i.e., this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F – while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to consider heat transport in the steel as well as the probability that oxygen tanks in the planes could survive the destructive crashes of the planes. Finally, no plane hit WTC 7, so this latest hypothesis fails from the outset in this case. But we do consider alternative hypotheses such as these. Finally, the data from the solidified slag are not consistent with molten structural steel since it contains almost no chromium, yet shows significant fluorine and elemental sulfur, and high concentrations of nickel and zinc. The laws of physics were not somehow suspended during the supposed "unprecedented attack" of 9/11.
So go cite some real physicists who back you up. And nut bag Prof. Stephen Jones doesn't count. They put him out to pasture - he couldn't even convince his *peers.* I'm patient, so I'll wait till this evening for you to come up with some credible sources. Something tells me you're going to need that time... You're not important enough for anyone to pay money to post to. My replies take a couple minutes, tops. Then I go back to the real world, where I make about 3 times what you'll ever earn. Poor BeAChooser is actually trying to reason with you and cite factual information. I know better. I've been pretty harsh on the lad on LPee because he supports the Iraq war. Now you've *almost* got me feeling sympathy for him. ROTFLOL! Large airplanes flew into towers almost fully loaded with fuel at unprecedented speeds. The crash and the resulting fires seriously weakened the structures. After a relatively short time period, the structures collapsed. Part of the flaming debris generated during their collapse caused fires and substantial damage to a 3rd structure. After a fire was allowed to burn out of control in that 3rd structure, it too collapsed. Now explain to me why you believe the world's engineers and physicists when they say a structure will not fail, but then when it does fail you do not believe their explanations of why it actually did fail. If they are lying for their paychecks after the event, why wouldn't they lie before it when they said it was fail-safe. PS: "Pull" my finger!
Why doesn't that fear factor apply in any other conspiracy? Take the Ron Brown case, for instance. Multiple experts from around the country in forensic pathology came forward publically to suggest that Ron Brown had a bullet hole in his head. And they did this despite threats by the government concerning their jobs and even jail. What makes structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in steel, fire and impact, experts in seismology and experts in macro-world physics so different from forensic pathologists? ALL those who came forward in the Ron Brown case worked directly for the government ... in fact, for an administration that was very hostile to them and had demonstrated in the past a willingness to hurt its opponents. Yet ALL of the experts with direct knowledge of the case did come forward. Why is the WTC and Pentagon case different? In fact, in this case, a great many experts have come forward in support of the government scenario who do not depend on the government for their livelihood. Some even work for other countries. Many, who have said nothing, even work for countries that are quite hostile to the US and Bush administration. Can you explain that, Original_Intent? By the way, I'm flattered that you'd join FD4UM just because I did. ROTFLOL!
Let's take a look at the first collapse(thanks to BootHill for the graphic) (start) is first visual indication of collapse, (end) is the end of the collapse. NOTES: 1. The unannotated original of the above chart is available from LCSN labs . Boot Hill posted on 2006-02-27 18:18:20 ET (1 image) Reply
As the graphic shows,there is a significant spike 3 seconds after the first visual indication of a collapse and a peak 4 seconds after the first indication of collapse, before any rubble has reached the ground? BAC, what was the source of the energy that caused the peak?
Sorry, Ricky, but you completely missed the point of what was modeled by Judy Wood. We weren't even talking about the transfer of momentum from the 767. So is your theory that Goldi-Lox is a government agent and my being booted from LP was simply cover for my coming here?
Good post. BAC is exposed - again! ;0)
"We are Americans. This is our country. He, who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty, to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- to use all feasible means to destroy him." Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
Large airplanes flew into towers almost fully loaded with fuel at unprecedented speeds. The crash and the resulting fires seriously weakened the structures. After a few hours, the structures collapsed. Part of the flaming debris generated during their collapse caused fires and substantial damage to a 3rd structure. After a fire was allowed to burn out of control in that 3rd structure, it too collapsed. There's not a responsive word in that "explanation" how or why the building mass on the South Tower on which the top of the tower was rotating disintegrated. That was my question, remember? In fact, there's a lot in your "explanation" that is simply and demonstrably untrue, manifesting that you have no interest in the truth or debating this important issue in good faith. Now what do you think that leaves me to do? That's right: I'm putting you on "ignore." You can continue to be an embarrassment to the people who have hired you to "debate" this issue---you can just do it without wasting my time.
FEMA Performance Study, p.1-10 Table 1-1 Timeline of Major Events The FEMA Performance Study states in Table 1-1 that WTC 2 began collapsing 56 minutes and 10 seconds after impact. Impact was recorded at 9:02:54 in the FEMA Report. 9:02:54 plus 56:10 is 9:59:04, the origin time of the 2.1 magnitude event.
Now from: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm 5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower? "The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers." ---------------------------------------------------------------- My comment:The graphic above establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the the individuals at the NIST that wrote and approved the above statement lied. Why did the NIST determine it was necessary to lie concerning this fundamental fact?
"The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds." All the significant spikes for the South Tower collapse occurred before any debris impacted the ground.
I was able to independently verify the first visual indication of collapse of the South Tower occurred at 9:59:04 EDT. I was able to do this by viewing a one of a kind video- 9/11 Eyewitness. This video allows us to pinpoint what was occurring at the WTC Complex at the exact time of the origin of 2.1 magnitude event, plus or minus one second. Richard A. Siegel captured the collapse of the South Tower on video. While he was recording the WTC Complex, he was simultaneously recording the live 1010 WINS NYC News Radio Broadcast.At 10:00, the top of the hour tone was recorded;hence,we have an accurate time reference for the first visual indication of collapse. The time on the video is consistent with the time in the FEMA Performance Study and the time reported by LCSN.
Hey Peetie, someone should ask this nincompoop protege of BAC why the TV towers were the first thing to show movement at the start of the collapse. Betcha he has no answer. ROTFLOL!
"We are Americans. This is our country. He, who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty, to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- to use all feasible means to destroy him." Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
Very good point. It would be impossible to overstate the significance of the fact the first indication of collapse of the North Tower was the downward movement of the atenna array mounted to the core of the Tower. So we know the failure of the core initiated the collapse of the North Tower.
Obviously, any seismic impacts before the buildings actually hit the ground have to be of energy released as they started their collapse. Even if you subscribe to the explosives/thermite theory, there would still be energy released as the building started going down. The question would then become how much of that energy was from the explosives, and how much was from the structures - because "they" didn't set off half a million tons of explosives, did they?
What a dumb-ass question. Wouldn't you expect the first movement to be where "they" put their explosives? LMAO!
From the NIST: "The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds." Considering the seismic peak of the South Tower collapse occurred 4.5 seconds after the first indication of collapse,what do you make of this statement by the NIST? Is it accurate?
I don't think you appreciate the significance of the fact the collapse of the North Tower began with a failure of the core. Entire documentaries have been produced and aired with impressive graphics and impressive experts explaining the "pancake theory" and "Why the Towers Collapsed". The fact the core failed first means impressive experts and impressive graphics and expensive documentaries can all be dead wrong.
Now that you mention it, I would expect some seismic activity to register from objects weighing many tons and falling hundreds of feet. However in a conventional collapse, things don't have to weaken and release their energy all at once. However in an explosives-initiated collapse, you'd expect to see some seismic spike from the explosives being set off. So where's the explosives-induced spike at the very beginning of the collapse, if explosives were in fact the cause?
It is a very good question and I don't have a supportable answer.
Becuase the building was engineered to distribute loads, all its components were rather closely interconnected with each other, and therefore able to take stresses and loads from each other. As far as what would happen during a catastrophic event where the building loses a number of its load-bearing components, and some remaining components may or may not have also been affected, I think that's a complex question on the order of how an airfoil operates. However hypothesizing explosives as a magic answer certainly does not lead us very far towards resolving that issue - especially when at least one structure did not begin its fall in the nice orderly "controlled demolition" manner.
Would you expect the NIST to make such a clearly false statement? "The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds."
I agree. We have seen more than enough hypothesizing. What is needed is a legitimate investigation by independent experts. Ones not prone to publishing false information as answers to legitimate questions. We need an investigation into the molten steel discovered days and weeks after the collapse. We need the fire,EMT, and police personnel coming forward describing the nature of the demolition of WTC7 interviewed under oath and we need the supervisors interviewed under oath. We need a forensic analysis of the 9/11 Eyewitness video that recorded the smoke billowing from the base of the South Tower and numerous explosions prior to the collapse. We need independent experts to investigate and explain in detail how a plane crashing on or about the 80th floor caused structural "damage beyond belief" in the basement including the failure of key structures. Well, I could go on for another ten pages,put the point is I agree. We don't need a hypothesis, we need answers to significant questions.
Given the structure of the building core; it's possible that the collapse would have NORMALLY been telegraphed through the structure, itself. In engineering terms that's referred to as the product of "Transmisability." Essentially, smacking the end of a pipe with a hammer. Thereafter, it's a matter of observing magnitude & pattern. A lateral blast from explosives might have a relatively minor vertical component, notable as being minor. What IS significant is the role of the well documented molten steel, as to its disguising that 'transmisability.' There's my focus. Laterally directed shape charges (concussive) would still have a vertical component; but was it predominantly absorbed by the molten steel? I'm assuming that to be the case. I'm more interested in a delay in the seismic transmission. Good luck trying to find the information, but I think there is such a critter as a lateral thermite shape-charge. That might be a commercial product, as well as military. In his intellectual and emotional cowardice, BAC probably has me [Skydrifter] on 'Bozo,' so you'll probably need to feed that idea to him independently of a ping to me - I assume. I don't know how the Bozo filter works. "Whooo, Goldi! Get Back, BeOcho."
Wouldn't you expect the first movement to be where "they" put their explosives? LMAO! Such a typical response from someone who has no meaningful answer. Exactly as I had predicted. ;0)
"We are Americans. This is our country. He, who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty, to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- to use all feasible means to destroy him." Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
And your proof for this is what? Again, what is your source for this? Here's what actually happened in the Madrid fire, folks: http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html The color of the smoke doesn't prove a fire is oxygen starved. This source discusses that fact at length: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html Notice in that link all the photos of fires that clearly aren't oxygen starved which are still putting out dark grey or black smoke. And, for the record, NIST has not said that the WTC fire was oxygen starved ... everywhere. The face where the collapse was observed to start was clearly burning quite fiercely prior to the collapse. Something molten was even seen dripping from one corner of that face. And keep in mind that a wind was blowing into the building from that direction, providing a good source of oxygen. Finally, the fire was also no more fuel starved than the one in the Madrid tower. Both were office buildings filled with what office buildings are filled with. Is this dying out? The photos I posted aren't scientific proof? ROTFLOL! And they weren't hanging loose. They were sagging. Pulling on each end. Plus, the support they had provided to the outer face along the lengthwise dimension was gone. All NIST tested were floor systems with fireproofing intact. But the experts and their codes indicate that the fireproofing materials would have been damaged by the impact of the plane. Do you know what a boundary condition is? Really? This is picture of molten aluminum: So is this: And this: And this: And this: Well, here is an image of burning aluminum from a very credible source ( http://www.csar.uiuc.edu/~tlj/aluminum.htm): It didn't. The top clearly tilted as the collapse began. Well where are all the experts in fire and fire codes who agree with you? They seem to have no problem with the notion that temperatures in the WTC reached 1800 F. Care to prove this? Here are the reports you need: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5SimulationofFiresinWTC1&2.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5SimulatingtheCoupledFire.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5ReconstructionofFires.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StructFireResp&Collapse2.pdf http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf But not from the locations where the fire were most intense in the models. ROTFLOL! Readers ... see http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf First, Skilling was not the main designer. This is false. The chief structural engineer of record ... onsite in New York where the design was done ... was Leslie Robertson. Robertson relocated to New York City when the firm was awarded the WTC contract. He was the project engineer. Not Skilling. In fact, according to http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf "Robertson was the most influential engineer on the project and assumed the position of lead structural designer of the towers. Robertson had as much influence on the form of the building as anyone apart from Yamasaki himself." Just because Robertson had a boss (Skilling) in Seattle does not mean that Skilling was the head designer or aware of all design details in New York. Second, Skilling was talking about an analysis that was NOT part of the design of the towers. It was a back of the envelope "what if". And Skilling was only partially right in his white paper. The towers did indeed survive the impact ... no one denies that ... (in fact, NIST has said that had there not been a fire, the towers probably would have remained standing for a time) ... but he was wrong in concluding they would not suffer substantial damage. Eyewitnesses and MODERN computer modelling show that is untrue. We can't fault Skilling. He really had no means to determine that in the 1960s. Skilling didn't have access to the types of computer codes routinely used in building design and analysis today. Those code and the computers needed to run them weren't developed until the 70's and 80's and 90's. They couldn't do the sort of impact (or fire) analyses possible today. Such analyses show that the impacts must have shattered dozens of structural members, and both analyses and tests show that the impacts would have to have taken the fireproofing off many of the surviving structural members. And it is the loss of those fire coatings which is the key to collapse of the towers in the fires that followed. Demartini was a construction manager. Do you know what that means? He was NOT a structural engineer. There is a difference. In education. In expertise. In that statement he made, he completely overlooked the importance of velocity in the impact. It was NOT "designed" for a high speed impact. PERIOD. In fact, do you know what Demartini's degree actually was? ARCHITECTURE. Also, Demartini was not the construction manager during the construction of the towers. He was 14 when construction began. So I doubt he was all that familiar with their design. On the other hand, Leslie Robertson was. Leslie E. Robertson – " The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument) Leslie E. Robertson – "The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers, but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced collapse." (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html) By all means, provide your source for this claim. Besides this white paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. NIST stated that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” Third, Robertson is on record stating that reports that a 600 mph impact was considered in the design are flat out WRONG. According to Robertson, "It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark." It was designed for a 180 mph impact. Not 600 mph. Remember, the impact energy is not only a function of mass but velocity SQUARED. Robertson went on to note that the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated. Leslie Robertson is also quoted stating that "To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance." By all means. Provide your evidence that he has been caught lying. Not relevant. The impact of the planes dislodged much of that fireproofing. And that is in the NIST report too. No, they did not claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off. As I've already pointed out, with sourced material from NIST, the samples tested were NOT from the locations where NIST fire models showed the peak temperatures. Furthermore, the methodology used by NIST to test samples preselected out any exposed to high temperatures because it required the paint still be basically intact. NIST said the method was limited to temperatures around 250 C. There are photos of some people in the impact hole on the face of the structure opposite from where the collapse clearly began. It proves nothing. The steel on the face of the building opposite the impact hole was not cool.
No, the chief structural engineer of record, Leslie Robertson, said categorically that the towers were not designed to withstand an airliner hit as occurred on 9/11. They were designed for a relatively low speed impact with nearly an order of magnitude less energy. Plus fire wasn't considered. It is just fortunate the towers lasted as long as they did.
And you completely missed, or rather, completely ignored my point.
God is always good! I see you missed my earlier post where this proof was provided. Here it is again, just for you this time: http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html There is even an analysis in it of what's necessary to throw the sections of steel that were observed the distance observed.
The fact that Dr Greening has a PHD in CHEMISTRY and EX-professor Jones' degree (and experience) is in sub-atomic particles is far from irrelevant or inconsequential. The problem with your side in this debate is that EX-professor Jones' is about the best you can come up with ... out of a world filled with experts who really do understand structures, demolition, thermite, chemistry, fire, steel, impact, seismology and macro-world physics. The rest of your *experts* are mostly philosophers, theologians, economists, janitors, software developers and jazz musicians. ROTFLOL! No, you just proved you didn't actually read the report from Dr Greening that I kindly linked you to (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf). The challenge is in that link. Since you insist, let's take a look at the appropriateness of Jones' *experiment*. From the above link: ----------------------- 3. Prof. S. Jones at BYU has recently tested the reactivity of molten aluminum towards materials such as rusted steel and concrete. (See his Feb, 2006, article at: Scholarsfortruth.org). While his results are interesting, Prof. Jones has not conducted anything close to the tests I suggested. Ironically, Prof. Jones quotes from an e-mail I wrote to him on January 26th 2006, where I outline the type of test that would settle the question of the role of molten aluminum in the WTC collapse: "I suspect our different views will never be resolved by discussion alone. I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two things happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignites violent, explosive reactions." In spite of what I suggested in my January e-mail, namely simulations that reproduce conditions in the WTC fires and thus be an acceptable test of my claims, Prof. Jones carries out two entirely different experiments: (i) Molten aluminum was poured onto a section of clean, dry, rusted steel. Because there were no violent reactions in these two tests, Prof. Jones concludes that my hypothesis is invalid! This conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that gypsum was not even tested, and none of the materials were pre-heated or crushed. Of all the parameters not duplicated in Prof. Jones' experiments I would argue that the crushing of the materials is one of the most important. Why? It is a well-known fact that solid-state reaction rates depend on the surface area of the reactants. A one kilogram block of concrete has a surface area of about 0.06 m^2. The surface area of one kilogram of concrete crushed to 60 um particles has a surface area calculated as follows (BAC - see link) = 67 m^2. Crushed (pulverized) materials are much more reactive than solid blocks of material. ... In conclusion I would say that Prof. Jones is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I would argue that his "simulation" lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Proj. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results. ----------------------- And we see he has not done either. And to those who would like to know what Dr Greening actually theorized, I suggest reading the above link. Regarding this claim (since you got it from EX-professor Jones): http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html "a) Professor Jones tells us that a metal low in chromium, with “abundant manganese” rules out the possibility of it being structural steel. Checking the steel specifications for the time tells us otherwise, though." And for those who would like to see other reports on 9/11 by Dr Greening, go here:
Now, honway, surely you aren't claiming that the video imagery from multiple sources (CNN, NBC and others) that clearly shows the collapse took more than 10 seconds ... on the order of 15 seconds, in fact ... are fakes. Because that seems to be the only alternative, if you want everyone to believe that the collapse time was 10 seconds ... which it seems, you do. And just because you show us a graphic annotated by who knows who that the collapse "began" at a certain tim and ended at another, isn't all that convincing. The NIST effort was much more definitive, drawing from many more sources. AND IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE VIDEO IMAGERY CLEARLY SHOWS. What do the seismologists who produced and analyzed that data you post say? "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." And finally, note that ImplosionWorld, experts on demolition, is on the record (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf) stating that "In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibrations during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data. This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and wuold certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presense of any unusual or abnormal vibration events."
Don't you guys know by now that was an optical illusion? Where have you been? http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf "Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." (NIST 2005)
Did it? The claim that the antenna were collapsing first is not proof of that. Because that was determined to be an optical illusion. Don't you remember the discussions about that at LP, honway? This was pointed out to you, here: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926&Disp=All&#C338
Who would put explosives in WTC? And why?
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Let's not forget this part: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm Published on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 by the Prince George's Journal (Maryland) 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. ...its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998. Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked. ______________________________________________________________________ http://www.betterbadne ws.dreamhosters.com/2006/04/ No airplane hit building 7 yet it collapses at free fall speed as did the twin towers earlier that same day. But the work required to wire a 47 story building for a controlled demolition would have had to begin some time before Sept 11, 2001 and that points to Marvin Bush’s security company.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Bloviator and bac are bozod..no nn to put up w/bravo sierra from disruptors. There ain't enough time in the day. Filter 'em. There's enough to read without reading BS, which is the only reason they're here. Let 'em talk to themselves.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell How & Why the World Trade Center fell on 9/11 http://1933key.com/news/911_wtc_collapse AND if BeAChooser can show us why BLDG 7 was NOT mentioned in the 911 Report.....? ANSWER- That would prove "EXPLOSIVES" were used and then the next question would be "were they used in the Twin Towers?".
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Oh, puleeeeze. ROTFLOL! (My turn.) Show us the videos and links.
"We are Americans. This is our country. He, who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty, to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- to use all feasible means to destroy him." Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
Excellent reminder. Thank you.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ You frequently quote the NIST. In the link above,click on the link to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and hear Dr. Shyam Sunder of the NIST explain Tower 1 collapsed in 11 seconds and Tower 2 collapsed in 9 seconds. If you cannot believe the data presented by the NIST team, why do you keep posting it?
404 Not Found.
"The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter." It is posting this type of nonsense that identifies you as an agenda driven "ends justifies the means" co-conspirator after the fact. Your dishonesty concerning this topic is repugnant.
One more time. AND if BeAChooser can show us why BLDG 7 was NOT mentioned in the 911 Report.....? ANSWER- That would prove "EXPLOSIVES" were used and then the next question would be "were they used in the Twin Towers?". "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
I saw these exact same posts at LP... what do you do, copy and paste them here? Those are not sagging floors. I proved that at LP and I'm not going to bother doing it again. Say, why don't you go to freedomunderground? They could use a shill to liven things up there.
How about giving me some *meaningful answers* to the following questions. Are buildings falling sideways also evidence of conspiracies? (2) Why are the overwhelming majority of the planet's scientific, engineering, and construction professionals to be believed when they allegedly say they've designed structures capable of withstanding the impact of a full-sized jet airliner, but not to be believed when they explain post-mortem why said structures didn't actually withstand said impact? Enjoy.
wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf "Finding 1a.8: The initiation of global collapse was first observed by the tilting of building sections above the impact regions of both WTC towers. WTC 1 tilted to the south (observed via antenna tilting in a video recording), and WTC 2 tilted to the east and south and twisted in a counterclockwise motion. The primary direction of tilt was around the weak axis of the core (north-south for WTC 1 and east-west for WTC 2). An earlier building performance study, performed by a private-public sector team with funding support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), concluded that the core failed first in WTC 1 based on vertical movement of the antenna observed in a video recording from due north that did not capture the antenna tilt due to the angle from which the video was shot. NIST is reevaluating this conclusion based on new visual information available from a different angle. " Now look carefully at this video (you may have to download it first): http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem5/911.wtc.1.demolition.east.1.wmv You will see clearly that the antenna tilted ... just like the top of the building was tilting as the collapse began. And if you look closely, you will see that the antenna doesn't shorten in length. It simply descends with the top of the descending building until obscured by the dust. If you can't see this, I can't help you. This video http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg also clearly shows the antenna is coming down at the same time and speed as the top portion of the building. You can clearly see that the length of the antenna above the top does not change as it descends, hence it is not sinking into the core (relative to the rest of the structure) as alleged.
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
9/11 Revisited v.2 1hr 23m "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
You are, of course, referring to this particular audio file: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html at the link you provided. Well, my response is this. Even professionals get sloppy in what they say at times (unfortunately feeding you conspiracy theorists). But facts are facts. The real time videos I've posted clearly show that the collapse of the tower took about 15 seconds. And even conspiracy theorists such as Jim Hoffman acknowledge this. And still photos that show large sections of structure descending well ahead of the collapsing level of the structure make it quite clear that the structure did not completely collapse in 9 or 11 seconds, i.e., free-fall speeds. I'm sorry to see that you will persist in this, honway, because then it makes it more difficult to take anything else you promote seriously. By the way, I hope your readers will take the time to watch the various presentations at this link.
Still, it's not burning silver. And the pictures of molten aluminum I showed also aren't silver. As was claimed.
Let's examine a few dishonesties in the above. This is written by someone who doesn't understand how fast buckling can occur. This is at odds with what firemen whose quotes I've posted say. Are the firemen part of the plot? He was referring to the firefighting effort. Let's ignore the fact that Ryan is presenting himself as an expert of structures, fire and steel. Let's just point out that he actually was fired for sending out a letter with his conspiracy theory to a conspiracy group on UL stationary. Big no no. Yes, an *expert* who has been only been studying sub-atomic particles and cold fusion for the last 30 years. And he wasn't even able to get his own peers at BYU to agree with him. ROTFLOL! False. Silverstein did not say "pull WTC 7". He said "pull it" referring to the firefighting effort. That's not what ImplosionWorld says. They say that is FALSE. And a few questions. Since the central assertion of this website seems to be that Silverstein planned this whole thing to make a bunch of money, how did he manage to arrange for the hijackers to fly planes into the buildings? Was he working with the hijackers? Was he also the one who planted the bombs you allege were in WTC 1 and WTC 2?
I'll repeat a second time: One more time. AND if BeAChooser can show us why BLDG 7 was NOT mentioned in the 911 Report.....? ANSWER- That would prove "EXPLOSIVES" were used and then the next question would be "were they used in the Twin Towers?".
