4um: WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined

[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 45347
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?

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
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell

IndieTX posted on 2007-02-21 19:43:15 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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.

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.

Even though it has no evidence of how the SFRM could be widely dislodged by shearing or any other means in the debris path.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Right. You are such an *expert*.

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.

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?

The government fairytale is in serious trouble. Over 80% believe there is a cover up. You and others are losing, and losing badly.

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.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-22 12:59:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#378. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#377)

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.

SKYDRIFTER posted on 2007-02-22 13:17:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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?

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 ...

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.

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.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-22 13:25:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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)

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.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-22 13:33:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#381. To: christine, Kamala, ALL (#373)

#373. To: Kamala (#366)

hehehehe. checkmate. :P

christine posted on 2007-02-21 19:27:31 ET

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.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-22 13:35:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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.

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.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-22 13:44:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#383. To: angle (#367)

Begininng with BushBakerSaudiCheneyInc, they deserve a traitor's consequence, at the least.

My only concern is, will we have enough rope? ;)

intotheabyss posted on 2007-02-22 14:04:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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:

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

windsor building after fire
The Windsor Building after the fire was extinguished
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.
Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

Windsor Building Partial Collapse

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:
The lack of a sprinkler system
Incorrect installation of spandrels
The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain

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.)

robin posted on 2007-02-22 14:12:53 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply

#385. To: intotheabyss (#383) (Edited)

will we have enough rope?

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

angle posted on 2007-02-22 14:13:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#386. To: SKYDRIFTER (#378)

A stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down with controlled demolition

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.

intotheabyss posted on 2007-02-22 14:13:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#387. To: BeAChooser (#381)

The bozo filter is aptly named, perhaps.

Why? Because so many are filtering you.

intotheabyss posted on 2007-02-22 14:16:28 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#388. To: robin, ALL (#384)

Why would you bring up Madrid? One steel-framed building burned for 18 hours and never fell.

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.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-22 14:40:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#389. To: BeAChooser (#388)

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
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)

robin posted on 2007-02-22 14:43:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#390. To: robin, ALL (#389)

Try reading the entire post.

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).

I mentioned both buildings and linked to good info on both.

You will never find the truth on a foundation of misinformation.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-22 15:04:05 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#391. To: BeAChooser (#390)

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
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)

robin posted on 2007-02-22 15:06:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#392. To: robin, ALL (#391)

Read the links I posted, it explains the difference between the structures.

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.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-22 16:32:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#393. To: BeAChooser (#392)

The Windsor Tower is hard evidence against the conspiracy crowd.

Yeah, you are right there chooser, it is hard evidence that the government's story is a lie.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ posted on 2007-02-22 16:42:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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.

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!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ posted on 2007-02-22 16:52:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#395. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#380)

I've been very courteous.

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!)

SKYDRIFTER posted on 2007-02-22 19:30:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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)

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

Kamala posted on 2007-02-24 7:11:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#397. To: BeAChooser (#380)

That's simply not true.

Here's another link on the seismic spikes.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/mirrored/craigfurlong/

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.)

robin posted on 2007-02-24 11:25:04 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#398. To: Kamala, BeAChooser, Diana (#396)

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.

Red Jones posted on 2007-02-24 17:13:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#399. To: Kamala (#396)

so very well done, Mark.

christine posted on 2007-02-24 21:09:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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.

Right. You are such an *expert*, Mark.

Again, NIST has no proof or evidence or scientific experimentation

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).

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.

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?

NIST states that the towers were fuel poor and ventilation limited.

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?

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?

The NIST reports say what is 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.

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.

Berkley engineers got access to the steel from the impact zones and stated the steel preformed great and the towers preformed as designed.

I bet not one of those engineers has come forward to support your bombs in the towers theory, Mark.

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.

The problem is Mark, you don't actually know or understand what NIST did.

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,

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.

In the WTC 2's case, that would mean that the airliner did much LESS damage and MAY have missed the core completely.

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?

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.

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.

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".

By all means, Mark, supply your source for all these claims. Or are you reluctant to do that?

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?

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?

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-24 22:39:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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?

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.

I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me

Critter posted on 2007-02-24 23:11:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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.
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.

By all means, Mark, supply your source for all these claims. Or are you reluctant to do that?

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

innieway posted on 2007-02-24 23:30:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#403. To: BeAChooser, Critter (#400)

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.

Red Jones posted on 2007-02-24 23:30:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#404. To: innieway, BeAChooser (#402)

why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11

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.

Red Jones posted on 2007-02-24 23:31:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#405. To: Red Jones (#404)

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
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)

robin posted on 2007-02-24 23:41:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#406. To: BeAChooser (#392)

The steel collapsed as rapidly as the fire protection coatings allowed.

Hmm, would that be anything near free-fall speed?

"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."

ladybug posted on 2007-02-24 23:41:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#407. To: BeAChooser (#390)

You will never find the truth on a foundation of misinformation.

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."

ladybug posted on 2007-02-24 23:51:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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.

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!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ posted on 2007-02-24 23:56:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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.
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

Kamala posted on 2007-02-25 6:40:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#410. To: Critter (#401) (Edited)

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

Kamala posted on 2007-02-25 8:11:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#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.
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

christine posted on 2007-02-25 9:38:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#412. To: innieway, Kamala, ALL (#402)

Meanwhile, you REFUSE to tell anyone what your area of "expertise" is...

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.

I believe he already told you that his source is the actual NIST report itself - the paper copy - NOT what's on the internet...

By all means, let's hear him confirm that.

BTW, why is it you also REFUSE to answer why there was no response from NORAD on 9/11

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.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-02-25 17:29:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.

Comments (413 - 