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Did you? Maybe the readers would like to go see a thread at LP where you and I discussed this? Here: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=151407&Disp=212#C212 The truth is the experts at NIST concluded those were sagging trusses in those images. And I haven't seen a quote from a single structural engineer anywhere claiming otherwise. Can you supply us with one, Critter? "New York Times, December 3, 2003 ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." Still, Dr. Sunder said, "The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse." According to an alternative theory of the collapse, the planes that smashed into the towers damaged the towers' vertical structural columns so severely that the buildings were virtually certain to fall. In that view, none of the buildings' many structural novelties — the towers were daring engineering innovations in their day — would have played a significant role in the collapses. Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below. Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said. "That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully." ... snip ... The studies of the floor trusses and the design of the towers are just two elements of the investigation, which is carrying out computer calculations of the collapses, rebuilding pieces of the towers in order to test them in real fires, and piecing together a highly detailed chronology of the response to the attack. In one set of laboratory tests concerning the floor trusses, researchers used earthquake simulators to violently shake assemblages much like the ceilings in the twin towers. The shaking was meant to simulate the impact of the aircraft. The findings, said Richard Gann, a senior research scientist at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, showed that many of the fire-protecting ceiling tiles near the impact probably crumbled, exposing the undersides of the trusses directly to the fires." ************ Again, I hope the readers of your post will take a few minutes to visit this:
Thanks BAC for your efforts.
thanks BAC for being on top of everything. Did Goldi-Lox really kick you off of LP? You were a major part of that web-site. You'd think she'd realize that. I'm glad we have the premiere 911 expert of the world over here now. and he's been published on LP - so we know he's a real expert, not like those kooks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
All you do is prove that the NIST report was a coverup. Anyone with a brain can see that those are not sagging floors.
I'm a kook and I was published on LP. Does anyone want my autograph?
wait a minute BAC. if you're a real expert (and I know you are), then you do not need to refer to web sites probably put up by KOOKs. Can't you find a regular mainstream media source, some real experts, not just somebody with a web site on the 'internet'. Internet is a bad source for information. I don't believe a word they say on that debunk web site. If you really are going to de-bunk the 911 conspiracy theories BAC as is your reputation, then don't use the internet as a source. Stick to the high-road. Post only from reputable newspapers, magazines & tv networks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BAC has never lost a single argument his entire life. Because every time BAC gets into it with anyone the other person always tires and gives up and quits arguing, and BAC is left still making his case - completetly unchallenged. He must be the smartest fellow in the world. Like on the other thread - BAC said that when the commercial jet hit the pentagon that the wings and tail section just fell off the plane before it hit the building. and that's why it left such a small hole in the building. Well, nobody's going to prove him wrong in this.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
He was referring to the firefighting effort. And he made his "smartest thing to do is pull it" comment right after saying "We've already had such a terrible loss of life." You'd think, if he was one of "them," he'd want more lives to be lost, not fewer...
Molten aluminum can, and does, appear different dependent on an the intensity of an external light source it seen in. With no, or very little, external light source, molten aluminum will appear reddish in color. However, in broad daylight it will appear silver in color because of its high reflective properties and it will reflect most of the light, thus it will appear silvery white. But you don't want to take my word for this; after all I am not a structural engineer. You better consult your local structural engineer before taking a stance on this.
God is always good! Ha! Ha! Your big problem with me is that I've READ large sections of the reports. I don't ccp 30 url's and 1000 word paragraphs from Popular Mechanics, Screw Loose Change and 911 Myths Debunked. I don't know if your being deceptive in your CCP, it just maybe that the sites you visit, exclude the damaging, conflicting results that are in the reports and quotes from others. Your already reduced to saying this is false, that is false, this is a lie, that is a lie. No, you just haven't READ the sections that have this information. Wait, I mean ccp. I don't ccp my information, I type it from memory because I've read the documents that contain it. You want sources? Do your own research. I'm not here to spend my time doing your work. You know what my qualifications are? I'm a concerned American citizen. I study 911 and the reports to point out all the deception, contradiction and false conclusions. The NIST report rests everything on computer modeling. NIST disgarded what real scientific evidence it had and preformed, because it didn't fit the pre determined conclusions. In almost every instance, NIST opted for the most extreme model, even though there was no proof of said conditions. NIST didn't even have enough proof on certain more realistic modeling. I have a very busy week of work and time is limited. I'll be around checking in briefly, so don't think I've gone away just yet. I have more FEMA/NIST deception for you. And don't get your lace panties in a bunch because I CCP this one reply.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Then I guess the folks around the world who design the structures we all use everyday must have no brains. Because there isn't a one of them who has challenged NIST on this point. And by the way, Critter, what's your explanation of the bowing observed in the towers long before they actually collapsed? If it wasn't caused by sagging floors? http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTC1SouthFace1023.html
Now Red, I never said any such thing. Why mischaracterize what I actually said? Is your position that weak?
What leads you to believe that any of the images I posted were shot in the dark? This one, for instance: That's fine, except structural engineers everywhere seem to think the material that poured from the WTC tower shortly before it collapsed was probably aluminum. You have any quotes from some that disagree? Here what NIST's FAQ said on this matter: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. " Seem's reasonable to me. Here's what the material streaming from the towers looked like: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 The video, by the way, shows several other things of interest. For example, at 33 seconds into it, it pans across the structure and you can see intense fires burning midway across the tower ... amazing, given that the conspiracists claim the fire was brief and localized (only a few small fires, according to the firemen, they say). And you can also clearly see that it fairly windy. Wind would have the tendency to drive oxygen into the structure helping feed the fires. But maybe it wasn't aluminum. Maybe it was steel as Dr Greening suggested.
Ron Brown put that stuff there after Clinton had him raised from the dead. You know that.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Ron Brown did it to distract from his moving the WMD to Syria. Only conspiracy kooks think otherwise. Right?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
That's why the moon landing never happened. Saddam used Apollo 11 to move the WMD. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy kook.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
The huge Al Qaeda Base in Iraq before the war worked as the launch team.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
You'd think, if he was one of "them," he'd want more lives to be lost, not fewer... The bloviator needs to go back to school for logic classes. Since Silverstein is one of them, he of course wants the command central WTC7 to be pulled so that he can collect on that as well without pesky incrimminating evidence slowing down the insurance payout. What does he care about loss of life when there's billions to be made?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
That's why we don't see Rob Brown's zombie anymore. Working as Saddam's astronaut gave him diaper rash. It all fits doesn't it.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Don't you mean the huge Al Qaeda base in Iran...afterall, that's where they hid the WMD.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
The LEM landed with some of it there after Rob Brown lifted off from Faluja. Just ask BAC. That's where they took the moon pictures too.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Jackie Onassis was flying Ron Brown's plane. She parchuted to safety just before it nosed in. ROTFLOL!! Kooks!! Clintonistas!!
Really? That's strange considering that molten aluminum does appear silvery white in broad daylight, and it was a clear sunny day on 9/11/2001. But then again, what the heck would a structural engineer know about molten aluminum anyway? It appears that these structural engineers that said this don't know or care about the facts here. So why take their word for anything if they would lie so easily?
God is always good! Seem's reasonable to me. Yeah, it might seem reasonable to a lot of people, but that doesn't make it a fact though. What I did is an experiment today, with two colleagues here, to test the NIST proclamation: "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2 before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." NIST says that flowing aluminum with partially burned organic materials mixed in, "can display an orange glow." But will it really do this? I decided to do an experiment to find out. We melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch. Then we added plastic shavings -- which immediately burned with a dark smoke, as the plastic floated on top of the hot molten aluminum. Next, we added wood chips (pine, oak and compressed fiber board chips) to the liquid aluminum. Again, we had fire and smoke, and again, the hydrocarbons floated on top as they burned. We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it appeared silvery, not orange! We took photos and videos, so we will have the recorded evidence as these are processed. (I have now attached two videos showing clearly the silvery appearance of the flowing aluminum.) Of course, we saw a few burning embers, but this did not alter the silvery appearance of the flowing, falling aluminum. We decided to repeat the experiment, with the same aluminum re-melted. This time when we added fresh wood chips to the hot molten aluminum, we poured the aluminum-wood concoction out while the fire was still burning. And as before, the wood floated on top of the liquid aluminum. While we could see embers of burning wood, we observed the bulk of the flowing aluminum to be silvery as always, as it falls through the air. This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not "glow orange" due to partially-burned organics "mixed" in (per NIST theory) - because they do NOT mix in! My colleague noted that it is like oil and water - organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn - and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do NOT impart to the hot liquid aluminum an "orange glow" when it falls, when you actually do the experiment! (Refer to attached videos of our experiments.) In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery. We conclude that the falling metal which poured out of WTC2 is NOT aluminum. Not even aluminum "mixed" with organics as NIST theorizes. What is it? I have a bold hypothesis which still stands all our experimental tests to date, as described in my paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?. NIST should do experiments to test their "wild" theories about what happened on 9/11/2001, if they want to learn the truth about it. Sincerely, Steven E. Jones God is always good! Except these notable structural engineers from Switzerland: “In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.” At the ETH in the Institute of Structural Engineering (IBK) since 1969 Professor Hugo Bachmann has been active in in teaching and research in reinforced and prestressed concrete as well as in the design of bridges and buildings. Beginning in the late 70ies, he concentrated on the scientific field of structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, and he headed a group of collaborators and doctoral students until he retired in October 2000. The group was wellknown in the structural dynamics and earthquake engineering community world-wide and gained a high international reputation. In particular, 25 doctoral thesis, many research reports and numerous other publications such as books and articles in scientific journals were produced in the following fields: * Vibration problems in structures caused by rhythmical human body motions, machines, wind etc., experimental and theoretical work * Earthquake problems in structures and plants Conceptual seismic design, analysis, member design and detailing of new buildings, bridges and industrial facilities, assessment and if necessary seismic upgrading of existing structures, capacity design and deformation-oriented procedures in the case of reinforced concrete and masonry structures etc., experimental and theoretical work * Impact problems in structures Impacts by explosions, blasting, vehicles, stones, avalanches etc., experimental and theoretical work God is always good! I told you so, AG.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I've seen worse, LOL.
Oh ... so now the requirement is broad daylight? And what if the aluminum were to have other material entrained in it? Well then, name and quote some metallurgists who say that the material pouring out of the tower had to be steel. Who say it definitely wasn't aluminum.
The siding was an aluminum alloy; as pure aluminum wouldn't survive the corrosion of weather. Different critter, entirely. As to its melting - imagine somebody pulling the siding into the building, where it could be melted down, so as to run out of the building. DUMB! More BAC bullshit! (Why is anyone feeding this Mossadic troll, called BAC; anyway?) "BeOcho was no man Get BAC, Get BAC!"
Steven Jones is not a metallurgist. In fact, he spent the last 30 years working on nothing but sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. Seems reasonable. Did they do this experiment in daylight, Ricky? ROTFLOL! Did they add everything that might have been in the structure. For example, did they add sulfur from gypsum board to the mixture? Actually, this isn't true. If you watch this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 which I posted earlier, you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from window. Clear as day. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds into the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds into the video. Another sequence of streaming material begins around 55 seconds into the video. From 0.57 to 1:07, there is clearly a silver look to the material pouring from the tower. And at 1:14 - 1:15 the material pouring from the corner of the tower is VERY CLEARLY SILVER, NOT ORANGE. So Steven Jones is lying.
Yeah BAC - you deceitful piece of shit - unlike aluminum, it started out red; sure, as it cooled, it turned to a more silver color - as steel would. Phase-shifting the events doesn't work. (Why feed this Mossadic troll called" BAC," anyway?)
Oh, I stand corrected ... there is one. ROTFLOL! BUT ... Do you know what Mr Bachmann's theory is regarding WTC7, Ricky? http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/how_could_they_plant_bombs_in_wtc.htm "The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice." Is there any documentary evidence to support the existance of these "explosive tenants"? No? And do you know Bachmann made his assertion that WTC7 probably was brought down by explosives after seeing only a few videos from the collapse during an interview with kindly conspiracists? He didn't take time to study the case, or research further, he just watched a few videos. And one more thing. Anything on record from Mr Bachmann regarding the towers ... WTC 1 and 2? The reason I ask is that a fellow European, Mr Jowenko, an expert in demolition, who also believes WTC 7 was a controlled demolition based on seeing limited material supplied by kindly conspiracists, is on the record stating that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were clearly NOT controlled demolitions. Hmmmmm.... So is Jowenko right about that, Ricky?
Like this aluminum?
Wrong color - asshole; "Red," remember.
Why is anyone feeding the BAC Troll?
You ex freepers have perverted the meaning of what a forum troll is. Troll does not mean someone who vigorously disagrees with you. Freepers have changed the meaning of troll to mean people who disagree with the established forum order. True trolls for example tend to post off-topic things to distrupt the forum. The word troll is often and easily misused as ad hominem attack against someone whose viewpoints and input cannot othewise be silenced.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Actually that speaks volumes about how sure he was that it was a demolition. I mean to put his reputation on the line like that after only seeing a few videos, which is all that exist of WTC7 collapsing, must mean that he was 100% sure that it was a demolition. He didn't need to see or investigate any other evidence, it was as plain as day to him.
God is always good! I am not surprised you know the true meaning of being a troll. You had a lot of practice.
God is always good! So, who is authorized to 'finalize' the definition of a "troll?" I don't give a rip about Effer. In my book, a troll is an intellectual predator. The ultimate/intended enemy of the truth, as God knows it.
I am not surprised you know how to mis-use the term troll and accuse those you want to shut down debate with as trolls - you must have a lot of practice.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
and you know the truth because you know god? That is the terminology of a fanatic - a dogmatist really - not a journeyman for truth who has to leave open the possibility he may be wrong if he is to be objective.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Seeing as they don't get a paycheck from the USG one way or another, then their opinions don't count. Matter of fact they do not exist. Them from the old Europe, Rummy says don't matter no more.
If it is that obvious, how come hundreds of other structural engineers and demolition experts out of the tens of thousands world wide haven't spoken up too? Being 100% sure doesn't mean he was right. It just might mean he was getting old. And what about Jowenko, Ricky? He was 100% sure that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not controlled demolitions. You accept that?
I said as God know it, not in terms of my being on par with God. There's a radical difference, obviously.
SALT LAKE CITY, United States (AFP) - The refugee community in Salt Lake City has expressed its shock after this week's shopping mall shooting spree by a Bosnian teenager that left five people dead. Proud new immigrants.
fair enough. But I do see dogmatism from tour side of the argument - Because I do consider the govts actions on that day suspicious enough to be suspect and thus I am open to the possibility of demolition charges being at play on 9/11 but I don't find the arguments compelling. There are plenty of non American engineers/architects etc who are not subject to American govt sanction around the world with access to high powered computers to run simulations and not one such group as come to the defense of the '9/11truth movement' to back up their claims.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The 9/11 hijackers were Muslims who were veterans of the Bosnian Muslim army - a fact hidden from the American people until much later because America trained the Bosnian Muslims and supplied them with arms and jihadists.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And rays from Edison NJ have made me the Keeper of all Knowledge.
do you know alwaysontheright? he is an obsessed kook too. he hangs out over on
aka stone's forum. you should look him up.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
If you don't even see the significance of the post 9-11 bin Laden family preferential treatment over all other Americans, add the 'handy' NORAD stand down; then you and BAC are of the same cut of cloth! A bunch of you guys showed up about the same time. Does this signal the Iran operation as a sure thing?? Are you guys "...in place?" How many more can we expect?
You mean like your constant rants about Bosnia/Serbia?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
No, because I don't mention them in forums not related to the topic.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I have repeatedly stated that I consider American elements within our govt to be directly or indirectly related to the events of 9/11 as guilty parties in the conspiracy. I find in incredible that after I mention this you wingnuts then accuse me of covering flak for the govt just cause I don't accept the demolitions allegations. I repeat : I have repeatedly stated that I consider American elements within our govt to be directly or indirectly related to the events of 9/11 as guilty parties in the conspiracy.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
angle: You mean like your constant rants about Bosnia/Serbia? destro: No, because I don't mention them in forums not related to the topic. Geez, this thread makes you look like a liar. Thread: View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed Post #177 by Destro "More dispositive than these speculations, however, are the very real connections between Washington and Islamic jihadists in the Balkans throughout the 1990s. The report hints at this relationship by mentioning the presence of charity fronts of bin Laden's "network" in Zagreb and Sarajevo. In fact, the U.S. government engaged in a massive covert operation to infiltrate Islamic fighters, many of them veterans of the Afghan war, into the Balkans for the purpose of undermining the Milosevic government. The "arms embargo," enforced by the U.S. military, was a cover for this activity (i.e., using military force to keep prying eyes from seeing what was going on). A key Washington fixer for the Muslim government of Bosnia was the law firm of Feith and Zell. Yes, Douglas Feith, one of the principal conspirators involved in launching the Iraq war under the banner of opposing Islamic terrorism, was a proponent of introducing Islamic terrorists into South Eastern Europe. Do the "Islamofascists" of pseudo-conservative demonology accordingly seem less like satanic enemies and more like puppets dangling from an unseen hand? Or perhaps the analogy is incorrect: more like a Frankenstein's Monster that has slipped the control of its creator.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500- 1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). At temperatures above 800º C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events? High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure. If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures. The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Esso
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
To the poster responsible for the steel like wet noodles position: This one (above) is for you.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
informative, clear post
In Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's book about the Iraqi war, Plan of Attack, Lt. Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the operation, famously called Feith the "dumbest f****** guy on the planet."
The missing element of 9-11 is the time required at the necessary temperatures. As the escaping blonde in the Pulizer Prize photo showed, it wasn't that hot - at the hottest point! IMPOSSIBLE! {Eat shit, BAC!}
Bin Laden's factions were assets of the Clinton administration. Still no one asks what an "Ethnic Albanian" is - a Muslim! (The Psyops works!)
how about the unscathed hijacker passports sitting atop the rubble? :P
yes it is, but you know it will still be disputed by the usual suspects.
13 WTC security anomalies A number of strange facts fall under the heading of WTC security anomalies. Among them: • George W. Bush’s brother was a Director and his cousin was the CEO of the security firm responsible for the design of the electronic security network of the World Trade Center prior to and during 9/11; • Numerous phone threats of bombs placed WTC on high alert in weeks prior to 9/11; • Employees of WTC reported rare “power-down” alerts in days leading up to 9/11 in which power was shut down to various floors for maintenance work, rendering security controls and video cameras inoperative; many workers were seen entering and leaving the buildings; • At least one security guard at WTC reported the abrupt removal of explosive-sniffing dogs five days prior to 9/11; • John O’Neill quit his job as FBI counterterrorism expert in part because of obstruction of his investigations of al Qaeda and became head of WTC security, starting in late August 2001; he was killed three weeks later in the attacks. http://www.studyof911.com/articles/mirrored/josephfirmage/Intersecting_F acts_and _Theories_on_911.pdf
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Nearly forgot that one; thanks for the reminder!
destro: No, because I don't mention them in forums not related to the topic. Geez, this thread makes you look like a liar. Nope because 9/11 is DIRECTLY related to what the USA did or had done in the Balkans. The 9/11 cell was composed of Muslims gathered by the CIA to fight in Bosnia and Chechnya and beyond. That is the real secret about 9/11 - wake up.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
No, but they do collapse. That is why steel is fireproofed. About 50 firefighters tackled the blaze at the ESP plant in the Enigma Business Park, near Malvern, which started on Wednesday morning. The roof collapsed inside the building and flames leapt 45ft (14m) into the sky in a strong wind, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service said. A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles. He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof." htt p://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And to the Bush admin before it and maybe the Bush, jr admin as well. My feeling is that Bin Laden decided to use the CIA operational plan - use jihadis financed by Saudis and Pakis to destabilize oil and gas regions so America can use that as an excuse to intervene and set up puppet regimes and secure pipeline routes. Al-Qaeda was set up (it just means 'The Base' in Arabic as in training base) by the CIA via the Saudis and Pakis to train jihadis for these CIA backed missions. The operating thesis is that Bin Laden took the play book and co-opted it for his own uses but at the same time still cooperated with American interests in some areas like in Chechnya and the Balkans while seemingly hostile to the USA. The other operating thesis 9/11 via the Balkans analysis tells us is that the USA does not want to eliminate al-Qaeda - just decapitate it and use the jihadis again under the CIA's indirect control. I use CIA as a catch all - since American black ops policy is conducted by multiple agencies some originating from State, Pentagon and White House as well as the CIA.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Pathetic non-relevant comparison. Comparable to your pathetic swill about BosnianSerbian911CellTerrorists, which has nothing to do with the demolition of WTC7. Nothing.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
If most aluminum alloys are hot enough to melt, any organic materials would already have evaporated and would not be contained within, at least in what I have witnessed on a smaller scale.
But it wouldn't have been pure aluminum, which melts at much lower temperatures than alloys which are used in the real world. Is that tricky language being used on purpose?
I admire ya'll for your tenacity in arguing with BAC, but really, what is the use? This is a guy that believes that Bush is complacent in helping to cover up the murder of Ron Brown and other Clinton crimes yet would NEVER be involved in any kind of 9/11 shennianigans. He's not a serious person and indeed is exactly what he calls everyone else....a kook! ROTFLMAO!
I find in incredible that after I mention this you wingnuts then accuse me of covering flak for the govt just cause I don't accept the demolitions allegations. You do have a right to your beliefs and you do seem sincere about them. I don't care for when you say all Americans are stupid as that is a very broad statement, but you have a right to believe what you do. I don't believe in attacking people I don't agree with, I think reasoning with them can be more effective. To just attack is hypocritical for those who believe in free speech.
I find him entertaining because it's like solving a puzzle or mystery dealing with him, as he throws tricks into his posts and it's fun sorting them out, and plus you can learn things.
for whatever reason, alot of people like to fight with the shills. i don't. in fact, i left LP because of him, badeye, and the clowns that infested the place. but hey, it does help to sharpen debate skills and it's good activity. ;)
Nearly forgot that one; thanks for the reminder! So convenient, all the names were spelled correctly in the morning newspapers.
In Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's book about the Iraqi war, Plan of Attack, Lt. Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the operation, famously called Feith the "dumbest f****** guy on the planet."
Because your side has all t hose planes slamming into buildings built the same way to compare results - oops you don't.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Black smoke? Well then it must have been oxygen starved and not very hot. (sarcasm)
Unlike most, you have my position about Bush and Ron Brown correct, but you are not correctly stating my position in the second part. I've never suggested that Bush would never be involved in ANY kind of 9/11 shennanigan. I'm only stating on this thread that the notions of bombs in the WTC towers and no Flight 77 are nonsense as proven by the facts.
I stand corrected
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
Just curious. What do you think caused the bowing seen in the WTC towers before collapse? http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTC1SouthFace1023.html It was never anticipated that any given floor would be impacted by a large commercial jet traveling at such a velocity that the energy of impact would be over 7 times that of the design impact. It was never anticipated that the impact would spread jet fuel that would instantenously engulf huge sections of the tower in fires that would then un-fought because they were so high up and because they didn't anticipate the plane impact would cut the water lines to the sprinkler system. They never anticipated that 20+ stories of tower would suddenly drop onto the next floor and the next and the next and the next. The reality is that no steel skyscraper on earth could withstand such extreme loads. It's unlikely that a reinforced concrete one could survive having the top 20+ floors dropped on the floor below, either. But it is the deformations that caused the problem. Not shattering. That's not true. The steel portions of the Windsor Tower in Madrid did just that.
Bowing? It appears to be an indentation from the plane impact. Have you ever been to the scene of plane crash?
ROTFLOL! The photo above shows the side of the tower OPPOSITE the side the jet hit.
And? That's even stronger evidence of an impact entrance. No steel beam turning into wet noodle conspiracy here, neo….
No it doesn't. WTC 7 didn't bow, but it came straight down in under 7 seconds. WTC 7 was no small building, it had just as much office space as one of the WTC twin towers had. Its base was much wider, so its weight was dispersed over a larger area. If WTC 7 was a demolition, it is only reasonable to conclude that the twin towers were too. A bowing building would not equal a complete collapse any way. What you are seeing is only the outer pereimeter columns that our bowing, not the core. The core's primary function was to bear the entire vertical load of the building, hence its entire weight. Of course it was over engineered to handle at least twice the weight of the towers, so the external bowing might have caused some floors to collapse, but that wouldn't have severely affected the cores ability to keep holding the rest of the building up.
God is always good! Here is what a real pancaked building looks like: Notice the concrete is for the most part intact. It did not turn to dust like the WTC tower's concrete did.
God is always good! I saw a picture of bombs on flight 77.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
BeOcho, For all your phase-shifting and overkill in distorting the context of details, the fact remains that three buildings controlled/owned by one person free-fell to the ground. There is no debate possible, as to all three being controlled demolition. Just follow the money. That didn't go to rebuilding the WTC properties; it went into Larry's pockets. In New York, arson is historically termed "Jewish Lightning." The "Dancing Art Students" attest to that, add the Irraeli-only warnings. No rational person dares to think otherwise. All your disinformation attempts can't change that. The audio is there, qualified observers reported the obvious and it was sufficiently captured on videotape. You're a fucking LIAR - BAC! Nothing is going to change that. You deserve to go to prison for all your attempted deceit - take Goldi with you. You two are a perfect match - except for your disgust for women. America now has to fear War Crime charges which will eventually stick like super-glue; and you can't approve quickly enough. You're a slimy piece of shit, BAC!
I don't think any person should go to prison for their views alone. We should not outlaw free speech whether it is false/true or a combination of the two. Let's not copy the Zionists here.
God is always good! so fundamental
Here is a picture of a bridge in Lebanon that was hit with Israeli missiles last summer. Note, it fell further than the height of one floor of the WTC towers and had a missile propelling it down at a faster than gravity rate, yet the concrete did not turn to dust upon hitting the ground. Supposedly the concrete in the WTC towers turned to dust after falling the height of a mere floor's distance with only gravity pulling it down. And supposedly even though it turned to dust it somehow managed to sever all 47 core columns every few floors.
God is always good! Hey! Check out this song on WTC 7/911.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Great post. WTC 7 was 5 times higher than wide. A "normal" failure would have been that it would have tipped over, not a classic bottom up implosion in 6.5 seconds, or 1/8th of a second per floor.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
That makes it even more implausible. NIST states that the majority of the damage and heat was seen at that impact holes, but the "bowing" occurs on the opposite south face of WTC 1, where there was little damage or any evidence of "widely dislodged" fireproofing, and where the fires had only around 40 minutes to "sag" the trusses and "pull inward" the outer columns.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Never in any fire history of structural steel highrises has "bowing" caused a collapse of a building in 1/5th-1/6th of a second per floor. NISTs "bowing" causing the towers "poised" for "global, progressive, gravity" collapse, only exists in a virtual computer cartoon world.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
On another note. I've heard about the research you have done on Ron Brown. I would be interested in reading some, when I have some spare time.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Now, don't get worked up about this direct reply to you because it will be a one time only. Your 3 replies in this thread are the most sense you have made in months. Swarthyguy believes along the same lines as you, that the people/paper trail of 911 research is more proveable than the forensic side of 911. Thats fine. The more evidence the better. The difference between you and him is tactics. While he may not research the buildings etc., he feels that more effort should be in the paper/people trail. I have never seen him argue against the demolition/forensic side. Unlike you, who completely believes there were no explosions, demolitions, implosions etc..All research on both sides needs to be done. The 911 Commission Report was a whitewash of the people/paper trail. The FEMA/NIST Report was a whitewash of the forensic evidence.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
not as good as 'Ten Second Freefall' by 3ShoesPosse, but great lyrics anyway.
Good catch Mark. ANother attempt by BAC to spin government BS.
The truth movement does not take the houses of sticks and straw built by the three little pigs and equate them to WTC either, like you are doing with your pathetic comparison.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
I am open to forensic evidence and I have yet to see any evidence that can't be explained via a non explosion/implosion/demolition theory. Also, you all who hold to the explosion/implosion/demolition theory are all over the place - if you make a charge that Enron investigation was jeopardized by the loss of evidence on 9/11 then prove it - let me see where you make such a claim from? When I made my claims I alway - always - always linked the source of such a claim.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I made no comparison - In another thread I asked where the claim that Enron evidence was lost on 9/11 came from. Make a claim - back it up. Simple - I googled - saw no such back up - have at it. I never see any authoritatove people do any such think which is baffling.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are aware that the SEC and their documents related to active investigations were housed in WTC7, aren't you?
The charge was SPECIFIC to Enron had evidence against them there - so unless Enron was doing everyone a favor....
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Have you seen any news reports concerning Enron AFTER 9/11?
You are a shill who resorts to out and out lying. "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
yes - lots.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Looks like wet noodles to me.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
If you look at what the Madrid tower did you will see that even in a "normal" failure tipping over does not occur. Tipping over has only ever occurred with very high magnitude Earthquakes, and even then it is only partial most of the time. If any floors on the towers did collapse due to the planes hitting them and the resulting fires then it would not have caused tipping over or a complete collapse. It would have only resulted in some debris falling down the side of the tower from part of the floor crashing down to the one below it. I don't think a whole floor would have fallen in one piece anyway. As matter of fact I highly doubt that is even possible unless all the joints holding it up were all broken simultaneously, a near impossibility unless carefully planned. So a falling floor would not have come down parallel to the floor beneath it, but rather at an angle and even then probably only a partial piece. I highly doubt these floors were all one giant slab of concrete around the core, so it was probably at least 4 different segments, possibly many more, that made up one floor. Which of course makes the progressive collapse theory that much harder to be happen just by chance alone. BeAChooser does post some good material from time to time. Most of the time he seems unaware that he is providing material that does not help the government’s theory but rather hurts it. He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out, but I am sure that it must have something to do with skyscraper structural engineers needing jobs that are partially or fully funded by the governments around the world. Those responsible for 9/11 are definitely in control of our media, so I would not be surprised if they also had a huge amount of control over people who depend on them for their livelihood, like most high-rise structural engineers do.
God is always good! What about skyscraper structural engineers who work for countries not on good terms with the USA like in Singapore or Venezuela or India or China and plenty of examples from nations where they don't care about Americans or America and are hostile to America? I keep saying that I feel the govt of the USA loves the demolition theory people because they help discredit any real investigation in the very real connections within our govt to the terror cells linked around 9/11. To me the demolition theories are like looking at a murder victim's body and having an argument over whether the bullet that everyone saw being fired killed the victim or if someone poisoned him before hand with a poison that only affected the victim just as the bullet entered him because the bullet wound would not have been enough to kill him.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Good point. And one of the oldest tricks in an agent provocateur's book is to accuse the people who question him of working for "The Man." That said, the USG did not direct and control the people doing 911 during 911. It was a case of 2 groups using each other for a number of years, and the group the USG thought it was using turned out to be more cunning than its supposed "masters."
That is the theory I am operating under - though I leave open the possibility that the plot was found out and some elements allowed it to be carried out making sure that they were not blocked in their plot.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are pissy because your pet theories concerning the background of the hijackers is not as important to some people as the false flag operations involving th demolition of the pentagon and the World Trade Center? I submit that should what you say be true, there s room to explore both situations and investigate both. Nine Eleven was an inside job, and unmasking the lies the Bushies, Smirkies and Rumbos and getting to the bottom of the lies around nine eleven regarding the demolition will have a positive effect on finding th truth about your contentions concerning the back grounds of the hijackers.
I agree on that one too. The Israelis have a world-wide surveillance network of all telephone traffic and they especially focus on Arabic speakers. Israeli-owned companies like Amdocs have a near-monoploy on telephone surveillance in this country. Government agencies routinely give wiretap work to Israelis or Israeli- controlled businesses, partly because there won't be American "red tape" to go through to get warrants. It wouldn't have been too hard for them to listen in on Atta, put 2 and 2 together, share the information with a few carefully chosen supporters in the US MIC, and just sit back and wait for the fireworks.
He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out,.... Notice that I'm the only qualified airline pilot illustrating the undeniable aviation fraud, involved in 9-11. Job security can silence a lot of voices. It's bizarre, for sure; but 'they' do have their ways. AND - that's scary as hell!
Re: Your analogy. First: Your assumption that conclusions other than that of ThsStateInc hinder any "real investigation" is disingenuous and stinks of psyops. The word shill comes to mind. Second: Bullets into a body will not necessarily kill the victim anymore than airplanes into a building will destroy it. Both are faulty assumptions, therefore, your anaology, and the point it attempts to convey are faulty. Neither scenario can be assumed without an autopsy, but without a body, or in this case the buildings [which were shipped off to China], no "post-mortem" can be conducted. Autopsies examine all possibilities, not just the obvious, as do criminal investigations, which never happened. Very convenient.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Bistro Bistro Bistro! Destro is the man most likely to be a 9-11 demolitions blue collar worker in my book. He has a disdain for Americans and their culture and a chip on his shoulder regarding warfare and ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia's fractured set of states existing in the aftermath of Balkanization. And he has an arsonist's black fascination with the whole thing and tries to sow as much discontent and confusion regarding 9-11 as someone setting a fire would concerning their own crimes. I find him most useful in realizing how important it is to develop good profiles and attributes of the rank and file criminals involved in this set of serious crimes above and beyond th fact I realize there is no proof he was involved and realistically was not likely to have actually been there.
Or not share it...
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Mwahaha, muhuhahaha, muwhahaha, booWAHAHA!!!!!!!! Twirls my moustache....
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And instead of enjoying your retirement in the lap of luxury, you're spending your spare hours posting on this forum....
Cobra Commander is a hard task master.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The Madrid fire is a bad example for both sides trying to prove a point. The entire design, material and steel used was very different from the WTC. As far as tipping, I was referring to WTC 7. The government position is that there MAY have been a giant scoop from 10-20 stories high and 1/4-1/3 the width of the south face of WTC 7. NIST has handed the whitewash investigation of WTC 7 off to a DOD contractor. NIST is full of government paid engineers and outside engineers that have contacts in the energy industry. Here is my take in a nutshell of what will be found out about WTC 7. They will go ahead with the extensive damage theory, claiming massive structural damage to key primary girders, along with "widely dislodged" fireproofing, the pooling of diesel fuel burning for hours, "triggered" a "Rube Goldberg" effect that caused ALL the support within WTC 7 to fail, resulting in a symmetrical collapse of the outer perimeter in 6.5 seconds. Of course, none of this will have any scientific, forensic proof. It will be all done in computer modeling. Just as WTC 1 and 2 were. The NIST report has no scientific, forensic evidence to back its computer modeling. NIST treated its 20 million dollar, 3 year "investigation", as a research project.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
hi Corn Flake Girl, welcome to 4. it's nice to have another 911 truther on board. ;)
Thanks. I like your forum's courage and open realization of what is happening in this country that we need to be aware of and to address. Ignoring the crimes of 9-11 will not protect us and is not wise. And there is a disturbing -- and predictable -- trend in this country for the perps who did this to try to strong arm the truth from people by any means nessesary by the lackeys of those who are dismayed the truth is out there and that many have wised up to the crap going on nationally and internationally. Another forum I decided to get involved with is too mean spirited and has operatives whose game is to degrade the discussion on 9-11 into high school grade name calling or aggressive campaigns to advance the Bush crime syndicate's desire to degrade the truth as being mere conspiracy. I don't have time for that, so here I am.
BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation Outraged truth community demands answers from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath. Separated into two categories below are a number of questions intended to highlight Guy Smith's production for what it was - a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds of others that are already being asked by furious and informed community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by Smith's yellow journalism hatchet job. GROSS FACTUAL INACCURACIES AND YELLOW JOURNALISM 1) Why did the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers? This graphic portrays the tower collapsing at a rate of ten floors every six seconds. For this to be accurate, the tower's 110 floors would have taken 66 seconds to completely collapse. In reality, the towers collapsed in just 14-16 seconds at the extreme end of the estimation. The graphic also erroneously depicts the floors collapsing without resistance, which could not have happened if the building's collapse came as a result of fire damage alone. Furthermore, the thoroughly debunked "pancake theory" holds that the core column remained upright and static as the animation shows when in reality the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust. A video explanation of the erroneous Nova animation is included below. Does producer Guy Smith consider using an animation that portrays a tower collapsing in 66 seconds an accurate reflection of how the twin towers collapsed? Will producer Guy Smith retract this error before his show is aired again? Will the BBC announce a retraction of this error as is common practice for proven factual inaccuracies carried in BBC programming? 2) Why did the program claim that debris from Flight 93 having been found 8 miles from the crash scene was a factual error on behalf of 9/11 skeptics? Both the FBI and the NTSB admitted that mail the plane was carrying had been found 8 miles from the crash scene. Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Crash debris found 8 miles away. 3) Why did the program claim that the collapse of Building 7 resulted in no casualties without mentioning the statements of both an eyewitness at the scene and Congressman Otter who both publicly stated that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse? 4) Why was footage filmed at ground zero on 9/11 of a firefighter discussing the damage to Building 7's sprinkler system used to support the notion that fires caused the building to collapse while footage and testimony attesting to the notion that Building 7 was deliberately brought down, that firefighters had been warned in advance that it was going to be brought down, and that bombs had brought the building down, uniformly ignored? Why was the testimony of Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who states he heard bombs tear down Building 7 as it collapsed , omitted from the final edit? Why were the dozens and dozens of references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin towers including the basement areas made by ground zero rescue workers and firefighters, caught both on camera and tape recorded from the firefighter's communication radios, omitted from the final edit? Why was there no effort made to include the testimony of William Rodruigez, who was a witness to underground explosions in the basement levels? 5) Why during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue were the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, not even mentioned? Why were the hundreds of millions of dollars Silverstein made from the collapse of this building alone not mentioned as a plausible motive for its demolition? 6) Why was coverage of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 narrowed into a mere debunking of the "squib" issue and testimony from the dozens at the scene who both saw and heard explosions completely omitted. In debunking the squib issue, why did the documentary fail to point out the fact that such emissions could be seen exiting the towers many floors below the collapse point? 7) Why were the numerous unprecedented wargames that were conducted on 9/11 dismissed as "routine" when they were anything but? Though the show admitted that such wargames slowed down the response to the hijacked airliners, they refused to ask who was in control of the wargames and refused to mention the fact that some of these wargames involved planes crashing into high profile buildings and the huge improbability of such a coincidence occurring. MANIPULATIVE AND BIASED EDITING AND PRODUCTION 1) If the documentary was intended to be a balanced piece, why were only three individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement included in the final edit compared to at least thirteen individuals who advocated the official story or the incompetence whitewash? Why were individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement and were interviewed by the BBC for this program, such as former NYPD official Craig Bartmer and Jim Marrs not included in the final edit? Does Guy Smith consider a more than four to one ratio of debunkers to 9/11 skeptics a balanced appraisal? 2) How can Guy Smith justify using the strong implication on numerous occasions throughout the documentary that questioning the official story of 9/11 is insulting and hurtful to the victims? How can he justify such a blatant and cynical attempt to emotionally sway the viewer when Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, is on the record as stating that half of the victims he represents are asking the same questions as 9/11 skeptics? How can Smith justify using such virulent and propagandistic techniques to bury allegations of a 9/11 cover-up in the face of the fact that it was an admitted government cover-up in the very hours after 9/11, the EPA toxic dust scandal, that is now responsible for the debilitating illnesses that are killing off 20% of the first responders, firefighters and other 9/11 heroes? Is Smith's outright attempt to pardon the government of a 9/11 cover-up not itself an insult to the victims in those circumstances? 3) Does producer Guy Smith consider it ethical on the part of a so-called journalist to laugh off and dismiss the claims made by 9/11 skeptics before filming for his documentary has even finished or editing even begun? Can Smith be trusted to produce a balanced documentary when he has already announced his personal bias months before the program is completed or aired? 4) Why did producer Guy Smith decide to devote an inordinate amount of time to theories that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement, such as the Jewish conspiracy angle, the C-130 Pentagon angle and the Shanksville "no plane" angle? Were such topics given dominant coverage even over core issues such as controlled demolition, Building 7, wargames and the stand down, which are uniformly embraced as the most hardcore evidence by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement? Does such a focus on nebulous issues prove the charge leveled at the BBC that Smith's production was nothing more than a strawman hit piece that sought to distort and debunk fringe elements that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement? As the Angirfan blog states, "Imagine a historian trying to prove that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or that George Bush was a good president. The bad historian would select only the parts of the evidence which suited his bad theory; and the bad historian would give lots of time to the spooky sources, and very little time to the honest sources. It was the BBC that led the way in telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now the BBC is trying to support the Bush version of 9-11." 5) Why were 9/11 skeptics afforded only brief, insubstantial and fleeting air time whereas debunkers were given the chance to speak uninterrupted at length? Why were the statements of debunkers subsequently supported in the narrative with documentation yet the statements of 9/11 skeptics were not, even though we know the producer was presented with such documentation. For example, when Alex Jones discussed a desire on the part of the Neo-Cons to have a 9/11 style event in order to launch a pre-planned war, the Project for a New American Century documents which clearly outline an agenda were not shown on screen or even mentioned. Furthermore, Alex Jones was told directly by the producers that any discussion of Operation Northwoods, which is a cornerstone bedrock of the 9/11 truth community, would not be included in the final edit. 6) Why was Dylan Avery filmed listening to the interviewer's question about the coroner's statements while looking nervous? This was a blatant attempt to portray Avery as dishonest and was not mirrored during any of the interviews with the debunkers. 7) Why were the debunkers referred to in sympathetic and sober terms whereas the personalities of the 9/11 skeptics were attacked? For example, Popular Mechanics were called a "no nonsense, nuts and bolts" publication (when in reality it is owned by the original progenitors of yellow journalism, Hearst Publishing) whereas Alex Jones was called an "evangelist" and Dylan Avery a "self-confessed dropout." Surely if this documentary was intended to have been a balanced piece, it would be left to the viewer to make up their mind about the character of the individuals featured in the program and not have it dictated to them by the sardonic female narrator. 8) Why were the 9/11 skeptics filmed and portrayed in an unflattering light whereas the debunkers were lent credence and authority as a result of the style and location of their filming? For example, debunkers were filmed at ground zero, Washington DC and inside military fighters, whereas 9/11 skeptics were filmed in untidy offices and, in the case of Alex Jones, a conference hall that was portrayed as an evangelic religious cult gathering. Why was Jim Fetzer positioned so close to the camera so as to make his gestures and facial expressions seem wild and overexerted? As another blog points out, When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points. t was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism. 9) Why were scientists who represented the debunkers interviewed and yet scientists who represented the 9/11 skeptics, such as Professor Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan, omitted from the documentary? Why did Smith seek to interview former government officials who represented the debunking side and yet omitted any testimony from former government officials representing the 9/11 skeptics side, such as Andreas von Buelow or David Shayler? 10) How can Guy Smith have confidence in his conclusion that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks when even the world's leading expert on Bin Laden now says that the alleged "confession tape" is a fraud and the individual seen in the video is not Bin Laden? I will now quote at length the excellent observations made by the 'Debunking the BBC' blog. This is just a sampling of the extensive rebuttal that is fully sourced and supported at the blog website. There was a strong 'anti-conspiracy' theme throughout the programme. The proponents on the official story were given much more time to discuss their ideas and their opinions, and there was no camerawork or editing to make them appear less than respectable. There were only three truth-seeker proponents and yet they were vastly outnumbered by the proponents of the official story. Popular-Mechanics was introduced as a 'no-nonsense' magazine, despite having it's article disputed and debunked. The programme began with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'. The programme shows us bent WTC steel columns and damaged vehicles in a warehouse, then proceeds onto the official story, whilst showing the alleged hijackers on CCTV at an unnamed airport. Then casualties were discussed, videos of shocked people were shown, and emotional phone calls were aired. This is all emotional manipulation, and it is not related to pure theory, as it does not prove or disprove anything. This did not dissuade the BBC however. There were scientists used to support the official story, but no counter- scientists shown, such as Professor Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin PhD and others [19]. It was continually stated that blaming the government was scapegoating, yet it is precisely that act which was carried out by the mainstream media and the authorities when blaming Bin Laden. When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points. Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change. Avery is shown saying he does not care what the debunkers say - we believe this clip to be out of context, and that Avery was disagreeing with something else. Fetzer was always pictured close-up when talking, to make the viewer uncomfortable and to ensure his gestures were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable - a technique that could be used to subliminally turn the viewers off him. There was no explanation made of Fetzer's conflicts with other prominent members of the truth movement regarding his more unusual theories. Avery and Fetzer were used the most. Alex Jones was not, despite the fact that Alex Jones is one of the more eloquent, respected, and knowledgeable people on these matters. It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism. There were several baseless phrases delivered throughout the show, like: "secrecy breeds conspiracies", it is as if they tried to compare the spread of conspiracies to the spread of bacteria. The X-Files guy said that debunking articles aren't liked by some as they take away those people's 'security blanket', and he said conspiracies are present because we've been lied to before, and that 'cynicism and hopelessness still infects us'. He also said 'we're all storytellers', compares conspiracy theory to 'myth', says conspiracists simplify things, and that conspiracies are pleasing to certain people with a political agenda. The BBC tried to say that believing President Bush was a murderous madman was 'acceptable' to conspiracists, but there was no mention of how widespread that view truly was across society. There was also an attempt to smear conspiracy theory as merely 'Chinese whispers' on the internet which quickly grew to ridiculous proportions. There was a camera shot of a worker outside the Pentagon; he said: 'flawed people need to make a name for themselves', regarding the Pentagon theories. This appeared to smear all truth-seekers, regardless of whether they accepted the Pentagon theory or not, it also wrongly suggested that truth-seekers wanted fame alone. The BBC allowed scientists to do a 3D simulation of the Pentagon crash to support the official story, but a truth-seeker's simulation was not used for the WTC collapse. Apparently the scientists who did the Pentagon crash simulation received hate mail from 'conspiracy theorists', who were overly 'emotional' and accused them of being government assets. This was clearly an attempt to paint truth-seekers as unstable and dishonest. There was focus on a supposed internet rumour that said the X-Files team tried to warn people of 9-11 though the Lone Gunmen WTC episode. It is acknowledged on the internet that this show 'predicted' 9-11, but only in response to official claims that the 9-11 scenario had not been envisioned previously, but not that the X-Files team possessed special information. The programme finished with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'. The 9-11 victim's families are themselves asking for an investigation into 9-11, so it appears the BBC used some victims to support it's hit piece whilst ignoring others. [20] Furthermore the 9-11 first responders were made ill by the New York air which they were told was safe to breathe. [21] Many of the emergency service's dogs also suffered fatal illness for the same reasons. The BBC failed to mention this too. Amidst the myriad of attacks upon its credibility, the BBC failed to mention that Loose Change is being revised to filter out mistakes made and concentrate on infallible evidence. Will Guy Smith release a version 2 of his documentary? Will his propagandistic and manipulative tissue of lies be corrected? Will Smith answer any of the questions listed above? Or will what has become for many the Blair Broadcasting Corporation continue to excel in shoddy research, outright factual fallacy and bias emotional manipulation, while taxing the British public for the courtesy of having to put up with it?
they are here as well: destro, agaviator, beachooser at the least
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
I noticed, yes. But at least here they don't have informal approval by a host to do name calling games and bait like they do there. One poster named Yukon in particular has gone to great trouble to dehumanize and ridicule others as 'moonbats'. And he and others stick to this game and use it to avoid or stall discussion of 9-11. Here you all hold the des-aga-beach set accountable and actually get the to discuss the topic. I can live with disagreement as long as others do so in good faith of promoting the talk on critically important topic like this one.
This version of this forum software is the cat's meow too. It just so cool to be able to correct posts, mail internal mail and other things like you can do here. I don't know why I didn't to this sign up first. Glad I'm here now.
And you are wasting your time making irrelevant and spurious posts, just like that one.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell destro, agaviator, beachooser at the least You just read my bozo list, except for Destro..he hasn't yet said anything to me deserving of it yet.. Time is valuable; shills are expendable. [Shills are not about debate and honest disagreement, they are about spurious posts and disruption] When, on ElPee, my Bozo filter got full with the likes of Yukon and his ilk, I knew the place had been completely compromised. Welcome Corn Flake Girl.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Uh-oh; you're not going to like me. I don't cut BAC any slack. Trust me, he deserves worse. (Ooops, you cited the host doing the name calling - sorry.) I try to keep it contained, however. {:-)) Welcome aboard; I mean that sincerely.
Yeah, well, they haven't gotten their foothold yet...some of these shills are paid shills...others can be hired to join in the disruption. Have you read this?: http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
good faith bump, and welcome to 4
they're not going to get a foothold here. i guarantee it. there's not a 4 poster who can't see what it is. the concensus, so far, is that the opportunity to hone one's debate skills and the entertainment value is welcomed. you have to admit, the witty replies to them is fun. i've done a lot of laughing.
The original "irrelevant and spurious post" was the one speculating that Destro is a "blue collar WTC demolition" type which I replied to.
and the poster Ferret Mike wrote I hate America yet he is willing to - nay - he knows in his heart that his fellow Americans - the salt of the earth blue collar American types at that would mine the WTC and set of demolition charges. Who really hates Americans if that is what they think blue collar American types are capable of? This is the paradox of their nutso thinking - for the WTC buildings to be demolished with explosives you require so many people - including civilians with demolition know how - janitor types, electricians and so on that you pretty much consider everyone in the demolition and construction field a suspect - including the engineers and architects who had to plan out the demolition charge placements by creating computer models and so on. And trust them not to black mail the govt or leak info and so on. So we may expect what? mass suicides and unexplained deaths in these fields soon? Maybe they were all military men and killed over in Iraq - hope they did not see any B grade Hollywood thrillers and created a evidence trail in case they died and it can be mailed to the press or published online. Booga booga!
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
India and China are on good terms with the USA. They both are dependent on the USA right now for their economy to continue expanding and not collapsing. They would be foolish to reveal that the USA is lying about the true causes of the WTC collapses. If they did that the dollar would crash and their huge amount of reserves held in dollars would then also be worthless. With the dollar being the world's reserve currency it makes it hard for any nation that relies on trade with the USA and has huge amounts of their reserves in dollars to upset the status quo. However not all structural engineers have agreed with the USA government's theory of the collapse, just most of them. The ones that have disagreed tend to be those that are retired and thus it will not affect them financially to disagree.
God is always good! I would love to read who they are and what they have to say.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Do you think Counterpunch/Cockburns are aliens?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
"Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp Hayden: "By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02] Yet, your side's demolition *expert*, Danny Jowenko, who said the WTC7 was a demolition (after being shown selected video by conspiracists) is on record stating that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were clearly NOT controlled demolitions. This is completely false, Ricky. The core did not bear the ENTIRE vertical load of the building. In fact, the outer wall columns carried a substantial portion of that load as pointed out in source after source. Here are a few: *********** http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/elaboration.htm "Cad Digest ... snip ... G Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer, December 13, 2001 ... snip ... Structural Load Distribution Before Impact. Overview The section of [1] entitles “Details of the buildings “ and presented on pages 2-5 therein provide an overview of the structural system used. In summary, this comprised: * A closely spaced perimeter frame around the four external walls, providing lateral strength and stiffness and also providing vertical support to its tributary area of the floor slab. * A cluster of compression load carrying columns in the core, forming the principal gravity load carrying system and supporting the vertical load from half the open plan floor system plus all the structural systems, services and components within the core. * A light-weight, long spanning floor system running from perimeter frame to outside edge of core. This floor system comprised bar joists as girders (primary beams) supporting secondary joists which carried a 100 mm thick light-weight concrete slab on profiled steel deck. The presence of secondary joists connected into the bar joists and made integral with a composite slab (see Fig 6 from [1]) made for a light, stiff floor system with good capacity for two-way action under severe fire conditions. ************ From page XXXVI of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf " The exterior walls were composed of box-shaped welded steel columns and spandrel beams comprised of a steel plate. Each building face consisted of 59 columns spaced at 3 ft 4 in. on center. As part of the framed-tube system, the exterior columns were designed structurally such that they resisted the total lateral loads and about 50 percent of gravity loads." *************** The problem is that it was severely damaged, exposed to temperatures that would significantly impact the strength, lost buckling resistance as the floors sagged and then was damaged as the sagging floors pulled on the outer columns. And then once that floor failed, the loads from impact were far in excess of any engineered capability. You never did get around to running that simple calculation I suggested, did you, Ricky.
Thank you for letting me know what your bozo count was though. I have no way of knowing unless you spill the beans like you did above. If your count had been below 40 you would have screamed and called me a liar. 40+ is a heck of a bozo count.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Tell me, christine ... Do you honestly think a poster who is completely wrong about the load distribution in the towers understands "fundamental"?
Do a google on "context", you'll be amazed.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
So your extensive *experience* tells you that tall steel framed buildings are rigid enough to "tip over"? ROTFLOL!
Remember what you were told about name calling and your other kookery.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Do you honestly think a poster who is completely wrong about the load distribution in the towers understands "fundamental"? you shouldn't whine to mom when someone scores a point on you this way. this isn't LP. good thing too, or you would have been booted for being a kook.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Careful, them bedwetters are a-scared of real-life kooks. You know, the ones out on public golf courses wearing two year old sweaters...shameful!
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
Welcome to 4UM. I like your nick, though if it is based on th song you should have chosen 'Raisin Girl.' In the song, the 'Corn Flake Girl' is the conservative giving her friends who thought she was multi-cultural and liberal, "the yo heave ho." But, I'm sure you knew that if you know Tori Amos' work and knew what you were doing. Bet you could get banned from Free Republic merely for liking "spacey Tori the lib" too. ;-D Tori Amos - Cornflake Girl - Soundstage
if the building is rigid enough to stand up, then it is rigid enough to tip over. it doesn't take any special experience to figure that out - it just takes a functioning brain.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
do you have the corn flake dance video still around? i couldn't find it.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
do you do the corn flake dance to psych yourself up for your role as an internet flake?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Several Corn Flake dances:
FALSE. Why do you find it necessary to lie about what NIST states? New York Times, December 3, 2003 " ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." Still, Dr. Sunder said, "The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse." According to an alternative theory of the collapse, the planes that smashed into the towers damaged the towers' vertical structural columns so severely that the buildings were virtually certain to fall. In that view, none of the buildings' many structural novelties — the towers were daring engineering innovations in their day — would have played a significant role in the collapses. Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below. Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said. "That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully." ... snip ... The studies of the floor trusses and the design of the towers are just two elements of the investigation, which is carrying out computer calculations of the collapses, rebuilding pieces of the towers in order to test them in real fires, and piecing together a highly detailed chronology of the response to the attack. In one set of laboratory tests concerning the floor trusses, researchers used earthquake simulators to violently shake assemblages much like the ceilings in the twin towers. The shaking was meant to simulate the impact of the aircraft. The findings, said Richard Gann, a senior research scientist at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, showed that many of the fire-protecting ceiling tiles near the impact probably crumbled, exposing the undersides of the trusses directly to the fires."
ROTFLOL!
I agree with you. That is precisely the point I've been trying to make to these folks since day one. They simply won't listen.
your snippet in 329 uses the word 'probably' 3 times. this makes it useless to us. we are truth-seekers.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
ROTFLOL!
do you have a source documenting that you are a qualified airline pilot? and I don't want to see the word 'probably' in that source. and you still haven't answered my question in 332.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
BeAChooser, it seems that some parts of the 9/11 alternate conspiracy theory (technically I am in the conspiracy camp - I just don't accept the demolition theory) that seems to have died on the vine is the theory that the airplanes were drones and the passengers were diverted to other locals. The only surviving part of the drone theory is for those that hold that the Pentagon was hit by a drone which is an improvement since they once said all 4 planes were drones. So the last remaining conspiracy theory is the demolition in conjunction with the planes crashing. Kind of funny but even in that group there is a sub group that is thought of as being way out there - drones - come on that's crazy talk.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The president does not
agree with you BAC - see 2'nd photo down taken of Bush at his ranch in TX.
well BAC! that t-shirt does not say 'probably'. and the allies did bomb
Dresden in WW2. What better authority do you need than the president - 911 was
an inside job. if you criticize MY PRESIDENT I'm going to call Homeland
Security.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Perhaps because this is false? Perhaps for the same reason there wasn't testimony from Deputy Chief Peter Hayden saying that "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse"? Just to clarify things, Mr Rodruigez was not a EYEwitness to any underground explosions. Perhaps because he never said "pull the building"? Perhaps because 99.99% of demolitions experts would have laughed at the broadcast if they had? Perhaps because structural engineers convinced the BBC that compressed air caused by the collapse was blowing out windows? Consider yourself lucky. If they had based the percentage of coverage on a quota representative of the actual ratio of experts who believe the "official" scenario to those who don't, there wouldn't have been a single 9/11 truth member included. Guy Smith was in fact overly (and foolishly) generous. Perhaps because some aspects of the 9/11 truth movement's accusation are? They are also hurtful to the thousands of people from all walks of life that are also indirectly accused of having participated in or helped cover up a mega mass murder. Gee ... aren't those all theories that are frequently espoused here at FD4UM? Perhaps because conspiracists didn't give ANY air time for opposing views in such gems as "Loose Change", "9/11 Mysteries" and assorted other *films* promoted widely by conspiracists. In fact, would I be wrong if I guessed that far more people have seen Loose Change than Guy Smith's production? I bet not. Actually, there are far more effective ways to make Mr Avery look dishonest. I'd say he got off lucky. Perhaps it was just payback for the way skeptics about the 9/11 *Truth* Movement have been painted by the conspiracists in their productions. ROTFLOL! I'd say based on what I've seen and read from them, that description pretty much captures their (and their followers) attitude. Perhaps because Jones and Ryan refused to be interviewed when told that they would be introduced as (1) a expert in sub-atomic particles and cold fusion and (2) an expert in water treatment? Just guessing ... That's true, isn't it? Just curious ... what simulation is this?
How does one go about correcting posts?
Nothing like exposing yourself to only one side of a topic to get at the truth. ROTFLOL!
I would press the 'edit' button if I were you. But what I want to know is ... are you going to avoid my questions in 332 &334?
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
MY PRESIDENT says that 911 was an inside job. and BAC says it wasn't. that is enough to make me mad. especially since BAC won't debate the facts with me.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
>ROTFLOL! Well it is a mystery. I could be like you, and decide to accept most structural engineers word that the towers were brought down just like the government theory says. But I would rather think for myself and come to my own conclusions based on the facts and evidence that is available in the public domain than to accept anyone's word as gold especially since much of the government's theory seems to directly contradict what I know about physics. Not all structural engineers agree that the towers did not come down with explosives, so it could very well be that most structural engineers either do not have a clue to the real reason they came down, or do not want to admit the real reason they think they came down for fear of hurting their career options. In either of these two cases they would more and likely go with the government's theory to not upset their employment opportunities in the future with projects relying wholly or in part on government financing. The other structural engineers who sincerely believe the government's theory are the ones I am most concerned about. I wouldn't want to ever go in any building those people design.
God is always good! this is what really happened on sept 11 2001. Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I would imagine that banks lend money to real estate developers for projects who hire design consultants to design buildings. and some of those consultants are the structural engineers. What if an engineer publicly associates himself with the truth? Magically the developers don't hire him any more.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Which explains why so many have leaped into bozo mode. ROTFLOL! Well then, christine, you'll love this ... http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/11/video-south-park-spoofs-truther-morons/
Curious. And how many would that be Ricky? One? ROTFLOL!
Oh ... is that right, Summa Cum Laude? ROTFLOL!
ROTFLOL!
I'm so relieved that you haven't put me on bozo. I was in a depression. thanks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Red, please add width = 731 before the final > when posting large images. Otherwise the thread text margins get messed up.
And where would that edit button be? Perhaps you should use it to correct the width of the images you posted?
True. There is one. ROTFLOL! You probably do every day. Unless you are a hermit.
Ok, I am willing to admit I was wrong about this. But the core could have supported the entire vertical load since it was over engineered. It wasn't designed to support the lateral load, but it would only have to support the lateral load if the perimeter columns were gone, and only a relatively small number were severed by the planes so that shouldn't have been a factor in the collapse.
God is always good! You probably do every day. Unless you are a hermit. I said the ones who sincerely believe the government's theory of the collapse of the WTC towers. There can't be too many that sincerely believe that story, at least I hope not.
God is always good! If you think the equation to prove the WTC buildings collapsed according to the government's theory can be done with a simple equation then why the heck haven't you or one of those structural engineers that agrees with the government's ludicrous theory done it yet?
God is always good! >True. There is one. ROTFLOL! The other structural engineers who sincerely believe the government's theory are the ones I am most concerned about. I wouldn't want to ever go in any building those people design. >You probably do every day. Unless you are a hermit. The structural engineers that believe the government's theory must not know that concrete doesn't turn to dust and sever massive box columns just because it falls the height one floor's distance in the WTC towers. If they don't know that then it is about time to start educating these dunces about the facts of the matter. Here is a picture of a bridge in Lebanon that was hit with Israeli missiles last summer. Note, it fell further than the height of one floor of the WTC towers and had a missile propelling it down at a faster than gravity rate, yet the concrete did not turn to dust upon hitting the ground. Supposedly the concrete in the WTC towers turned to dust after falling the height of a mere floor's distance with only gravity pulling it down. And supposedly even though it turned to dust it somehow managed to sever all 47 core columns every few floors.
God is always good! You are reduced to calling me a liar because your handler 911 debunking sites
either don't have all the information, or they are hoping that no one reveals
all the contradictions in the report. One more time, you must READ not
ccp. All information isn't on the internet. Books and papers can be bought or
sent for in the mail also. There are no lies or falsehoods. When I quote
the NIST report, its the final draft release in the late summer of 2005 not a
2003 NYT article. NIST states that the majority of damage and heating was
directly in the impact area. The problem with the NIST report is that it is
full of contradictions that have no real scientific forensic proof. NIST
states that majority airframe that impacted the WTC 2 was crushed in 0.2
seconds by floor slabs and the 100,000 psi outer perimeter columns. The NIST
final report refers to these sagging floors as hanging floors along the east
face of the WTC 2. There are multiple photos that show the hanging floors
before collapse and right after impact. There appears to be no difference
between the two photos in the elapsed timeframe. NIST concluded that while
the impacts MAY have destroyed and removed the ceiling tiles from the direct
impact area the vibration played no role in shaking off the 2.2-2.5 inches of
upgraded SFRM, and NIST left this out of its final draft. Why don't you
ccp and discuss NISTs shotgun experiment on how SFRM can be widely dislodged?
Or how it was quickly inserted at the very end in a 12 page add on. Just a
layman looking at that experiment would be questioning how that would
translate to the impacts. NIST treated this investigation like a research
project. All physical evidence and experimentation was disgarded for computer
modeling. Computer simulations are not proof or evidence of anything. The
NIST report is a cross between voodoo/witch doctor science and the
Roadrunner/Wiley Coyote cartoons.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
The corn flake who posts here?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Red, I'm going to edit out your huge jpgs in post #336. It's thrown off the whole thread.
I didn't say equation. I said calculation. But now that you mention it ... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf ROTFLOL!
SKY: Notice that I'm the only qualified airline pilot illustrating the undeniable aviation fraud, involved in 9-11. BAC: ROTFLOL! I'm Captain qualified on the B-727, B-737, B-747, B-757, B-767 & DC-10. That doesn't meet the test of "qualified?" Or, if there is another such qualified pilot speaking out - loudly - on the corruption of 9-11; please give me a contact.
I apologize. In keeping with my new approach to dealing with you folks, I shouldn't express an opinion that you deliberately posted false information. I must give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you just didn't read the NIST reports but read what you posted at some conspiracy website. Perhaps a pretty girl caught your eye at a critical moment while you were reading it. But regardless, what you posted was not true. But the impact area extends through the building to the other side. You wished to give folks the impression it is only where the entrance hole was located. Actually, it doesn't say that. I says that the structural elements shredded the plane ... and at the same time, the plane did great damage to the structural elements ... indeed, severing many columns in the core area well away from the entrance hole. I challenge you to post a photo that shows sagging floors right after impact. I bet you can't do it. You are again stating misinformation. By all means, post the exact statements and URL the reports where you get this claim. Here's what it says in the final report: "aircraft debris resulted in substantial damage to the nonstructural building contents (partitions and workstations) and also in dislodging of fireproofing." "The extent of dislodged fireproofing was estimated by considering fireproofing damage only to structural components in the direct pat of debris." I suggest you take a closer look at the results of Project 2 of NCSTAR1-6: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf You will find it says this: "insulation damage estimates were limited to areas subject to direct debris impact. Other sources of floor and insulation damage from the aircraft impact and fires (e.g., insulation damage due to shock and subsequent vibrations as a result of aircraft impact or concrete slab cracking and spalling as a result of thermal effects) were not included in the floor models." That doesn't say what you claimed they said about vibrations. And neither does this, from the same final report: "since NIST was not able to establish robust criteria to predict the extent of vibration-induced dislodgement, insulation dislodged by inertial effects other than that dislodged by direct debris impact was ignored and not included in the analyses." And neither does this: "The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored possibly damaged and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact. A robust criteria to generate a coherent pattern of vibration-induced dislodging could not be established due to (1) the numerical noise inherent in the acceleration time-histories on structural components obtained from the aircraft impact analyses, and (2) lack of data on the strength of insulation materials under such a high rate of loading with sharp peaks in a very short duration. However, there were indications that insulation damage occurred over a larger region than that estimated. Photographic evidence showed insulation dislodged from exterior columns not directly impacted by debris (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C). The towers underwent a period of strong impact loading fro about .6 to .7 s. Further, video analysis showed that WTC 2 vibrated for over 4 minutes after aircraft impact with amplitudes in excess of 20 inches at the roof top (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A). First person interviews of building occupants indicated that building vibrations due to aircraft impact were strong enough to dislodge ceiling tiles and collapse walls throughout the height of both WTC towers and to cause nearly all elevators to stop functioning (NIST NCSTAR 1-7)." So it looks like you are completely wrong in claiming that NIST said " vibration played no role in shaking off" insulation. Did you just fail to see the comments above? Did you get your claim from some other source? I wouldn't want to think you deliberately lied to us, Mark. Really, I wouldn't want to think that.
It's such a shame they are not allowing you to pilot them any longer. Or has your situation changed for the better?
I'm qualified, or I'm not. {Yeah, I'm qualified - though unemployed.)
Well dang, then. I flew a Cessna 150 for an hour or so. Was so much fun. The instructor said I was a natural. Course that was in the air on a nice day and I sure didn't land the beast.
Ha, ha! Again, attacks, name calling, etc.. I thought you were not going to dissect posts word by word, or line by line or paragraph by paragraph. You love playing with word and sentence semantics. Old, tired tricks are hard to break. 4UM is my home field. Its my rules, my ball, my game. If you don't like it, don't reply. You will get nothing as far as sources. Zero. If you think I'm going to help point you in any direction you are mistaken. In the NIST, there are so many sections, chapters, add ons, project reports, appendixes and supplementary documents, it a giant jigsaw mess. The search engine dosen't even work well. The longer you carry this out, the more exposure the NIST gets as nothing more than a computer simulated research project. Out of all that you ccp'ed, all one needs to read is this "NIST was not able to establish robust criteria to predict the extent of vibration-induced dislodgement". Which means there was no proof that vibration "widely dislodged" the SFRM. In its severe computer simulations, NIST removes all the SFRM from the impact hole through the debris path. Even though it has no evidence of how the SFRM could be widely dislodged by shearing or any other means in the debris path. No proof, no evidence, the hypothesis doesn't exist. NIST tried to prove that shearing from debris may remove the SFRM. The shotgun/ wooden box test NIST ran proves nothing and actually proves how adhesive and tough the spray on fireproofing was. Even without SFRM, the time the office fires burned in the area of limited outer girder bowing, wasn't long enough to raise steel temperatures. The limited heating and suspected loss of SFRM to the perimeter columns played no role in the collapse. All steel tested from the fire zones bare this out. Aircraft impact areas and debris path are totally different. NIST could only see around 3 meters into the towers. Any computer modeling of a debris path is complete speculation. NIST had problems with the computer simulations from the very start. No matter what airliner impact case NIST plugged into the model A,B,C or D, no simulation produced the observable events of impact and the debris path. That means ALL cases were incorrect. This also means the modeling of the workstations and the inner area of the towers were wrong, and the impact simulation were also incorrect. NIST still chose to go with the most severe case because the others, even though no more or less correct, resulted in collapse, while the others did not. Another take I have on the NIST is that, just in case, the real truth about 911 is revealed, NIST has its back covered. There is enough truth in the report, but the pre determined conclusions were politically influenced. So, all NIST would have to claim is, we had the data, but we couldn't "connect the dots". Sounds familiar. The government fairytale is in serious trouble. Over 80% believe there is a cover up. You and others are losing, and losing badly.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
I agree. There's always the dumb ones and the brainwashed ones. The others are complicit knowingly or unwittingly. Begininng with BushBakerSaudiCheneyInc, they deserve a traitor's consequence, at the least.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
BAC is dependent upon the spam-attack. The troll is hungry - and desperate. He's poisoning the forum, as when any researcher - of any caliber - comes here, they see vitriolic controversy and don't take anything on the forum seriously. If a professional researcher comes here, their editor shoots down the source. That being said, if I were Christine, I'd ban BAC and erase related postings - making him the proverbial un-person.
hehehe I had my run ins with YouCon. A bunch of us have. I still go there once in a while to ruffle some feathers. :)
Didn't I already prove this to be a bogus claim at LP? You showed us pictures claiming to show sagging floors. If they show sagging floors, then the floors have to be disconnected from the perimeter columns. If they are disconnected from the perimeter columns then they cannot exert any inward force on those columns. So which is the lie chooser? That the pictures show sagging floors, or that sagging floors pulled in the columns?
BeAChooser? i don't see him. ;) (when it gets to the point where no one here wants to feed him, he'll have to go elsewhere or starve)
I can't either. I don't know who you're talking about. :) [Some have already "banned" him Skydrifter. When he gets tired of talking to himself, he'll move along. He's admitted to over 40 bozos.]
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell hehehehe. checkmate. :P
BAC? Who dat?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
ROTFLOL! BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong! If you're going to post BS at least post BS that doesn't start lying in in the first paragraph. LMFAO!!!!
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong! If you're going to post BS at least post BS that doesn't start lying in in the first paragraph. LMFAO!!!! You tell 'em! LOL!!! The open air [dirty burn] burning temp of kerosene [Jet-A] is 260-315 °C (500-599 °F). The WTC was indeed a dirty burn. Hardley enough to melt steel. LOL! My best friend is a fireman. He's been in house fires so hot the TV completely melted...as did most everything else. Amazing how those WOODEN house wall beams, even though scorched and blackened, still remained standing after the roof collapsed in that house fire. Ain't no way in hell a fire is gonna' melt that building and make it collapse into its own footprint...3 times!
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Here ... just so readers understand the logic used by NIST ... excerpts from http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR 1-2.pdf (the final NIST report on this subject): *********** 5.2.3 Damage to Fire Protection for Structural Steel The aircraft impact simulation models included not only the structural components of the towers and aircraft, but also representations of the partition walls and building contents and furnishings (modular office workstations). The results of the analyses included damage to the partition walls, workstations, and structural elememts. Such damage estimates were crucial for the estimation of areas with dislodged insulation as explained in this section. Estimates of the post-impact condition of the fire protection was based on criteria that considered damage to structural components, building partitions, and furnishings along with the debris field as calculated from the aircraft impact analyses. Estimates for the extent of dislodged insulation considered insulation damage to structural components only in the direct path of debris, as follows: - Core columns had sprayed fire-resistance material (SFRM), gypsum wallboard enclosures, or a combination of both. Insulation was assumed to be dislodged from the columns if they were subject to direct debris impact that could fail wall partitions in the immediate vicinity. The representative bending strength of building partitions in the impact simulations was 500 psi (NIST NCSTAR 1-2), while the representative adhesion and cohesive strength of SFRM measured in the laboratory by NIST was generally less than 12 psi (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A). Gypsum column enclosures were also assumed to have a lesser representative strength than wall columns. To consider that insulation on core columns was damaged, the predicted debris impact had to be sufficient to fail building partitions immediately in front of the columns. If the wall partitions remained intact in the core area after interactions with the debris field, then the insulation on core columns behind these partitions was assumed to remain intact. If wall partitions were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then insulation on core columns behind these partitions was assumed to be dislodged over that floor height. - To consider that insulation on exterior columns was damaged, the debris impact had to damage or destroy office furnishings (modular office workstations) adjacent to the columns. If the office furnishings remained intact after interaction with the debris field, then the insulation on the inside face of the exterior columns behind these furnishings was assumed to remain intact. If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed after interaction with the debris field, then the insulation on the inside face of the exterior columns in the vicinity was assumed to be dislodged over that floor height. The other three faces of the exterior columns were protected by windows and/or aluminum cladding and were assumed to have no insulation damage. - To consider that SFRM on floor trusses was damaged, the debris impact had to be sufficient to damage or destroy room furnishings (modular office furniture) in the same area of the affected floor. If the room furnishings remained intact, then the insulation on the steel trusses above the furnishings was assumed to remain intact. If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then the insulation on the steel trusses above these furnishings was assumed to be dislodged. The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored damage and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact (BAC - the rest of this paragraph was quoted earlier but basically it indicates that photographic evidence shows that vibrations were sufficient to dislodge insulation from structural elements not impacted by debris.) **************** Anyone interested can read NCSTAR 1-6 and will find figures showing the damage zones in the aircraft impact model and figures showing the areas where fireproofing was assumed removed in subsequent the temperature/structural models. I know you will all rush out to read the report for yourself. Oh, so it is your *expert* opinion that debris which could destroy partitions and structural members in the analysis models could not remove sprayed on fireproofing with measured adhesive and cohesive strength of less than 12 psi? You provide more evidence that you haven't a clue what you are talking about and that you haven't actually read the NIST documents. First, the steel tests actually validate the NIST modeling because the tested specimens did not come for the regions in the simulations where they found the highest temperatures. They came from regions in the models where similar temperatures to those determined for those test specimens were calculated. Second, the steel test procedures used were limited to specimens subject to relatively low temperatures (roughly 250 C) because they depended on paint still being on the specimens. Third, the detailed analyses done by NIST and reported in NCSTAR 1-6 clearly show that the temperatures in structural members without fireproofing were indeed high enough for long enough to seriously weaken those structural members. Right. You are such an *expert*. False. Just thought I'd let your readers know they they probably should go read the NIST reports before believing you or quoting you. They do that and they are liable to embarrass themselves. The impact modeling is discussed in great detail in http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR 1-2.pdf. Allow me to quote from that report for WTC 1: "The exterior wall damage was the one structural system for which direct visual evidence of the impact damage was available. Therefore, the comparison of the calculated and observed exterior wall damage provided a partial validation of the analysis methodologies used in the global impact analyses. A comparison of the north exterior wall observed and calculated damage from the base case WTC 1 global impact analysis is shown in Figure E-28. The comparison of the calculated and observed damage indicated that the geometry and location of the impact damage zone were in good agreement. This agreement in the position and shape of the impact damage served to validate the geometry of the aircraft model, including the aircraft orientation, trajectory, and flight distortions of the wings." "The comparison also indicated a good agreement in the magnitude and mode of impact damage on the exterior wall. The exterior wall completely failed in the regions of the fuselage, engine, and fuel-filled wing section impacts. Damage to the exterior wall was observed all the way out to the wing tips, but the exterior columns were not completely failed in the outer wing and vertical stabilizer impact regions. Failure of the exterior columns occurred both at the bolted connections between the column ends and at various locations in the column depending on local severity of the impact load and the proximity of the bolted connection to the impact. The agreement of both the mode and magnitude of the impact damage served to partially validate the constitutive and damage modeling of the aircraft and exterior wall of the tower." Now here is what the report says about base case WTC 2 analysis: "The comparison of the calculated and observed damage indicated that the geometry and location of the impact damage were in good agreement. This agreement served to validate the geometry of the aircraft model, including the aircraft orientation, trajectory, and flight distortions of the wings. The agreement of both the mode and magnitude of impact damage served to partially validate the constitutive and damage modeling of the aircraft and exterior wall of the tower." And for the more severe case analysis: "The calculated damage to the south wall from the more severe WTC 2 global impact analysis is shown in Figure E-54. A comparison of the south exterior wall observed (Figure E-46a) and calculated (Figure E-54) damage from the more severe WTC 2 global impact analysis indicated that the calculated and observed magnitude and mode of impact damage were still in good agreement." And then there is this from the same report ***************** "The observables available to help validate the global impact analyses included the following: - Damage to the building exterior (exterior walls and floors in the immediate vicinity of the impact) documented by photographic evidence. - Aircraft debris external to the towers (landing gear for WTC 1 and a landing gear and an engine for WTC 2) as documented by photographic evidence. - Eyewitness accounts from survivors who were inside the towers (blocked or passable stairwells). An example of such comparison was a detailed comparison between the observed and calculated damage (from the base case analysis) to the north wall of WTC 1 and the south wall of WTC 2. The comparison included the mode, magnitude, and location of failure around the hole creatd by the aircraft impact. The color code included in the following: (1) green circles indicating a proper match of the failure mode and magnitude between the observed and calculated damage, (2) yellow circles indicating a proper match in the failure mode, but not the magnitude, (3) red circles indicating that the failure mode and magnitude predicted by the calculation did not match that was observed, and (4) black circles indicating that the observed damage was obscured by smoke, fire or other factors. The comparisons shown in Figure E-62 and Figure E-63 for WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively, indicate the overall agreement with the observed damage was very good." Not all the observables were perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behavior of the aircraft breakup and subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models. In general, however, the results of the simulations matched these observables reasonably well." ******************** So again, we find you aren't being totally accurate about your description of NIST findings. Why do we continue to encounter this problem, Mark? Well it would appear they are too busy following the Spears and Smith stories to fact check what they are being told by folks like you.
BAC, your spam has no significant effect here. Suck up to Goldi & get back to her cesspool. A stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down with controlled demolition - you can't escape that. Follow the money; same story.
No, you didn't and I invite everyone to go visit this thread on LP where we discussed this: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=158333&Disp=All&#C28 In fact, since you want to discuss topics you and I have discussed at LP, here are some more that I'm sure readers may find interesting ... if not entertaining: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148183&SC=260&EC=299#C283 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148667&Disp=149#C149 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148755&SC=81&EC=120#C101 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=151092&Disp=49#C49 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=151407&SC=217&EC=253#C217 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=152102&Disp=145#C145 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=153723&Disp=168#C168 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=153837&Disp=91#C91 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=154158&Disp=20#C20 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=154472&Disp=7#C7 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=155009&Disp=59#C59 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=155166&Disp=49#C49 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=155433&Disp=97#C97 Read those threads, folks. Read them in the order they are listed. They show a side of critter I bet you didn't know ... A distortion of what was shown and said. The images do show floors disconnected from the perimeter wall ON ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. But OBVIOUSLY, they are connected on others (otherwise, they wouldn't sag). One of those connected sides is the side, by the way, where the outer wall was observed bowing inward.
Like I said to SKYDRIFTER previously: I distinctly remember whole threads devoted to the topic of my not daring to come over here and debate you folks. And as any reader of this forum can see, I've been very courteous. No labels, no name calling. Just sourced facts and logic that don't seem to jibe with some of the articles and *facts* FD4UMers have been posting. Now FD4UMers could debate those facts and logic with credible sourced articles and logic of your own. But you are choosing not to do that. Instead, the general response is to use the bozo filter and, in some cases, call for my banning. Along with numerous posts throwing out mountains of adhominems directed at me. That's rather suggestive of a group that does not want to be challenged about what they claim and believe. Or a group that can't compete debate-wise.
I always find it hilarious when a poster who admits to only reading one side of a debate, does this. The bozo filter is aptly named, perhaps.
Putting aside the fact that melting steel is not part of the collapse scenario, let me just point out to everyone reading this thread that jet fuel wasn't the only material to burn in the WTC towers. And fires can get quite hot even without jet fuel as a starter. The Windsor Tower fire in Madrid, for example, had MEASURED temperatures of over 1400 F. And then there are sources like this: http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html Too bad that IndieTX will never see that website. He bozo'd himself.
My only concern is, will we have enough rope? ;)
Why would you bring up Madrid? One steel-framed building burned for 18 hours and never fell. Then another steel-framed building burned all day, and as you say burned hotter than WTC1 WTC2 or WTC7. fell. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html Before examining the partial collapse of the Windsor building more closely, we note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in fires. The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible. A closer look at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these were a fraction of the dimensions, and spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building. 4 The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire: Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush quite tame idea, unless of course it's a public spectacle in Washington Square with a proclaimed National Holiday...we don't have any in March.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Well said. 80 something floors being "pancaked" would add much more time than 1 sec. to the time in which the roof goes to the ground. And when you watch building 7 falling with the entire facade falling together as one uniform piece it becomes obvious to anyone with and IQ in the 3 digits.
Why? Because so many are filtering you.
ROTFLOL! Being isolated over here at FD4UM, I guess you never heard that the structure had a reinforced concrete frame from the 17th floor on down and the steel framed portions of it (above the 17th floor) all collapsed within about 4 hours of the fire reaching those portions. ******** http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095 The Madrid Windsor Tower Building Fire, 14-15 February 2005 * Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. * Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse. * The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors. * The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns. * NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout. * This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction. ... snip ... The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor. ... snip ... Because of the height of the structure and the extent of the blaze, firefighters could only mount a containment operation and ensure that neighbouring buildings were protected. The fire eventually finished 26 hours later, leaving a complete burn-out above the fifth floor. The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. ************* You won't find the truth on a foundation of misinformation, robin.
Try reading the entire post. I mentioned both buildings and linked to good info on both.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Try understanding that the Windsor Tower was not just a steel framed building. Try understanding that ALL the portions of the Windsor Tower that relied on a steel frame did in fact collapse. Try understanding that the Windsor Tower fire was not started by jet fuel (unlike the WTC), the building wasn't damaged by an impact (unlike the WTC), the fires were fought by firemen (unlike the WTC) and what burned was just office contents (same stuff found in the WTC towers). You will never find the truth on a foundation of misinformation.
Read the links I posted, it explains the difference between the structures. YET, that building only had a partial collapse, and it took ALL DAY.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush You are suggesting I read a conspiracy website to get the facts about the Windsor Towers? My experience is that is not a good idea because you can't find the truth starting with misinformation. ROTFLOL! You can't change the facts, robin. The structure was mostly reinforced concrete and ALL the portions that relied on a steel frame collapsed. Those are veriable facts. The Windsor Tower is hard evidence against the conspiracy crowd. The fires were hotter than is claimed the WTC could possibly have been. The steel collapsed. Something the conspiracy crowd claims is not possible in building fires. The steel collapsed as rapidly as the fire protection coatings allowed.
Yeah, you are right there chooser, it is hard evidence that the government's story is a lie.
God is always good! No, that's what you call a lie chooser. That's about all you seem to do here is lie. You have zero credibility around here.
God is always good! You traiterous piece of shit - you think you're entitled to anything less than max contempt? Or do you pretend to be a "gentleman" traitor?? Deal with it! I hold to my promise of reporting you as a traitor, as soon as the Bush Cabal loses its clout! (Add Goldi, of course!)
Again, lots of ccp face summary paragraphs, with a few nuggets of truth and deception. When NIST uses the words, "could", "predicted debris impact", "representations", "estimations of areas", "estimates", "considered damage" and "debris field calculated from aircraft impact analyses", "partial validation" and "assumed" are nothing more than computer simulated data with no scientific evidence of any kind. The NIST report is a blur between reality and computer modeling. Again, NIST has no proof or evidence or scientific experimentation, of how aircraft debris and office furnishings, convert from shotgun blasts, according to NISTs experiment, and shear and scrape all the SFRM off of trusses, steel decks, steel columns etc.., in all directions and certain angles over 3-5 floors of office space, or in its "computer boundaries" of 9 floors. It would or may take 100,000 shotgun blasts. One would think that NIST would have done EXTENSIVE testing proving this hypothesis. NOPE. At the very end of the report, at the LAST minute, NIST inserted a 12 page addendum. In it, the report contained a test that consisted of firing a SHOTGUN, at a wooden box, with a piece steel sprayed with SFRM. 15 shots were preformed at a FLAT piece of steel, not a steel column or a coupling with all its shape difference, or not a steel deck. NIST also shotgun tested a truss sprayed with fireproofing. NIST also had to widely vary the shotgun degree angle to get the removal of SFRM. If the angle wasn't just right, the fireproofing did not come off, or it was a very, very small limited area. There is no energy for this according to MIT engineers. Calculations done have the airliners basically expending ALMOST all their energy on impact and crushing themselves on the girders and floors slabs. There was no energy left to remove all the SFRM from 1,000's and 1,000's of square feet of the towers. As the aircraft debris mixed with the office workstations the psi force would considerably diminish. The most force would have been in the immediate impact hole area. Here is another question for everyone reading this thread. If all this aircraft and office debris sheared, scraped and widely dislodged all the SFRM with all this psi force, why wouldn't the impacts clear out all the office workstations and furnishings? If all this debris is cleared out, then what is burning? Where is all the heating? What's burning to raise temperatures according to their severe computer models? Not jet fuel, since it was burned off in minutes. NIST states that the towers were fuel poor and ventilation limited. Where is all the thermal heating of the steel coming from? NIST states that the fires had around 20 minutes of fuel as the transient fires moved, but burned for around 40 minutes near the bowing areas. What's burning? Modern office furnishings are fire rated, so they are mostly fire retardant. NIST states the core had no combustibles to burn and no fuel loading, so what raised core temps in their severe computer models? NIST severe computer modeling of interior "damage" consisted of, if a workstation had an estimated 5% damage, then the WHOLE workstation and SFRM was REMOVED and considered 100% destroyed. ANY damage at all was 100% in its severe comuter simulations. If a chair was TIPPED over, it was 100% damage. In NISTs workstation burn tests, NIST ran twelve physical tests and only revealed one. In the one test, NIST DOUBLED the known fuel in the area and OVER ventilates the fires to get air/gas temps of around 1800. This then is what NIST plugs into it severe simulation. This isn't science, its witchcraft. NIST could only see 3 meters in, NIST could only calculate observable EXTERIOR impact hole damage of the towers. Berkley engineers got access to the steel from the impact zones and stated the steel preformed great and the towers preformed as designed. NIST could never duplicate the INTERIOR debris path or workstation layouts. No matter if NIST ran its less, moderate base or more severe computer simulations, NIST could NEVER duplicate the aircraft debris path or the complex interior layout of the towers. WTC 1 had landing gear eject out from opposite the impact hole and the WTC 2 had a engine, landing gear and some fuselage exit opposite the impact hole. NONE of the computer simulation re-enacted those events. This means ALL computer impact debris path cases were incorrect, or no more correct than the others. NIST chose the most severe because it caused a simulated collapse, while the others did not. In the WTC 2's case, that would mean that the airliner did much LESS damage and MAY have missed the core completely. The airliner also didn't completely crush itself on impact and missed many obstructions. NIST couldn't have this outcome, NIST needed the most severe case modeling to provide for the most destruction possible. In NISTs computer simulation, to get the towers to collapse, NIST had to use a more severe model that had the airliner impacts and debris path doing MASSIVE damage, even though NIST has no evidence. NIST then removes ALL the fireproofing from girders and trusses, DOUBLES the time of the fire in the bowing area from 40 to 90 minutes, DOUBLES the known damage area from 5 to 9 floors, increases the sagging trusses to 42 INCHES, models the towers WITHOUT the hat truss, and then DISCONNECTS the floor systems from the perimeter columns. Then the towers are "poised" for "progressive collapse". NIST has a some SPECIAL cases of mix-n-match tinkertoy simulations that I may reveal later if you continue. All in due time, maybe. Hee, hee. NIST quote, "Not all the observables were perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behavior of the aircraft breakup and subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models". Who here at 4UM is willing to trust and believe anything from a research project that admits this? The closer and closer NIST gets the towers "poised" for collapse, the more vague the whole cartoon project gets. NIST had computer modeled the aircraft down to the seats and number of fan blades, but modeled the east face of WTC 2 and the south face of WTC 1 with a low, resolution, coarse simulation. The very areas where NIST claims the bowing and sagging and collapse started. Computer simulations and adjustments are not scientific evidence. Keep dragging this out. You are doing all the work to destroy the NIST report and reveal the govenment lies. The report is like the Billy Joel song, "Its Just A Fantasy" oh oh, oh oh, it not the real thing, oh oh oh oh.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
That's simply not true. Here's another link on the seismic spikes. Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush BAC - I think Kamala's excellent analysis in 396 TOTALLY discredits the NIST in this case and by extension you also BAC as you used them as a source. I don't think you can overcome this one BAC.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
so very well done, Mark.
Right. You are such an *expert*, Mark. False. Just read the reports folks. I provided links. Mark doesn't know what he is talking about. How many examples do I have to provide where Mark said something that isn't true before you see that? Hopefully, by now you have. If you haven't, you probably never will. You will NEVER find the truth if you rely on the sort of misinformation posted by folks like Kamala (Mark). ROTFLOL! According to Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT? No, you got this claim from Kevin Ryan (the KOOK water treatment expert)'s description of Wierzbicki's analysis. Right? But Ryan didn't get the description right, as he got most things wrong. Folks, if you want to know what Tomasz Wierzbicki, a professor of Applied Mechanics at MIT, really thinks, then read this report by him on the WTC impact: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf It says nothing like what Kevin Ryan (the water treatment expert) claimed it said. And here is what MIT structural engineers REALLY think, folks: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ (this has Wierzbicki's report and others) http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/skyscrapers.html http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.pdf http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/31114/1/61145960.pdf You see? Kamala seems to be trying to misrepresent what MIT engineers think. Ask yourself why he is doing that? This is a misrepresentation of what NIST says in its reports. Why would Kamala misrepresent this? Did Kevin Ryan tell him this? Or Steven Jones? Or perhaps Rodriquez (the janitor) or Rodriquez's lying lawyer? The NIST reports say what is burning. Can you provide a link to this claim? It's not that I don't trust you ... but I hope its not Kevin Ryan, the water treatment expert. I bet not one of those engineers has come forward to support your bombs in the towers theory, Mark. The problem is Mark, you don't actually know or understand what NIST did. Actually, Mark, that suggests the affect of the impacts was worse than the simulations were able to capture ... i.e., more damage to the structure. By all means, tell us how your bombs in the towers theory manages to make landing gear, engines and fuselage exit the opposite side the towers. How do you figure this, Mark? Have you looked at the trajectory of the engine through the tower? Are you suggesting that somehow an engine traveling through the building would do less damage to structural members in the building than one that didn't manage to exit the other side? Tell us Mark, how does that work? Actually, Mark, one could easily interpret the discrepancies you've claimed to mean the simulation UNDERestimated the ability of the structure to deform and stop the plane. That would suggest that the structure didn't slow the plane down as much as even the severe model showed and one explanation for that would that there was much worse damage inside the structure than even the severe case suggests. By all means, Mark, supply your source for all these claims. Or are you reluctant to do that? Perhaps structural engineers, experts in demolition, experts in engineering mechanics, experts in macro-world physics around the world. Because NONE of them seem to believe you, Mark. Any guess why?
It works like a fmj bullet works. If it hits something hard, it fragments. Bullet breaks bone, bone breaks bullet.If it doesn't hit anything hard, it passes through and does little damage. Duh.
Right. You are such an *expert*, Mark. You sure like to throw out that word expert at everyone. Meanwhile, you REFUSE to tell anyone what your area of "expertise" is... Tell us *incompetent at everything*, just what it is about the word could that you don't understand??? Or the words predicted, estimates, considered, partial validation, and assumed??? Do ANY of these words imply FACT, or do they imply HYPOTHESIS??? Another of your incompetencies - understanding of the English language. I believe he already told you that his source is the actual NIST report itself - the paper copy - NOT what's on the internet... That's probably something YOU'LL never look at - it would cost a few dollars to get a copy. But then again, you're content to believe "experts", and are in denial that these "experts" may put job security and the welfare of themselves and their families above TRUTH. Why an alphabet agency would never deliberately "off" somebody to shut them up would they???? But as long as there are shills like you helping keep the Amerikan public in their comas, they don't need to worry about offing the one or two "kooks" do they... BTW, why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11 - considering how the whole squalid mess wasn't an inside job??? For the same reason you refuse to tell us your area of expertise - you don't have an answer...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Gosh BAC. it seems like Critter in 401 has shown you a very obvious point that you couldn't figure out. I think your deductive abilities are very weak. It discounts everything you've ever said.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
why is it that you DO refuse to address this concern BAC? Why?
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
He refuses to answer any part of 9/11 that is clear cut. He takes scientific evidence and lies about it, openly. He repeats the same lie over and over. It's really absurd to "debate" with such a poster.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Hmm, would that be anything near free-fall speed?
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
I am very simple. I have read and studied many materials related to 9/11, and my one and only concrete conclusion is that it does not completely add up. IMHO, I am inclined to believe, from my own research and reading the research of others, that it very well may have been an inside job. Unfortunately, I have no concrete evidence to this that would absolutely stand up in a court of law. I, and many others believe that it was indeed an inside job, yet many others believe that the facts simply do not add up, then there is the minority - including yourself - that are adamant defenders of the "official story". My solution is simple. DEMAND an independent investigation of 9/11, with unlimited access to all information and material concerning 9/11. Then you can hear from "experts" who can truly sort out the facts, and we shall see who is correct.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
The landing gear was up you shill. The obvious demolition of the towers is apparent to anyone that can THINK straight.
God is always good! For now you are just a useful tool, and errand boy for your handlers. You are a cup of coffee, the TV movie of the week. Your usefulness is limited, as is your time. 4UM is my home field. I've read 4UM for almost 2 years and have posted for over 1 1/2 years. I'll decide what is discussed. I'll frame the thread and reply. You'll just respond like a trained gerbel. I'm going to tease you like a bluegill with a redworm. There is more deception coming. All in time, my government bootlicker. You and the official C.T. are doomed. Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
In the NIST, it states that for one of the 47 core columns to fail from aircraft impact, the girder would have to be a direct hit from the engine. NIST also states that the fuselage was severely damaged by the floor slabs and the airframe crushed itself against the floor. Both impacts had the airframe broken up in 0.2- 0.3 seconds. The steel in the towers was so over engineered. The core girders were 42,000psi, the truss/floor system was 52,000psi and the outer columns were 100,000psi.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
4UM is my home field. I've read 4UM for almost 2 years and have posted for over 1 1/2 years. I'll decide what is discussed. I'll frame the thread and reply. You'll just respond like a trained gerbel. I'm going to tease you like a bluegill with a redworm. There is more deception coming. All in time, my government bootlicker. You and the official C.T. are doomed. love it :P
My claimed "expertise" would be irrelevant. Just as yours is. Because both of us could claim expertise in ANYTHING. We could claim to be anything. This is the internet. You don't know my name (and never will) and I don't know your name (and don't care). But there are thousands and thousands of bonafide experts in the world in such subjects as structures, fire, steel, impact, demolition, concrete, seismology and macro-world physics. And so far only a couple have come forward to suggest what you claim. And there is plenty reason to doubt those few given what else they've said and circumstances under which they've drawn their conclusion. By all means, let's hear him confirm that. You will not find the truth on a foundation of lies and misinformation. If you can't even get past the silly and unnecessary notion of bombs in the towers and no Flight 77, there really is no point in discussing any serious question about 9/11 with you. Indeed, the pursuit of nonsense is making it impossible to get answers to the serious questions.
Or your constitutive models for what is hit are too hard. Bone doesn't always break bullet. A very logical explanation for why models may have shown the structure preventing an engine from passing through it when it didn't.
What have you been reduced to, Red ... their cheerleader. I thought you were Summa Cum Laude.
And who will run this *independent* investigation? Who will be the *experts* they depend on? Just curious...
you're too much for me BAC. you ask good question in 415 - who will be the experts, the judges, etc. we are incapable of getting satisfactory conclusion on this issue. It is those evil faces that came out of the smoke. They are stopping us.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I see you've given up, Mark.
For a group that claims 4UM is their *home field*, is it staggering the number of members who have bozo'd themselves so they won't be faced with seeing facts they don't like or that don't fit their world-view. That's a sign of weakness, not strength in one's convictions. ROTFLOL!
A stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down with controlled demolition - you can't escape that. Follow the money; same story. Your Mossad pals were the agents! What's YOUR problem with the truth??? Well ........?
BAC, what you fail to realize is around here the debate about whether 9/11 was an inside job has been settled since this forum started in 2005. Since you have offered nothing new around here that would make anyone question that conclusion people have no reason to debate you.
God is always good! All you have to do, to stop arguing with BAC, is ask him point blank this question. If you were a guy who owned a building just like Building 7 at the World Trade Center, and needed to have it demolished, how long would it take a demolitions expert to set up the charges on a building that size for a safe and expedient demolition? Ask him that question, and he runs away like a little girl. In fact, ask ANYONE that question and they won't tell you a fucking thing. Because it takes a couple weeks possibly a month or two to design the demolitions, cut easements into the super structure, and then of course, place the charges and riggings. The ONLY way they could have demolished Building 7, is if it were a planned event, END OF STORY. NOBODY SEEMS TO ASK THAT QUESTION NOW DO THEY???
There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:
#2. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
"Pull" is a term used in building demolition...
#3. To: BeAChooser, All (#2)
#4. To: All (#3)
#5. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#2)
Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.
#6. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#4)
#7. To: BeAChooser (#2)
Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.
#8. To: BeAChooser (#2)
The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.”
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#9. To: BeAChooser (#1)
#10. To: Kamala (#6)
(Edited)
Ha, ha. That is an image of the south tower right after impact. That isn't the perimeter girders "red hot" its the jet fuel burning.
Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist?
I won't waste my time with you long. You'll get your so richly deserved beating and I'll move on.
#11. To: BeAChooser (#5)
Enjoy!
#12. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#10)
#13. To: Kamala, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#12)
#14. To: Kamala (#12)
Sorry, there are no photos of "glowing red" structural steel. There may be "something" burning, but it isn't steel. Again, the "something" whatever that is burning, is burning around 1100-1200 degrees gas temps.
According to NIST...NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel
Your photo is your comment. Its misleading and deceptive. I would like to see another photo of the same shot taken 25 minutes later.
Boy, when things don't go your way, the accusations, name calling and such comes out right away.
I won't waste much time on you
So don't get your panties in a bunch
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#15. To: AGAviator (#14)
I'd like to see photo of the **thermite,** which burns white-hot and gives off a flame brighter than a welder's torch.
#16. To: AGAviator, Kamala (#10)
(Edited)
It would have to come from somebody with enough brains to know what color flames are, and the difference between posting a photo and a comment. That rules you out.
#17. To: YertleTurtle (#15)
I'll admit, all the nonsense about the thermite only shows the people who believe in it know nothing about it.
#18. To: YertleTurtle, Destro (#15)
I made thermite as a kid...It doesn't "pour" out of buildings. It goes whoosh, burns white-hot, burns holes through metal, and leaves no residue.
(1) The incendiary (thermite) will burn up the explosive (RDX) before the explosive detonates, or
#19. To: Destro (#16)
I warned/told you so, AGAviator. This is a webite populated by Art Bell types.
#20. To: Zipporah (#19)
to dismiss people as "Art Bell types" seems to reveal that you are the one in fact that wants to control opinions by labelling .. is it that you want everyone to believe in one way or is it that you want discussion?? You cant have it both ways Destro.
#21. To: Destro (#20)
#22. To: Zipporah (#21)
Who said youre not welcome here for disagreeing? Not Chris nor I..
#23. To: Destro (#22)
#24. To: AGAviator (#18)
(1) The incendiary (thermite) will burn up the explosive (RDX) before the explosive detonates, or
#25. To: YertleTurtle (#24)
(Edited)
And you're right: it didn't explode, it just burned like crazy.
#26. To: Zipporah (#25)
#27. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#26)
Like you, I'll let people judge for themselves whether a thermite reaction (and there are different types) could have been used to quickly cut the steel in the WTC buildings.
#28. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#26)
#29. To: christine (#27)
guess what i think. :P
#30. To: Kamala, Zipporah (#28)
Where have you been? You have been missing some good beatdowns!!
#31. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#26)
It can also be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment.
#32. To: Destro (#20)
(Edited)
anyone who takes a contrary position on 9/11 against the 9/11 truth conspiracy is not welcome here - which is fine.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#33. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#30)
#34. To: IndieTX (#32)
#35. To: Kamala, Agaviator, ALL (#6)
To Agaviator - Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist?
#36. To: Horse, ALL (#9)
Instead of relying on mainstream media and the doubtful testimony of the men who covered up the crime of the century by pulling the building you can go to http://www.WTC7.net and see Tower 7 collapse from 3 different angles.
Soon after 911 a 24 story steel girdered skyscraper in Madrd burned for 36 hours without collapsing.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#37. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#36)
#38. To: WTC7 911Smoking Cannon, ALL (#11)
Ten Second Freefall
WTC 7 Building Pulled
#39. To: YertleTurtle (#24)
(Edited)
As I said, people who talk about thermite in buildings know nothing about thermite.
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#40. To: SKYDRIFTER, agaviator, beachooser, christine, all, zipporah, kamala, angle, burkeman1, ferret mike, jethro tull, skydrifter (#37)
(Edited)
Let's stop discussing things that happened over 5 years ago..blah blah
As far as I'm concerned, 911 whodunits are quite a waste of time. The events happened nearly 5 1/2 years ago, you can make a case there are certain elements who welcomed them, and instead of stopping the insanity that has resulted from it, there is this endless speculation bordering on obsession...
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#41. To: BeAChooser (#36)
#42. To: IndieTX (#40)
(Edited)
Physics, engineering and aviation [our specialty] aside, I wonder how TheStateInc 9-11 believers account for the mathematical statistical improbability..no, impossibility.. of 3 buildings, on fire, all with different damage profiles, all collapsing STRAIGHT DOWN,
When they were designed to withstand such damage, and when none ever have before in history
They were designed to fall sideways? Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#43. To: AGAviator (#42)
They were designed to fall sideways?
#44. To: AGAviator, ZIPPORAH, CHRISTINE, SKYDRIFTER, FORMERLURKER, INNIEWAY, HONWAY, ALL, KAMALA (#42)
(Edited)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#45. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#38)
And if it's a video that starts out by claiming the WTC towers collapsed in 10 seconds, I have to tell you that it starts out with a demonstrable falsehood.
(Bozo filter is working for BAC, apparently.)
#46. To: AGAviator, IndieTX, Kamala (#42)
They were designed to fall sideways?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#47. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#35)
#48. To: FormerLurker (#46)
#49. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#36)
#50. To: Kamala (#48)
What is crushing the tower? Air?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#51. To: Kamala (#47)
There are 1 1/2 million engineers in this country. Why do we keep using the same ones? The same ones with ties to govenment funded projects. The same engineers who gave us the OKC report.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#52. To: Kamala (#48)
The debris is being ejected out and away from the tower. The steel and dust is outside the tower itself.
#53. To: Kamala (#49)
http://www.studyof911.com/video/flvplayer/speaking_out.htm
#54. To: YertleTurtle (#43)
If the (non-existent) Superevil Supergeniuses were that brilliant, they would have been able to make the WTC fall to the side and maximize all the death and destruction.
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#55. To: FormerLurker (#46)
Why would the top 20 or 30 floors fall straight down to begin with?
#56. To: christine (#52)
you mean not wet noodles?
#57. To: IndieTX (#44)
#58. To: AGAviator, IndieTX, YertleTurtle, BeAChooser (#39)
#59. To: Kamala, AGAviator, ALL (#12)
To AGAviator - According to NIST, the jet fuel was burned off in minutes and the WTC office floors were fuel poor and the fuel in a given area would burn up in around 20 minutes.
The west side of WTC 2 never even had any fire or heat at all.
The south tower fires were basically out in around 40 minutes. Much too short to heat any steel to any degree.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/NEnorthface946czm.jpg 
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/fireST915b.jpg 
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/010thermNF942.jpg 
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east12.jpg 
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/9-72.jpg 
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/docs/wp_wtc29c.jpg NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel from the impact/fire zones and it survived the impacts and preformed great, just as the main designers and architects said it would. The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved.
NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600.
NIST again states that fuel was gone in minutes and it was a office fuel poor fire.
#60. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#26)
Thermite
#61. To: Kamala, ALL (#41)
Yeah, but in your usual deceptive nature, you fail to tell everyone that the localized area of the collapse took 4 HOURS for it to collapse!!!
#62. To: Kamala (#33)
London Evening Standard, and Daily Mail: An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
#63. To: All (#62)
http://www.belowgroundsurface.org/
#64. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, Kamala, ALL (#46)
If the collapse happened as the official story describes, where the steel was weakened by fire, then the top of the building would have tipped,
and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building.
Additionally, even if the floors pancaked as described by the official story, the building would not have collapsed at the same rate as if it were falling through thin air, but would have taken at least 96 seconds to collapse, as per Dr. Judy Wood, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University.
Note: The animated gif does not take gravity into account. The weight of the cue ball does not combine with the weight of the 2 ball in this illustration. This is just to illustrate transfer of momentum in a vertical tube. (I have little doubt some of these dishonest conspiracy sites will take this out of context)
#65. To: Kamala (#0)
No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#66. To: BeAChooser (#60)
#67. To: BeAChooser (#64)
(Edited)
Apparently, her only experience with pool is hitting the cue ball off the table. She forgets a little ditty called "Transfer of Momentum."
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#68. To: BeAChooser (#64)
and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#69. To: BeAChooser (#64)
Check out her research papers. Here's a typical one "Mapping of tooth deformation caused by moisture change using moiré interferometry." , Dental Materials, Volume 19, Issue 3, Page 159.
Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including
From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#70. To: BeAChooser (#64)
As Greening points out in his paper, the speed of the collapse increased as the floors above collected the floors below. These are not impacts as you would find on a highway. These impacts are being sped up by gravity. Think of billiard balls in a vertical track.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#71. To: FormerLurker (#69)
#72. To: FormerLurker (#69)
. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11.
#73. To: RickyJ (#70)
The towers weren't just suspended in mid air waiting for a
transfer of momentum so they could go merrily on their way. The towers were
backed up with 47 huge steel columns in the core and many more smaller ones
around the perimeter.
#74. To: angle (#63)
#75. To: Destro (#58)
These people think Silverstein - a landlord in New York was leading sapper units on 9/11 - I guess in their views being a New York landlord builds in the expertise to command sapper units under combat conditions. Must be because he is a Jooo and they get super secret Mossad training from birth.
I worship Israel. Kill all Arabs and let Allah sort 'em out. We are the chosen ones. Shalom.
My Rabbi is my dentist.
Gots to keep da' money in da' family.
#76. To: FormerLurker (#68)
(Edited)
A: "I don't believe the tilt suddenly stopped and corrected itself. The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force.
#77. To: Kamala (#47)
All one needs is to have reason, deduction and conclusions based on real hard science. Not some computer models that you can tweek the sofware anyway you want to get the desired outcome. Bad data in, bad data out.
" I've seen some of the computer tech gear used in firework shows. This was back in 2001. He was then talking about radio controlled shows with no wires or anything was very close. He had seen demos of it at testing grounds.
This was for firework shows, can you imagine what we have that we don't know?"
#78. To: AGAviator (#76)
I don't believe the tilt suddenly stopped and corrected itself. The horizontal force and angular momentum was very small in comparison to the gravitational, i.e., vertical force. blah blah blah
#79. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#78)
You are confusing momentum and force---which shows you don't even understand basic physics.
Bozo List (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#80. To: AGAviator (#79)
Exactly how many of these real-life *physicists* agree with your version of events, then?
#81. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#80)
(Edited)
How many physicists think gravitational force can destroy conservation of angular momentum? Not one
Bozo List (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#82. To: BeAChooser (#64)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#83. To: RickyJ (#82)
The transfer of momentum from the huge 767 that hit the towers at 500 MPH plus did not cause the towers to tip over or fall down.
#84. To: RickyJ (#65)
#85. To: FormerLurker, critter, *9-11* (#50)
#86. To: Kamala (#85)
Does BAC ever read anythng? Its all CCP. Links and long paragraphs of nothing. It like throwing a giant glob at the wall, hoping some will stick.
#87. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#59)
(Edited)
#88. To: BeAChooser (#1)
(Edited)
#89. To: Kamala, Christine, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#85)
#90. To: Diana (#88)
How do you get all your information
#91. To: Kamala, Christine, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#87)
Molten liquid aluminum from the skin of an aircraft? This metal shown in photos, glows bright in the daylight. Aluminum is silvery in a liquid nature. There is no scientific proof of this phenomenon. When these claims can be reproduced in scientifically controlled experiment, get back to me.
#92. To: SKYDRIFTER (#89)
#93. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#59)
#94. To: AGAviator (#81)
I notice you've dodged the question and are instead blathering about technical terms which you just finished accusing me of doing.
#95. To: Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#92)
#96. To: SKYDRIFTER (#95)
#97. To: SKYDRIFTER (#89)
I think he wants his gal Goldi to feel sorry for him & invite him back (BAC?)
#98. To: All (#96)
http://www.betterbadnews.dreamhosters.com/2006/04/
#99. To: All (#98)
#100. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, Yertle the Turtle, Destro (#94)
Your silly "appeal to authority"---challenging me to find a "physicist" that "agrees" with a "version of events"--is the attempt at diversion.
Your claim that angular momentum in the fall of the top of the South Tower was somehow not conserved
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#101. To: angle (#99)
(Edited)
#102. To: AGAviator (#100)
a controlled demolition, not only are you contradicting yourself, but you're also not explaining why "they" wouldn't want the building to continue falling sideways so as to maximize the death and destruction.
#103. To: christine (#101)
what's with the smiles on the faces of ma and pa there?
#104. To: AGAviator (#83)
Since the WTC was constructed as a tightly interwoven system of steel plates and girders,
#105. To: AGAviator (#100)
but then the part it was rotating against collapsed which caused all sections to start falling straight down.
#106. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#104)
Whoever's paying you to post here is not getting their money's worth.
#107. To: christine (#101)
what's with the smiles on the faces of ma and pa there?
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#108. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#105)
#109. To: Eoghan (#107)
Junior's now a made member of the Family...
#110. To: Kamala, ALL (#48)
So lets take WTC 1. We are supposed to believe that 14 floors crushed the entire tower? If you look at the videos, as the building explodes, there is nothing above it but concrete dust.
The debris is being ejected out and away from the tower. The steel and dust is outside the tower itself. What is crushing the tower? Air?
The real kicker is, as the debris is falling, the tower explosions/collapse almost keep pace with debris falling through the air.
Now, I don't subscribe to the 9 sec collapse trap. It took both towers around 15 seconds total. That still is WAY too fast for a "progressive gravity collapse".
#111. To: aristeides (#109)
his rejection of the Iraq Study Group report made him unmade
#112. To: Kamala, ALL (#49)
There is only one account of a giant scoop hole in the face of the south WTC 7.
#113. To: FormerLurker, Kamala, ALL (#50)
The 9 to 11 second figures are what NIST and the 9/11 Commission stated, and correspond to the seismographal evidence,
10:28:23 North Tower starts to crumble
10:28:31 Rubble starts to hit the ground (start of big signal)
10:28:36 The heaviest rubble hits the ground (peak of big signal)
10:28:39 Most heavy rubble has reached the ground (end of big signal)"
#114. To: angle, ALL (#53)
I saw a hole, I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though.
There was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any creaking or any indication that it was going to come down.
#115. To: angle, ALL (#63)
9/11 Mysteries (Full Length, High Quality) 1 Hour 30 minutes 41 seconds
#116. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#66)
Greening's hypothesis did not purport to disprove the possibility of cutter charges using thermite reactions---it merely proposed an alternative explanation relying on aluminium supplied by the crashing planes!
See Dr. Steven Jones' paper here.
#117. To: BeAChooser (#110)
Actually, very little steel debris was ejected out and away from the tower. Most of what is seen is the aluminum siding. And why would one expect that not to be ejected outward during the collapse. Remember, the building was 95 percent air. As it collapsed that air had to go somewhere. And it took along a few things with it.
#118. To: BeAChooser (#115)
#119. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#67)
Apparently, you don't take into account a floor of the WTC is not a pool ball sitting on a pool table, but a solid structure held up by beams, trusses, and connected to a steel core and outer shell.
#120. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#68)
and would have either come to a rest at an angle, or slid off of the undamaged section of the building.
"It didn't. As the videos prove."
Of course it DIDN'T, but it SHOULD have if it had been a collapse caused by the mechanism described by your "experts".
#121. To: RickyJ, Formerlurker, ALL (#70)
Yes gravity would indeed be a factor here but the billiard ball example is not a good one at all.
the 47 massive steel columns that were bearing the weight of the building
#122. To: tom007, Formerlurker, ALL (#73)
The billard analogy is not applicable.
#123. To: christine, angle, ALL (#74)
911 Mysteries available on Google here
#124. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Sorry, but you are misrepresenting Greening's work if you are trying to suggest to readers that he wasn't trying to dispute the thermite theory. He was.
#125. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#105)
(Edited)
After just a couple of posts, it's obvious to me and to everyone that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Whoever's paying you to post here is not getting their money's worth.
So, explain the disintegration. We're all waiting.
#126. To: Original_Intent, ALL (#77)
All good points - and particularly the "fear factor" which does much to explain why people with credentials, whose income depends upon those credentials, will not come forward - they are AFRAID.
#127. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#113)
According to http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html
"the CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground. The following composite timeline combines timing estimates of collapse events from the CNN video and the PAL seismic record. It assumes rubble hitting the ground caused the large ground movement, and thus that the crumbling of the tower prior to that caused only minor ground movement. Given that, the times from these pieces of evidence match up remarkably well.
10:28:23 North Tower starts to crumble
10:28:31 Rubble starts to hit the ground (start of big signal)
10:28:36 The heaviest rubble hits the ground (peak of big signal)
10:28:39 Most heavy rubble has reached the ground (end of big signal)" 
2. The red-lined annotations in the above chart are based on the following five data points supplied by the LCSN seismic labs
a. The time of initial seismic rupture at the WTC tower was 9:59:04 EST.
b. The duration of the seismic signal of the collapse was 10 sec.
c. The distance from the WTC towers to the LCSN seismometer in Palisades, NY ("PAL") is 34km .
d. The velocity of the seismic waves transiting that distance was 2km per second.
e. The origin time on the zero axis of of the LCSN chart is 9:59:07 EST.
#128. To: All, BeAChooser, *9-11* (#127)
#129. To: RickyJ, ALL (#82)
The transfer of momentum from the huge 767 that hit the towers at 500 MPH plus did not cause the towers to tip over or fall down.
BTW, I don't think it is a coincidence that you and other pro-government theory posters are just happening to come here at the same time.
#130. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#124)
#131. To: AGAviator (#125)
So, explain the disintegration. We're all waiting.
#132. To: all (#131)
(Edited)
After a few hours, the structures collapsed.
#133. To: All, *9-11* (#127)
#134. To: All, *9-11* (#133)
From the NIST:
#135. To: All (#134)
#136. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, AGAviator (#105)
So, explain the disintegration. We're all waiting.
#137. To: BTP Holdings (#136)
BAC why the TV towers were the first thing to show movement at the start of the collapse.
#138. To: honway (#132)
9:02:54 plus 56:10 is 9:59:04, the origin time of the 2.1 magnitude event.
#139. To: BTP Holdings (#136)
Why the TV towers were the first thing to show movement at the start of the collapse
#140. To: AGAviator (#138)
obviously, any seismic impacts before the buildings actually hit the ground have to be of energy released as they started their collapse.
#141. To: AGAviator (#139)
(Edited)
What a dumb-ass question.
#142. To: honway (#140)
Considering the seismic peak of the South Tower collapse occurred 4.5 seconds after the first indication of collapse,what do you make of this statement by the NIST? Is it accurate?
#143. To: AGAviator (#142)
(Edited)
So where's the explosives-induced spike at the very beginning of the collapse, if explosives were in fact the cause?
#144. To: honway (#141)
I don't think you appreciate the significance of the fact the collapse of the North Tower began with a failure of the core.
#145. To: AGAviator (#142)
Now that you mention it, I would expect some seismic activity to register from objects weighing many tons and falling hundreds of feet.
#146. To: AGAviator (#144)
However hypothesizing explosives as a magic answer certainly does not lead us very far towards resolving that issue - especially when at least one structure did not begin its fall in the nice orderly "controlled demolition" manner.
#147. To: honway, Christine, Brian S, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#134)
#148. To: AGAviator (#139)
What a dumb-ass question.
#149. To: Kamala, ALL (#87)
Magnesium was the main fuel source at Madrid. Quit being deceptive.
1400 degrees may have been the physical temps, but the gas temps were over 2000 degrees.
Look at the photos of WTC 2 just before the collapse. The fires are just a black, smokey, fuel poor and O2 starved office fire, just as NIST as written.
If you compare the photos right after the impact, and then just before it was "poised" to collapse, the photos show the fires dieing out.
If the floors were hanging loose, then how do disconnected floors pull? NIST has no scientific proof of sagging floor systems.
All live scale floor model experiment preformed by UL for NIST bare this out.
Another NIST deception was that in their computer models, NIST used 9 floors for their model, instead of the known 5 floors of damage. Again, doubling and tweeking software to get the pre desired results.
Aluminum is silvery in a liquid nature.
If there were no fires on the western side to heat all the structural steel of the WTC 2, how did it symmetrically collapse.
NIST has no scientific proof of gas temps of 1800 or higher for anytime.
NIST got gas temps by increasing the known jet fuel load, then over ventilating the fire.
The steel saved was marked from its construction and was known to be from the location of the impacts.
The steel was deemed to have preformed great, and the impacts did very little to the towers.
Skilling, the main designer/architect said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump and the fires that would follow.
DeMartini said he truely believed that the towers could take multiple airliner impacts.
MIT engineers hired by FEMA/NIST concluded the airliners energy was expeneded upon impact. Just as the towers were designed. There was no energy left to "dislodge" or scrap clean all the fireproofing on 5 floors.
a research white paper signed by Skilling, the main designer/architect, in 1964, PLANNING FOR HIGH SPEED IMPACTS OF 600 MPH by airliners, this was in conjuction with the Port Authority.
All the skeptics like to quote Leslie Robertson. HE has been caught lying and has lots of ties to government funded projects.
Why don't ever mentioned that the fireproofing was upgraded in the mid 90's to 2.2 inches and a much more robust type was used. This is stated in the NIST report.
NIST claim ALL the fireproofing was scraped off
yet they tested the steel from the fire zones, they had the serial construction numbers of the girders and such, and only found temps of 480 degrees.
By that time, the north face was cool, and employees were standing in and around the impact zones.
How does cool structural steel fail?
#150. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#104)
The relevant question is whether the Towers were designed to absorb the impact of an airliner such as did hit them on 9/11 and stay standing. They were, and they did.
#151. To: BeAChooser (#129)
Sorry, Ricky, but you completely missed the point of what was modeled by Judy Wood. We weren't even talking about the transfer of momentum from the 767.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#152. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#117)
So you claim now that the air in the building was the prime agent in the sidewards expulsion of heavy metal building materials in the collapse of the Towers? Back up your assertion with proof. Photos of the collapse show 30 foot steel sections blown as much as 70 meters to the side. The aluminum cladding was also not weightless, but weighed many tons. You've made the claim that compressed air was sufficient to blow these heavy metal pieces over half a football field clear of the collapse, and now you're going to have to show that the collapse generated energy sufficient to allow the air in each floor space to compress and blow out that steel and aluminum to such a lateral distance. Your "breezy" ipse dixit that the air in the building "took along a few things with it" doesn't begin to prove your claim. Quantify it, or link to someone who has.
#153. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#124)
This is simply irrelevant.
Finally, Greening's challenge (and I notice you don't provide a link to it)
For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact no "violent thermite" reactions seen.
(ii) Molten aluminum was poured onto a clean, dry, concrete block. F. Greening’s latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks.
Finally, the data from the solidified slag are not consistent with molten structural steel since it contains almost no chromium, yet shows significant fluorine and elemental sulfur, and high concentrations of nickel and zinc.
#154. To: honway, ALL (#127)
(start) is first visual indication of collapse, (end) is the end of the collapse.
#155. To: honway, BTP Holdings, Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#137)
BTP Holdings to Peetie Wheatstraw - Hey Peetie, someone should ask this nincompoop protege of BAC why the TV towers were the first thing to show movement at the start of the collapse. Betcha he has no answer. ROTFLOL!
Very good point.
It would be impossible to overstate the significance of the fact the first indication of collapse of the North Tower was the downward movement of the atenna array mounted to the core of the Tower. So we know the failure of the core initiated the collapse of the North Tower.
#156. To: honway, AGAviator, ALL (#141)
I don't think you appreciate the significance of the fact the collapse of the North Tower began with a failure of the core.
#157. To: RickyJ (#151)
#158. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#157)
Who would put explosives in WTC? And why?
#159. To: BTP Holdings, angle (#148)
(Edited)
Such a typical response from someone who has no meaningful answer. Exactly as I had predicted. ;0)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#160. To: angle, BeAChooser, All (#158)
#161. To: BeAChooser, honway (#155)
Don't you guys know by now that was an optical illusion?
#162. To: IndieTX (#159)
There ain't enough time in the day. Filter 'em.
#163. To: BeAChooser (#154)
(Edited)
Now, honway, surely you aren't claiming that the video imagery from multiple sources (CNN, NBC and others) that clearly shows the collapse took more than 10 seconds ... on the order of 15 seconds, in fact ... are fakes. Because that seems to be the only alternative, if you want everyone to believe that the collapse time was 10 seconds ... which it seems, you do.
#164. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#160)
http://1933key.com/news/911_wtc_collapse
#165. To: BeAChooser (#149)
#166. To: BeAChooser (#164)
(Edited)
#167. To: BeAChooser (#149)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#168. To: BTP Holdings (#148)
Such a typical response from someone who has no meaningful answer
(1) If buildings falling straight down are evidence of a controlled demolition conspiracy, why is the building in the photo I posted starting to rotate?
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#169. To: BTP Holdings, honway, ALL (#161)
"Don't you guys know by now that was an optical illusion?"
Oh, puleeeeze. ROTFLOL! (My turn.)
Show us the videos and links.
#170. To: Critter (#167)
#171. To: Critter (#167)
#172. To: honway, ALL (#163)
Dr. Shyam Sunder of the NIST explain Tower 1 collapsed in 11 seconds and Tower 2 collapsed in 9 seconds.
#173. To: honway, ALL (#165)
"The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter."
#174. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#166)
http://1933key.com/news/911_wtc_collapse.html
The FEMA and NIST claims that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout each of the entire floors of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.
Photographs of the fires in World Trade Center 7, as well as video of the building, show there was no raging inferno, but rather only small office fires on just two floors.
WTC leaseholder Mr. Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
Ryan unquestionably qualifies as a whistleblower. Having been promoted to the top manager of Underwriter's Laboratories water testing division, Ryan was dismissed on November of 2004 after an e-mail from him to Dr Frank Gayle of NIST questioning the collapse of the twin towers became public.
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack.
The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.
#175. To: BeAChooser (#174)
(Edited)
#176. To: Critter, ALL (#167)
Those are not sagging floors. I proved that at LP and I'm not going to bother doing it again.
#177. To: BeAChooser (#176)
#178. To: BeAChooser (#176)
#179. To: BeAChooser (#176)
The truth is the experts at NIST concluded those were sagging trusses in those images. And I haven't seen a quote from a single structural engineer anywhere claiming otherwise. Can you supply us with one, Critter?
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#180. To: Red Jones (#178)
he's been published on LP - so we know he's a real expert, not like those kooks.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#181. To: BeAChooser (#176)
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm
#182. To: Critter (#180)
#183. To: BeAChooser (#174)
WTC leaseholder Mr. Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
#184. To: BeAChooser (#173)
Still, it's not burning silver. And the pictures of molten aluminum I showed also aren't silver. As was claimed.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#185. To: BeAChooser, honway, formerlurker, wakeup, angle, critter, esso, skydrifter, Uncle Bill, Bill D Berger, BTP holdings, *9-11* (#149)
#186. To: Critter, ALL (#179)
Anyone with a brain can see that those are not sagging floors.
#187. To: Red Jones, ALL (#182)
BAC said that when the commercial jet hit the pentagon that the wings and tail section just fell off the plane before it hit the building. and that's why it left such a small hole in the building.
#188. To: RickyJ, ALL (#184)
Molten aluminum can, and does, appear different dependent on an the intensity of an external light source it seen in. With no, or very little, external light source, molten aluminum will appear reddish in color. However, in broad daylight it will appear silver in color because of its high reflective properties and it will reflect most of the light, thus it will appear silvery white.
You better consult your local structural engineer before taking a stance on this.
#189. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#190. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#191. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#192. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#193. To: AGAviator (#183)
And he made his "smartest thing to do is pull it" comment right after saying "We've already had such a terrible loss of life."
#194. To: BeAChooser (#188)
#195. To: Minerva (#192)
The huge Al Qaeda Base in Iraq before the war worked as the launch team.
#196. To: angle (#195)
#197. To: Minerva (#194)
It all fits doesn't it.
#198. To: BeAChooser (#188)
(Edited)
That's fine, except structural engineers everywhere seem to think the material that poured from the WTC tower shortly before it collapsed was probably aluminum.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#199. To: BeAChooser (#188)
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface. "
Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
by Steven E. Jones, August 31, 2006
Videos Liquid Aluminum Part 1 Liquid Aluminum Part 2
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#200. To: BeAChooser (#35)
NO structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in steel or fire, or macro-world physicist have signed on to your demolition theory.
Well, there goes another one of your cherished delusions. All structural engineers do not agree with the government's theory.
Hugo Bachmann
Prof. em., Dr. sc. techn, Dr. h.c. Hugo Bachmann
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#201. To: AGAviator (#100)
#202. To: Destro, christine (#201)
I told you so, AG.
Bozo List: (1)[D]angle, (2) Kamala
#203. To: RickyJ, ALL (#198)
That's strange considering that molten aluminum does appear silvery white in broad daylight, and it was a clear sunny day on 9/11/2001.
But then again, what the heck would a structural engineer know about molten aluminum anyway?
#204. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#203)
Who say it definitely wasn't aluminum.
He said he was a loner
But he knew he couldn't last.
#205. To: RickyJ, honway, ALL (#199)
by Steven E. Jones
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
We melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch. ... snip ... We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it appeared silvery, not orange! ... While we could see embers of burning wood, we observed the bulk of the flowing aluminum to be silvery as always, as it falls through the air.
In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery.
#206. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#205)
which I posted earlier, you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from window. Clear as day. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds into the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds into the video. Another sequence of streaming material begins around 55 seconds into the video. From 0.57 to 1:07, there is clearly a silver look to the material pouring from the tower. And at 1:14 - 1:15 the material pouring from the corner of the tower is VERY CLEARLY SILVER, NOT ORANGE. So Steven Jones is lying.
#207. To: RickyJ, ALL (#200)
Except these notable structural engineers from Switzerland:
Hugo Bachmann
“In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction.
#208. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#206)
unlike aluminum, it started out red; sure, as it cooled, it turned to a more silver color - as steel would.
#209. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#208)
Like this aluminum?
#210. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#207)
#211. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#210)
Why is anyone feeding the BAC Troll?
#212. To: BeAChooser (#207)
(Edited)
And do you know Bachmann made his assertion that WTC7 probably was brought down by explosives after seeing only a few videos from the collapse during an interview with kindly conspiracists? He didn't take time to study the case, or research further, he just watched a few videos.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#213. To: Destro (#211)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#214. To: Destro, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#211)
#215. To: RickyJ (#213)
I am not surprised you know the true meaning of being a troll. You had a lot of practice.
#216. To: SKYDRIFTER, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#214)
In my book, a troll is an intellectual predator. The ultimate/intended enemy of the truth, as God knows it.
#217. To: RickyJ (#200)
Well, there goes another one of your cherished delusions. All structural engineers do not agree with the government's theory.
#218. To: RickyJ, ALL (#212)
Actually that speaks volumes about how sure he was that it was a demolition.
I mean to put his reputation on the line like that after only seeing a few videos, which is all that exist of WTC7 collapsing, must mean that he was 100% sure that it was a demolition.
#219. To: Destro, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#216)
#220. To: Destro (#215)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070214/ts_alt_afp/uscrimerefugees_070214191205
#221. To: SKYDRIFTER, RickyJ, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, BeAChooser, AGAviator, All (#219)
#222. To: Jethro Tull (#220)
SALT LAKE CITY, United States (AFP) - The refugee community in Salt Lake City has expressed its shock after this week's shopping mall shooting spree by a Bosnian teenager that left five people dead.
#223. To: Destro (#222)
#224. To: BeAChooser (#218)
#225. To: Destro, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#221)
Dogmatism? Me? How 'bout pure patriotism; from an educated Viet Nam vet?
#226. To: Destro (#211)
True trolls for example tend to post off-topic things to distrupt the forum.
#227. To: angle (#226)
You mean like your constant rants about Bosnia/Serbia?
#228. To: SKYDRIFTER, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All 221 (#225)
you don't even see the significance of the post 9-11 bin Laden family preferential treatment over all other Americans, add the 'handy' NORAD stand down; then you and BAC are of the same cut of cloth!
#229. To: Destro, christine, kamala (#227)
destro: True trolls for example tend to post off-topic things to distrupt the forum.
#230. To: SKYDRIFTER, esso (#204)
(Edited)
CREDIT: ESSO
#231. To: all (#230)
#232. To: angle, Esso (#230)
#233. To: angle, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#230)
#234. To: angle, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#229)
#235. To: SKYDRIFTER (#233)
As the escaping blonde in the Pulizer Prize photo showed, it wasn't that hot - at the hottest point!
#236. To: robin, angle, Esso (#232)
informative, clear post
#237. To: All (#158)
But the work required to wire a 47 story building for a controlled demolition would have had to begin some time before Sept 11, 2001
#238. To: Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#235)
how about the unscathed hijacker passports sitting atop the rubble? :P
#239. To: angle, christine, kamala (#229)
angle: You mean like your constant rants about Bosnia/Serbia?
#240. To: angle, SKYDRIFTER, esso (#230)
(Edited)
Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble
#241. To: SKYDRIFTER, angle, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#234)
Bin Laden's factions were assets of the Clinton administration.
#242. To: Destro (#240)
#243. To: BeAChooser, Ricky J, Red Jones (#203)
And what if the aluminum were to have other material entrained in it?
#244. To: BeAChooser, Ricky J, SKYDRIFTER (#205)
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers)
#245. To: Diana, All (#244)
#246. To: Destro, All (#228)
I have repeatedly stated that I consider American elements within our govt to be directly or indirectly related to the events of 9/11 as guilty parties in the conspiracy.
#247. To: Hayek Fan (#245)
#248. To: Hayek Fan, BeAChooser (#245)
#249. To: SKYDRIFTER (#238)
how about the unscathed hijacker passports sitting atop the rubble? :P
#250. To: angle (#242)
Pathetic non-relevant comparison
#251. To: Destro, angle, esso, all (#240)
A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles.
#252. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#245)
This is a guy that believes that Bush is complacent in helping to cover up the murder of Ron Brown and other Clinton crimes yet would NEVER be involved in any kind of 9/11 shennianigans.
#253. To: BeAChooser (#252)
I've never suggested that Bush would never be involved in ANY kind of 9/11 shennanigan. I'm only stating on this thread that the notions of bombs in the WTC towers and no Flight 77 are nonsense as proven by the facts.
#254. To: Hayek Fan (#253)
#255. To: angle, esso, ALL (#230)
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500- 1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).
High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters.
However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
#256. To: christine, ALL (#235)
how about the unscathed hijacker passports sitting atop the rubble?
#257. To: BeAChooser (#255)
#258. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#257)
Bowing? It appears to be an indentation from the plane impact. Have you ever been to the scene of plane crash?
#259. To: BeAChooser (#258)
#260. To: BeAChooser (#255)
(Edited)
BowingDebunksExplosives.html
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#261. To: BeAChooser (#258)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#262. To: BeAChooser (#252)
I'm only stating on this thread that the notions of bombs in the WTC towers and no Flight 77 are nonsense as proven by the facts.
#263. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#258)
#264. To: SKYDRIFTER (#263)
You deserve to go to prison for all your attempted deceit - take Goldi with you.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#265. To: RickyJ (#261)
Notice the concrete is for the most part intact. It did not turn to dust like the WTC towers concrete did.
#266. To: BeAChooser (#258)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#267. To: christine (#265)
#268. To: RickyJ (#260)
#269. To: BeAChooser, Jethro Tull, *9-11* (#258)
#270. To: BeAChooser, Skydrifter, noone222, Ricky J., *9-11* (#255)
#271. To: BeAChooser (#252)
#272. To: Destro, Skydrifter, Ricky J., Christine, Angle, Formerlurker, Honway, *9-11* (#241)
#273. To: Kamala, ThreeShoesPosse (#267)
#274. To: Kamala (#269)
#275. To: Destro (#250)
Because your side has all t hose planes slamming into buildings built the same way to compare results - oops you don't.
#276. To: Kamala (#272)
Unlike you, who completely believes there were no explosions, demolitions, implosions etc..All research on both sides needs to be done.
#277. To: angle (#275)
(Edited)
The truth movement does not take the houses of sticks and straw built by the three little pigs and equate them to WTC either, like you are doing with your pathetic comparison.
#278. To: Destro (#277)
I made no comparison - In another thread I asked where the claim that Enron evidence was lost on 9/11 came from. Make a claim - back it up. Simple - I googled - saw no such back up - have at it. I never see any authoritatove people do any such think which is baffling.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#279. To: FormerLurker (#278)
You are aware that the SEC and their documents related to active investigations were housed in WTC7, aren't you?
#280. To: Destro (#279)
The charge was SPECIFIC to Enron had evidence against them there - so unless Enron was doing everyone a favor....
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#281. To: Destro (#277)
(Edited)
Here's your house of sticks.
#282. To: All (#281)
#283. To: FormerLurker (#280)
Have you seen any news reports concerning Enron AFTER 9/11?
#284. To: angle (#281)
Here's your house of sticks
#285. To: Kamala (#268)
(Edited)
A "normal" failure would have been that it would have tipped over, not a classic bottom up implosion in 6.5 seconds, or 1/8th of a second per floor.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#286. To: RickyJ (#285)
He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out, but I am sure that it must have something to do with skyscraper structural engineers needing jobs that are partially or fully funded by the governments around the world.
#287. To: Destro (#286)
(Edited)
I keep saying that I feel the govt of the USA loves the demolition theory people because they help discredit any real investigation in the very real connections within our govt to the terror cells linked around 9/11.
Bozo List: (1) [D]angle, (2) Kamala
#288. To: AGAviator (#287)
That said, the USG did not direct and control the people doing 911 during 911. It was a case of 2 groups using each other for a number of years, and the group the USG thought it was using turned out to be more cunning than its supposed "masters."
#289. To: Destro (#286)
#290. To: Destro (#288)
(Edited)
Though I leave open the possibility that the plot was found out and some elements allowed it to be carried out
Bozo List: (1) [D]angle, (2) Kamala
#291. To: RickyJ, Critter Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#285)
#292. To: Destro, ALL, skydrifter, christine, honway, ROBIN (#286)
(Edited)
To me the demolition theories are like looking at a murder victim's body and having an argument over whether the bullet that everyone saw being fired killed the victim or if someone poisoned him before hand with a poison that only affected the victim just as the bullet entered him because the bullet wound would not have been enough to kill him.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#293. To: IndieTX (#292)
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#294. To: AGAviator (#290)
It wouldn't have been too hard for them to listen in on Atta, put 2 and 2 together, share the information with a few carefully chosen supporters in the US MIC, and just sit back and wait for the fireworks.
#295. To: Ferret Mike, AGAviator, IndieTX (#293)
Bistro Bistro Bistro! Destro is the man most likely to be a 9-11 demolitions blue collar worker in my book. He has a disdain for Americans and their culture and a chip on his shoulder regarding warfare and ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia's fractured set of states existing in the aftermath of Balkanization.
#296. To: Destro (#295)
Bistro Bistro Bistro! Destro is the man most likely to be a 9-11 demolitions blue collar worker in my book
Bozo List: (1) [D]angle, (2) Kamala
#297. To: AGAviator (#296)
And instead of enjoying your retirement in the lap of luxury, you're spending your spare hours posting on this forum....
#298. To: RickyJ, Skydrifter, *9-11* (#285)
#299. To: Corn Flake Girl (#289)
#300. To: christine (#299)
#301. To: RickyJ, Critter Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#260)
#302. To: Corn Flake Girl (#300)
has operatives whose game is to degrade the discussion on 9-11 into high school grade name calling or aggressive campaigns to advance the Bush crime syndicate's desire to degrade the truth as being mere conspiracy.
#303. To: angle (#302)
#304. To: angle (#302)
#305. To: Destro, agaviator, all (#297)
And instead of enjoying your retirement in the lap of luxury, you're spending your spare hours posting on this forum....
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#306. To: angle, corn flake girl (#302)
(Edited)
they are here as well:
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#307. To: Corn Flake Girl (#303)
#308. To: Corn Flake Girl (#303)
I can live with disagreement
#309. To: Corn Flake Girl (#303)
I can live with disagreement as long as others do so in good faith of promoting the talk on critically important topic like this one.
#310. To: angle (#308)
#311. To: IndieTX, Destro (#305)
Wasting your time making irrelevant and spurious posts,
Bozo List: (1)[D]angle, (2) Kamala
#312. To: AGAviator, IndieTX, Ferret Mike (#311)
#313. To: Destro (#286)
What about skyscraper structural engineers who work for countries not on good terms with the USA like in Singapore or Venezuela or India or China and plenty of examples from nations where they don't care about Americans or America and are hostile to America?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#314. To: RickyJ (#313)
The ones that have disagreed tend to be those that are retired and thus it will not affect them financially to disagree.
#315. To: Destro (#314)
#316. To: RickyJ, ALL (#260)
WTC 7 didn't bow
If WTC 7 was a demolition, it is only reasonable to conclude that the twin towers were too.
The core's primary function was to bear the entire vertical load of the building
Of course it was over engineered to handle at least twice the weight of the towers
#317. To: BeAChooser (#316)
(Edited)
#318. To: christine, RickyJ, ALL (#265)
Notice the concrete is for the most part intact. It did not turn to dust like the WTC towers concrete did.
so fundamental
#319. To: BeAChooser (#318)
#320. To: Kamala, ALL (#268)
WTC 7 was 5 times higher than wide. A "normal" failure would have been that it would have tipped over
#321. To: BeAChooser (#320)
ROTFLOL!
#322. To: BeAChooser (#318)
Tell me, christine ...
#323. To: Minerva (#321)
(Edited)
#324. To: Corn Flake Girl (#304)
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#325. To: BeAChooser (#320)
So your extensive *experience* tells you that tall steel framed buildings are rigid enough to "tip over"?
#326. To: Ferret Mike (#324)
#327. To: BeAChooser (#320)
#328. To: Morgana le Fay (#326)
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#329. To: Kamala, ALL (#269)
NIST states that the majority of the damage and heat was seen at that impact holes
#330. To: RickyJ, ALL (#285)
He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out
#331. To: Destro, RickyJ, ALL (#286)
I keep saying that I feel the govt of the USA loves the demolition theory people because they help discredit any real investigation in the very real connections within our govt to the terror cells linked around 9/11.
#332. To: BeAChooser (#329)
probably
#333. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#291)
Notice that I'm the only qualified airline pilot illustrating the undeniable aviation fraud, involved in 9-11.
#334. To: BeAChooser (#333)
qualified airline pilot
#335. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ, SKYDRIFTER (#331)
(Edited)
#336. To: BeAChooser (#331)
I agree with you
#337. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#301)
1) ... snip ... the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust.
4) ... snip ... Why was the testimony of Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who states he heard bombs tear down Building 7 as it collapsed , omitted from the final edit? ... snip ... Why was there no effort made to include the testimony of William Rodruigez, who was a witness to underground explosions in the basement levels?
5) Why during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue were the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, not even mentioned?
6) Why was coverage of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 narrowed into a mere debunking of the "squib" issue and testimony from the dozens at the scene who both saw and heard explosions completely omitted. In debunking the squib issue, why did the documentary fail to point out the fact that such emissions could be seen exiting the towers many floors below the collapse point?
1) If the documentary was intended to be a balanced piece, why were only three individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement included in the final edit compared to at least thirteen individuals who advocated the official story or the incompetence whitewash? ... Does Guy Smith consider a more than four to one ratio of debunkers to 9/11 skeptics a balanced appraisal?
2) How can Guy Smith justify using the strong implication on numerous occasions throughout the documentary that questioning the official story of 9/11 is insulting and hurtful to the victims?
4) Why did producer Guy Smith decide to devote an inordinate amount of time to theories that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement, such as the Jewish conspiracy angle, the C-130 Pentagon angle and the Shanksville "no plane" angle?
5) Why were 9/11 skeptics afforded only brief, insubstantial and fleeting air time whereas debunkers were given the chance to speak uninterrupted at length? Why were the statements of debunkers subsequently supported in the narrative with documentation yet the statements of 9/11 skeptics were not, even though we know the producer was presented with such documentation.
6) Why was Dylan Avery filmed listening to the interviewer's question about the coroner's statements while looking nervous? This was a blatant attempt to portray Avery as dishonest
7) Why were the debunkers referred to in sympathetic and sober terms whereas the personalities of the 9/11 skeptics were attacked?
8) ... snip ... When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us'
9) Why were scientists who represented the debunkers interviewed and yet scientists who represented the 9/11 skeptics, such as Professor Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan, omitted from the documentary?
Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change.
The BBC allowed scientists to do a 3D simulation of the Pentagon crash to support the official story, but a truth-seeker's simulation was not used for the WTC collapse.
#338. To: Corn Flake Girl, ALL (#304)
It just so cool to be able to correct posts
#339. To: IndieTX, ALL (#306)
destro, agaviator, beachooser at the least
You just read my bozo list
#340. To: BeAChooser (#338)
How does one go about correcting posts?
#341. To: BeAChooser (#338)
#342. To: BeAChooser (#330)
(Edited)
He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#343. To: BeAChooser (#339)
#344. To: RickyJ (#342)
#345. To: christine, ALL (#310)
the concensus, so far, is that the opportunity to hone one's debate skills
and the entertainment value is welcomed.
#346. To: RickyJ, Destro, ALL (#313)
However not all structural engineers have agreed with the USA government's theory of the collapse, just most of them. The ones that have disagreed tend to be those that are retired and thus it will not affect them financially to disagree.
#347. To: Red Jones, ALL (#325)
if the building is rigid enough to stand up, then it is rigid enough to tip over.
#348. To: Red Jones, ALL (#332)
we are truth-seekers.
#349. To: BeAChooser (#347)
#350. To: Red Jones, ALL (#336)
#351. To: Red Jones (#340)
I would press the 'edit' button if I were you.
#352. To: RickyJ, ALL (#342)
Not all structural engineers agree that the towers did not come down with explosives,
The other structural engineers who sincerely believe the government's theory are the ones I am most concerned about. I wouldn't want to ever go in any building those people design.
#353. To: BeAChooser (#316)
the exterior columns were designed structurally such that they resisted the total lateral loads and about 50 percent of gravity loads."
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#354. To: BeAChooser (#352)
The other structural engineers who sincerely believe the government's theory are the ones I am most concerned about. I wouldn't want to ever go in any building those people design.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#355. To: BeAChooser (#316)
You never did get around to running that simple calculation I suggested, did you, Ricky.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#356. To: BeAChooser (#352)
(Edited)
Not all structural engineers agree that the towers did not come down with explosives,
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#357. To: BeAChooser, Skydrifter, Angle, Critter, Corn Flake Girl, Diana, Robin, BTP Holdings, All, *9-11* (#329)
#358. To: Ferret Mike (#328)
Several Corn Flake dances:
#359. To: Red Jones (#336)
#360. To: RickyJ, ALL (#355)
If you think the equation to prove the WTC buildings collapsed according to the government's theory can be done with a simple equation
#361. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#333)
#362. To: Kamala, Skydrifter, Angle, Critter, Corn Flake Girl, Diana, Robin, BTP Holdings, All (#357)
You are reduced to calling me a liar
NIST states that the majority of damage and heating was directly in the impact area.
NIST states that majority airframe that impacted the WTC 2 was crushed in 0.2 seconds by floor slabs and the 100,000 psi outer perimeter columns.
The NIST final report refers to these sagging floors as hanging floors along the east face of the WTC 2. There are multiple photos that show the hanging floors before collapse and right after impact. There appears to be no difference between the two photos in the elapsed timeframe.
NIST concluded that while the impacts MAY have destroyed and removed the ceiling tiles from the direct impact area the vibration played no role in shaking off the 2.2-2.5 inches of upgraded SFRM, and NIST left this out of its final draft.
#363. To: SKYDRIFTER (#361)
I'm Captain qualified on the B-727, B-737, B-747, B-757, B-767 & DC-10.
#364. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#363)
#365. To: SKYDRIFTER (#361)
I'm Captain qualified on the B-727, B-737, B-747, B-757, B-767 & DC-10.
#366. To: BeAChooser, Intotheabyss, Corn Flake Girl, Tom007, Jethro Tull, Robin, Diana, RickyJ, Skydrifter, Christine, Angle, All, *9-11* (#362)
#367. To: Kamala (#366)
The government fairytale is in serious trouble. Over 80% believe there is a cover up. You and others are losing, and losing badly.
#368. To: Kamala, Critter, Scrapper2, Christine, Aristeides, Honway, Robin, Diana, All (#366)
#369. To: Corn Flake Girl (#303)
One poster named Yukon
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#370. To: BeAChooser (#316)
damaged as the sagging floors pulled on the outer columns.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#371. To: SKYDRIFTER (#368)
#372. To: christine, skydrifter (#371)
BeAChooser? i don't see him. ;)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#373. To: Kamala (#366)
#374. To: SKYDRIFTER (#368)
I'd ban BAC and erase related postings
#375. To: BeAChooser (#360)
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C. The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#376. To: Critter (#375)
(Edited)
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C. The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#377. To: Kamala, Intotheabyss, Corn Flake Girl, Tom007, Jethro Tull, Robin, Diana, RickyJ, Skydrifter, Christine, Angle, All (#366)
In its severe computer simulations, NIST removes all the SFRM from the impact hole through the debris path.
Even though it has no evidence of how the SFRM could be widely dislodged by shearing or any other means in the debris path.
Even without SFRM, the time the office fires burned in the area of limited outer girder bowing, wasn't long enough to raise steel temperatures. The limited heating and suspected loss of SFRM to the perimeter columns played no role in the collapse. All steel tested from the fire zones bare this out.
Aircraft impact areas and debris path are totally different. NIST could only see around 3 meters into the towers. Any computer modeling of a debris path is complete speculation.
No matter what airliner impact case NIST plugged into the model A,B,C or D, no simulation produced the observable events of impact and the debris path.
The government fairytale is in serious trouble. Over 80% believe there is a cover up. You and others are losing, and losing badly.
#378. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#377)
#379. To: Critter, ALL (#370)
"damaged as the sagging floors pulled on the outer columns."
Didn't I already prove this to be a bogus claim at LP?
You showed us pictures claiming to show sagging floors. If they show sagging floors, then the floors have to be disconnected from the perimeter columns. If they are disconnected from the perimeter columns then they cannot exert any inward force on those columns.
#380. To: christine, SKYDRIFTER, IndieTX, angle, ALL (#371)
BeAChooser? i don't see him. ;)
(when it gets to the point where no one here wants to feed him, he'll have to go elsewhere or starve)
#381. To: christine, Kamala, ALL (#373)
#373. To: Kamala (#366)
hehehehe. checkmate. :P
christine posted on 2007-02-21 19:27:31 ET
#382. To: IndieTX, ALL (#376)
The open air [dirty burn] burning temp of kerosene [Jet-A] is 260-315 °C (500-599 °F). The WTC was indeed a dirty burn. Hardley enough to melt steel.
#383. To: angle (#367)
Begininng with BushBakerSaudiCheneyInc, they deserve a traitor's consequence, at the least.
#384. To: BeAChooser (#382)
And fires can get quite hot even without jet fuel as a starter. The Windsor Tower fire in Madrid, for example, had MEASURED temperatures of over 1400 F. And then there are sources like this:
The Windsor Building after the fire was extinguished Windsor Building Partial Collapse
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#385. To: intotheabyss (#383)
(Edited)
will we have enough rope?
#386. To: SKYDRIFTER (#378)
A stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down with controlled demolition
#387. To: BeAChooser (#381)
The bozo filter is aptly named, perhaps.
#388. To: robin, ALL (#384)
Why would you bring up Madrid? One steel-framed building burned for 18 hours and never fell.
#389. To: BeAChooser (#388)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#390. To: robin, ALL (#389)
Try reading the entire post.
I mentioned both buildings and linked to good info on both.
#391. To: BeAChooser (#390)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#392. To: robin, ALL (#391)
Read the links I posted, it explains the difference between the structures.
#393. To: BeAChooser (#392)
The Windsor Tower is hard evidence against the conspiracy crowd.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#394. To: BeAChooser (#392)
The structure was mostly reinforced concrete and ALL the portions that relied on a steel frame collapsed. Those are veriable facts.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#395. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#380)
I've been very courteous.
#396. To: BeAChooser, RickyJ., Peetie Wheatstraw, BTP Holdings, InToTheAbyss, Wakeup, Angle, Critter, Skydrifter, Diana, Christine, Jethro Tull, Honway, Formerlurker, Hounddawg, Lodwick, Burkeman1, Horse, IndieTx, Esso, Innieway, Red Jones, Ferret Mike, , *9-11* (#377)
(Edited)
#397. To: BeAChooser (#380)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#398. To: Kamala, BeAChooser, Diana (#396)
#399. To: Kamala (#396)
#400. To: Kamala, ALL (#396)
When NIST uses the words, "could", "predicted debris impact", "representations", "estimations of areas", "estimates", "considered damage" and "debris field calculated from aircraft impact analyses", "partial validation" and "assumed" are nothing more than computer simulated data with no scientific evidence of any kind.
Again, NIST has no proof or evidence or scientific experimentation
There is no energy for this according to MIT engineers. Calculations done have the airliners basically expending ALMOST all their energy on impact and crushing themselves on the girders and floors slabs. There was no energy left to remove all the SFRM from 1,000's and 1,000's of square feet of the towers.
NIST states that the towers were fuel poor and ventilation limited.
NIST states that the fires had around 20 minutes of fuel as the transient fires moved, but burned for around 40 minutes near the bowing areas. What's burning?
NIST severe computer modeling of interior "damage" consisted of, if a workstation had an estimated 5% damage, then the WHOLE workstation and SFRM was REMOVED and considered 100% destroyed.
Berkley engineers got access to the steel from the impact zones and stated the steel preformed great and the towers preformed as designed.
NIST could never duplicate the INTERIOR debris path or workstation layouts. No matter if NIST ran its less, moderate base or more severe computer simulations, NIST could NEVER duplicate the aircraft debris path or the complex interior layout of the towers.
WTC 1 had landing gear eject out from opposite the impact hole and the WTC 2 had a engine, landing gear and some fuselage exit opposite the impact hole.
NONE of the computer simulation re-enacted those events. This means ALL computer impact debris path cases were incorrect,
In the WTC 2's case, that would mean that the airliner did much LESS damage and MAY have missed the core completely.
In NISTs computer simulation, to get the towers to collapse, NIST had to use a more severe model that had the airliner impacts and debris path doing MASSIVE damage, even though NIST has no evidence.
NIST then removes ALL the fireproofing from girders and trusses, DOUBLES the time of the fire in the bowing area from 40 to 90 minutes, DOUBLES the known damage area from 5 to 9 floors, increases the sagging trusses to 42 INCHES, models the towers WITHOUT the hat truss, and then DISCONNECTS the floor systems from the perimeter columns. Then the towers are "poised" for "progressive collapse".
NIST quote, "Not all the observables were perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behavior of the aircraft breakup and subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models".
Who here at 4UM is willing to trust and believe anything from a research project that admits this?
#401. To: BeAChooser (#400)
Are you suggesting that somehow an engine traveling through the building would do less damage to structural members in the building than one that didn't manage to exit the other side? Tell us Mark, how does that work?
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#402. To: BeAChooser (#400)
When NIST uses the words, "could", "predicted debris impact", "representations", "estimations of areas", "estimates", "considered damage" and "debris field calculated from aircraft impact analyses", "partial validation" and "assumed" are nothing more than computer simulated data with no scientific evidence of any kind.
By all means, Mark, supply your source for all these claims. Or are you reluctant to do that?
#403. To: BeAChooser, Critter (#400)
#404. To: innieway, BeAChooser (#402)
why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11
#405. To: Red Jones (#404)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#406. To: BeAChooser (#392)
The steel collapsed as rapidly as the fire protection coatings allowed.
#407. To: BeAChooser (#390)
You will never find the truth on a foundation of misinformation.
#408. To: BeAChooser (#400)
By all means, tell us how your bombs in the towers theory manages to make landing gear, engines and fuselage exit the opposite side the towers.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#409. To: BeAChooser, *9-11* (#400)
(Edited)
Ha ha. Ho ho. Hee hee. It's like torture isn't it? It's like your worst nightmare. You are pulling your hair out or like having one fingernail at a time pulled.
#410. To: Critter (#401)
(Edited)
#411. To: Kamala (#409)
Ha ha. Ho ho. Hee hee. It's like torture isn't it? It's like your worst nightmare. You are pulling your hair out or like having one fingernail at a time pulled. For now you are just a useful tool, and errand boy for your handlers. You are a cup of coffee, the TV movie of the week. Your usefulness is limited, as is your time.
#412. To: innieway, Kamala, ALL (#402)
Meanwhile, you REFUSE to tell anyone what your area of "expertise" is...
I believe he already told you that his source is the actual NIST report itself - the paper copy - NOT what's on the internet...
BTW, why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11
#413. To: Critter, ALL (#401)
If it hits something hard, it fragments. Bullet breaks bone, bone breaks bullet.If it doesn't hit anything hard, it passes through and does little damage.
#414. To: Red Jones, critter, innieway, all (#404)
#415. To: ladybug, RickyJ, ALL (#407)
My solution is simple. DEMAND an independent investigation of 9/11,
#416. To: BeAChooser (#414)
What have you been reduced to, Red ... their cheerleader
#417. To: Kamala (#409)
#418. To: christine, Kamala, ALL (#411)
Kamala - 4UM is my home field. ... snip ...
christine - love it :P
#419. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#418)
#420. To: BeAChooser (#418)
For a group that claims 4UM is their *home field*, is it staggering the number of members who have bozo'd themselves so they won't be faced with seeing facts they don't like or that don't fit their world-view. That's a sign of weakness, not strength in one's convictions. ROTFLOL!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#421. To: RickyJ (#420)
 | This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#422. To: BeAChooser, Kamala, Ricky J, Diana, Christine, TommyTheMadArtist, Robin, Skydrifter, ALL (#412) (Edited)
(My reply to BAC) If debris and fire compromising the integrity of Buildings 1, 2, and 7 were the cause of their failure - WHY didn't Building 3 collapse to the ground??? Consider the layout of the TC Complex... Building 3 is closest in proximity to the Towers; and apparently suffered a heavy pounding of debris on top of it - ie a helluva lot of weight came crashing down on it. Considering it's relatively small size compared to the Towers, I'm sure the structural supports were also comparably smaller, and therefore NOT designed to take this kind of weight... YET in spite of very obvious structural damage, it somehow managed NOT to collapse completely to the ground: If 3 could handle this and not collapse, where is the logic that 1 and 2 WOULD collapse completely to the ground? Now go back and look at the layout again. Building 6 lies directly in line between Buildings 1 and 7. If there was sufficient "debris damage" to building 7 to cause complete failure, HOW did this debris MISS Building 6 to a great enough extent as for it to maintain enough integrity NOT to collapse??? Evidently, there was indeed quite a bit of debris damage to building 6 (the building furthest from us in this photo - the closer is 5): Let's look at some of the "serious questions". Shall I go on? If ANY part of an "official story" is found to be fraudulent, then how can one be expected to believe it? When someone begins telling you lies, it makes you have to question everything they say. Your attempts to show the building collapses as happening exactly as the "official story" underline an attempt to discredit the whole "truth movement". The bottom line is the "official story" of 9/11 is Swiss Cheese, and the facts surrounding the collapses are only a tiny bit of the overall picture. Your attempts at making the "official story" credible by validation of the collapses are nothing more than the attempts of a shill to fracture the "truth movement". The likes of you are what I (and many others) consider to be traitors to this country - every bit as much as the ones currently holding office. When shit turns turtle in this country, I suggest you don't stick around.
(BAC to Innieway)
You will not find the truth on a foundation of lies and misinformation. If you can't even get past the silly and unnecessary notion of bombs in the towers and no Flight 77, there really is no point in discussing any serious question about 9/11 with you. Indeed, the pursuit of nonsense is making it impossible to get answers to the serious questions.
I don't believe I've ever said anything about "bombs in the towers", or that there was "no Flight 77". I DO maintain that there is something seriously wrong with the "official explanation". It's NOT getting answers to the "serious questions" that puts one in the position of feeling something is seriously wrong with the "official explanation" - including the collapses and the Pentagon. 
(1) What's behind the obvious "stand down" of NORAD?
(2) Why didn't the Secret Service IMMEDIATELY whisk the President away upon learning of an "attack" upon America? His location was no secret.
(3) Why did Condi lie to the 9/11 Commission with the statement (not an exact quote, but close enough to get the gist of it) "No one ever considered an attack like this using planes and targeting those buildings" - when in FACT, NORAD had conducted exercises specifically with such an attack in mind?
(4) What about the "prophetic" insight of PNAC in calling 1 year before the attacks for the need of "A new Pearl Harbor" in order to rapidly facilitate the "process of transformation" which they called for?
(5) Why did the Administration originally oppose setting up the 9/11 Commission?
(6) Why have the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission come out and publicly stated it was flawed? Their comments:
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
(7) Why were so many fore warnings ignored?
(8) What about the put options placed on United Airlines?
(9) What role does Dov Zhakeim (Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attacks) play in this? Remember, the forte of his company (Systems Planning Corporation) is designing, building, installing, and maintaining remote control systems for large aircraft.
(10) Why did the 9/11 Commission receive a tiny amount of funding compared to the Monica/Clinton investigation?
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
#423. To: innieway (#422)
9/11 Truth: The Complete Media Blackout of the WTC7 Collapse The Incredibly Strange Collapse of WTC Building 7 How Did They Know Building 7 Was Going to Collapse? 9/11 Truth: What Happened to WTC Building 7 9/11 Truth: Structural Failures vs. Controlled Demolitions 9/11 Truth: FEMA & NIST's "Pancake Theory" is a Lie 9/11: Does this look like "structural failure" to you? Evidence Showing US Government Complicity in the 911 Attack 9/11 Truth: Even More Video Proof of Controlled Demolitions 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition 9/11: Rudy Giuliani & the Feds Destroyed the WTC Evidence
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46158
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46251
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46138
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46113
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46292
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46157
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46094
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46090
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46093
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46290&Disp
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46156
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#424. To: RickyJ, ALL (#420)
But Ricky, what you fail to realize is that I'm not arguing whether 9/11 was or was not an inside job. I'm simply pointing out that you won't find the truth about 9/11 by starting with a foundation of lies. It makes you too easy to discredit.
BAC, what you fail to realize is around here the debate about whether 9/11 was an inside job has been settled since this forum started in 2005.
#425. To: TommyTheMadArtist, RickyJ, ALL (#421)
ROTFLOL! When have you ever done that, Tommy? Asked me that question? But since you've asked now (even though you didn't even ping me), let's examine that question. We can start out with what you say: Guess you weren't paying attention to the video shown of Jowenko (the SOLE demolition expert in the world supporting the WTC7 was bombed theory) answering that exact question. Wake up, Tommy! And you know what he said. The building could have been prepped by 30 or 40 (or was it 50) guys in the few hours after the collapse of the WTC towers before WTC7 collapsed. Of course, Jowenko looked a little like a dear caught in the headlights when they told him the building was on fire that whole time. ROTFLOL!
All you have to do, to stop arguing with BAC, is ask him point blank this question.
If you were a guy who owned a building just like Building 7 at the World Trade Center, and needed to have it demolished, how long would it take a demolitions expert to set up the charges on a building that size for a safe and expedient demolition?
Ask him that question, and he runs away like a little girl.
In fact, ask ANYONE that question and they won't tell you a fucking thing. Because it takes a couple weeks possibly a month or two to design the demolitions, cut easements into the super structure, and then of course, place the charges and riggings. The ONLY way they could have demolished Building 7, is if it were a planned event, END OF STORY.
#426. To: innieway, ALL (#422)
Actually you had quite a bit to say about WTC 1 and WTC 2 in the following thread: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45537&Disp=All&#C205 ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL!
I don't believe I've ever said anything about "bombs in the towers"
The likes of you are what I (and many others) consider to be traitors to this country - every bit as much as the ones currently holding office. When shit turns turtle in this country, I suggest you don't stick around.
#427. To: BeAChooser (#425) (Edited)
For starters I've posted that question to you on another thread and you disappeared. Perhaps you were off the clock or something. Second, after losing half the fire department, do you really think for a minute that 50 guys, inside a burning building would actually be able to set it up in a few hours? Apparently you must have been drinking the koolaid a little too long, because cutting easements is extremely dangerous work, and to minimize the risk to large numbers of people, are usually done in 4 man teams. I seriously doubt that it was done in a few hours. It simply cannot be done with that amount of people on such short notice. Procedure would have mandated that the fires be out, and structure assessed, then plans drawn up, and of course the eventual demolition. EVEN IN LIGHT OF THE EVENT OF THAT DAY. You have got to be retarded to think that after the massive loss of life, that they would send upwards of 50 guys to go work in a burning building to set it up for demolition if it were empty. ESPECIALLY, if fires already brought down two HUGE FIRE RESISTANT BUILDINGS FAR MORE STRUCTURALLY SOUND THAN ANYTHING BUILT BEFORE.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#428. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#427)
Tommy, you don't seem to understand. I'm only quoting what the demolition expert your side has been quoting to supposedly prove WTC7 was a demolition said. Nothing more. Aren't you even aware of what he said? Or do you think he's a KOOK and you're smarter than him? Then take it up with your side's demolition expert. ROTFLOL! I see. So you are saying Mr Jowenko is retarded. May I quote you next time one of your FD4UM friends mentions him?
Second, after losing half the fire department, do you really think for a minute that 50 guys, inside a burning building would actually be able to set it up in a few hours?
I seriously doubt that it was done in a few hours.
You have got to be retarded to think that after the massive loss of life, that they would send upwards of 50 guys to go work in a burning building to set it up for demolition if it were empty.
#429. To: BeAChooser (#428)
Mr. Jowenko is indeed a retard. There is no fucking way ANYONE would send a team of 50 guys to hurriedly demolish a building. ESPECIALLY when an event like 9-11 happened. The building was stable enough to send 50 guys into to demolish, it was surely stable enough to let stand for a month or so needed to properly demolish it. There would be no way for 50 guys to properly communicate between each other to know what each and every team member was doing. If one cuts the wrong structural support, they could have brought the building down on the other members of the team. This is why small teams are brought in to do ANY kind of demolition work. You can indeed quote me, because there's a lot of obfuscation on his part, and the parts of people posting the demolition theory in general. A building of any size and consequence takes time to demolish. You don't assemble a crack demolition team to take down a building that size in a matter of hours, ESPECIALLY when there's plenty of material inside that is valuable. Think about how much salvageable hardware was inside that place. I firmly believe that if it was a controlled demolition, that it was set up weeks in advance. That is the only, and I MEAN ONLY way it could have been a controlled demolition. I'm not taking any side here BAC, I'm asking viable questions, and posing HONEST answers to them. This is the problem with the 9-11 conspiracy threads and such, is that people are not thinking clearly, nor are they asking the right questions when it comes right down to it. You claim to be objective, and I've seen some of your objective posts, they are thought out, and very intelligent. I'm sure that if you were to take your objective intelligence, and point it to this topic in a way that was unbiased, you would realize that ANY circumstances such as a burning building, would have negated a team being sent in to demolish it, because a compromised structure in some ways is HARDER to demolish than one that isn't. Larry Silverstein said that the building was demolished by the Fire Department. I was unaware that the FDNY did that as a sideline, because demolitions fall under a different kind of bonding and contracting union than Fire Fighting. Legality alone stops the fire department from demolition work. So, with that said, you can quote me all you like, but bear in mind that I do indeed believe it was a controlled demolition, but one that was set up in advance of 9-11. You simply cannot bring down a building that size in a matter of hours. It takes weeks to cut easements in a building of that size. It takes weeks of structural planning to ensure that the contracting company that is doing the demolition gets it right. A building was demolished here in the Twin Cities, and it took 3 months to get permits, plans, and teams inside to do their job, and they had to take their time otherwise a lot of people, and other buildings would have been destroyed if they'd been sloppy. So, take my post for what it is.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#430. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#429)
Please post a link to this quote.
Larry Silverstein said that the building was demolished by the Fire Department.
#431. To: robin, TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#429)
Ping to #439, robin. Any comments? ROTFLOL!
Mr. Jowenko is indeed a retard.
#432. To: robin, ALL (#423)
Various rebuttals of demolition theory: http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm http://www.jod911.com/evidence.pdf http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
#433. To: BeAChooser (#431)
You'll have to wade through all of the hours of footage on Fox News. I was watching it happen that morning, and they interviewed Mr. Silverstein that morning, and he in fact did say it was demolished by the fire department. You have Google, I'm sure you can find the link yourself, this way you know I'm not using a biased source, unlike your debunking 9-11 post to me on the other thread.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#434. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#433)
So, in other words, you have no proof he said that. I figured that was the case.
You'll have to wade through all of the hours of footage on Fox News.
#435. To: BeAChooser (#434)
No, you're just too fucking lazy to search for the truth yourself. If you were truly objective, you'd look for it yourself instead of being lazy.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#436. To: BeAChooser (#434)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html One link, let me find some "legitimate" sources for you.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#437. To: BeAChooser (#434)
You have proven yourself to be such a liar and a fool that it's not even fun wagering on you for sport any longer. But since when has that mattered?
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering ****.
#438. To: BeAChooser (#434)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329 Yet another, this time, you can actually hear the man say it. http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html Another link for you to digest.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#439. To: BeAChooser (#438)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html Another... So, how many links are you going to need? Seriously, I can do this all night.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#440. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#435)
Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be "Pulled"
"A New Jersey EMT has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. ...In his enthralling testimony, the EMT goes into graphic detail of how he and others personally witnessed a plethora of explosions at all points of the buildings before their collapse."
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation
Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
#441. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#436)
That link doesn't quote Silverstein saying "the building was demolished by the Fire Department." TRY AGAIN.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
One link
#442. To: Uncle Bill, beachooser (#440)
Thanks. I'm sure Beachooser will find the link informative.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#443. To: BeAChooser (#441)
There's a link out there that says the FDNY did it, from Larry. HOWEVER... You don't refute that it was demolished right?
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#444. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#438)
No, he does NOT say "the building was demolished by the Fire Department." You will not find the truth on a foundation of misinformation, Tommy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Yet another, this time, you can actually hear the man say it.
#445. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#439)
No, another where he does NOT say "the building was demolished by the Fire Department." You misquoted him Tommy. Why is that necessary if your case is so strong? So can I, Tommy.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html
Another...
Seriously, I can do this all night.
#446. To: BeAChooser (#444)
Speaking of denial and misinformation... Was the building demolished? Silverstein says in fact it was. He was on record on 3 accounts in interviews, one of which he does indeed say the Fire Department was responsible. In another account, he mentions the fire department but does not say they did it. I'm still looking for the fire department one for you. So, was it a demolition or not BAC? ANSWER THE QUESTION.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#447. To: BeAChooser (#445)
So can I, Tommy. Well apparently you can't answer a question. Was it a controlled demolition if Larry Silverstein says it was?
Seriously, I can do this all night.
| This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#448. To: Uncle Bill, TommyTheMadArtist, All (#440)
From your source: "In a letter to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, the individual who wishes to remain anonymous" ... snip ... Ok, fess up guys ... One of you wrote the letter... ROTFLOL!
#449. To: BeAChooser (#448)
I see you can't answer a simple question can you? Yes or no? If Larry Silverstein says that WTC was a controlled demolition, then was it? Yes or no BAC. Show us how intellectually honest you are.
As Americans tolerate liars, thieves, and traitors to govern them, they get exactly the government they deserve. If the American People were truly interested in having a representational republic, and had the desire for justice and good governance, they would have impeached, incarcerated, and imprisoned every elected official in office on September 12th, 2001. However, they should have done it in 1913, before World War I, that way, the treason wouldn't have become such a cancer as to become inoperable.
#450. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#446)
No, Tommy, Silverstein is neither quoted or heard saying that the "building was demolished" in any of the links you've provided. Not one. No, Tommy, he does NOT say "the Fire Department was responsible" ... certainly not for demolishing the building. You are just making things up. Is your case that WTC7 was demolished so weak that you have to make up false quotes?
Speaking of denial and misinformation... Was the building demolished? Silverstein says in fact it was.
He was on record on 3 accounts in interviews, one of which he does indeed say the Fire Department was responsible.
#451. To: BeAChooser (#450)
Sorry, I'm not making ANYTHING up.
As Americans tolerate liars, thieves, and traitors to govern them, they get exactly the government they deserve. If the American People were truly interested in having a representational republic, and had the desire for justice and good governance, they would have impeached, incarcerated, and imprisoned every elected official in office on September 12th, 2001. However, they should have done it in 1913, before World War I, that way, the treason wouldn't have become such a cancer as to become inoperable.
#452. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#447)
Silverstein did NOT say "it was a controlled demolition"? You are just making things up, Tommy. Why is that necessary if your evidence is so strong?
Was it a controlled demolition if Larry Silverstein says it was?
#453. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#449)
Except he didn't, did he. Try to be "intellectually honest" about that, Tommy.
If Larry Silverstein says that WTC was a controlled demolition,
#454. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#449)
You won't be able to build anything better, Tommy, if your foundation consists of misinformation.
As Americans tolerate liars, thieves, and traitors to govern them, they get exactly the government they deserve.
#455. To: BeAChooser (#453)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html As loathe as I am to go there... Look at the page in question, scroll down til you see the picture of Silverstein. I think there's a video you can download. I saw the PBS documentary and have a copy of it myself. If I had a way to host the video, I'd post it. He says point blank that it was a demolition. He states that it was a decision made by him, and the fire department. Perhaps I am construing responsibility towards the fire department, but it has been admitted it was a controlled demolition just the same, by Larry Silverstein himself. So, with that said, answer the question. If Larry Silverstein says it was a controlled demolition of building 7, is it?
As Americans tolerate liars, thieves, and traitors to govern them, they get exactly the government they deserve. If the American People were truly interested in having a representational republic, and had the desire for justice and good governance, they would have impeached, incarcerated, and imprisoned every elected official in office on September 12th, 2001. However, they should have done it in 1913, before World War I, that way, the treason wouldn't have become such a cancer as to become inoperable.
#456. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#451)
Then link us to a QUOTE where Silverstein says the building was brought down by a "controlled demolition". That is what you claimed Silverstein said.
Sorry, I'm not making ANYTHING up.
#457. To: BeAChooser (#453)
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering ****.
#458. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#455)
No he does not. You are making things up, Tommy.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
As loathe as I am to go there... Look at the page in question, scroll down til you see the picture of Silverstein. I think there's a video you can download. I saw the PBS documentary and have a copy of it myself. If I had a way to host the video, I'd post it. He says point blank that it was a demolition.
#459. To: BeAChooser (#458) (Edited)
As a habitual liar I guess you lose in the court of public opinion. Since we seem to be unable to reach a factual consensus and all... You have three minutes until I unleash the mangy basset hounds! Two!
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering ****.
#460. To: Dakmar (#457)
looking carefully at your lips
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
#461. To: innieway (#422)
On your first graphic it says around 5PM WTC7 collapses. Where do you get this time?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
#462. To: angle (#461)
Where do you get this time? I just did a Google image search for "trade center layout" (or something like that) a long time ago, and saved it in photobucket for future use... I hadn't even paid any attention to the timeframe they have listed as the time 7 collapsed... Photobucket doesn't have the original source, and I can't seem to find it on Google now..... Wonder if it came from the BBC?
On your first graphic it says around 5PM WTC7 collapses.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
#463. To: Red Jones (#403)
I sometimes wondered if he were a troll due to his inability to use logic very effectively. But due to the size of this site the PTB would not use a first string shill here that would be reserved for sites like free republic. He is probably a third string agent. (Pulled from post #228): http://us.f819.mail.yahoo.co m/ym/ShowLetter? box=Inbox&MsgId=4102_28400664_64752_1861_701023_0_116520_912070_1812342512&bodyP art=2&tnef=&YY=30835&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&hea d=b&VScan=1&Idx=4
Gosh BAC. it seems like Critter in 401 has shown you a very obvious point that you couldn't figure out. I think your deductive abilities are very weak. It discounts everything you've ever said.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
#464. To: Kamala (#409)
ROTHFL :P
my government bootlicker.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
#465. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#421)
Give him time, his handlers will help hike come up with something. I'm just curious how they will handle this and few other questions. All the more reason I love to have known shills on a site. We get to see the govern. opps up close and personal.
Ask him that question, and he runs away like a little girl.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
#466. To: intotheabyss (#463)
my conclusion over 2 years ago is that BAC is sincerely concerned that people would not accept the statements of the mainstream media as gospel. anyone who does not accept whatever mainstream media tell us is (in BAC's thinking) a kook and he's defending the world against such kooks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
#467. To: Red Jones, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, Kamala, All (#466)
I'm curious to see if BAC disappears in concert with the Jewish Sabbath, tomorrow. He has a strange posting pattern. I used to think that he was regularly attending Disinformation Refresher School. (Well, I guess that would be the same!)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest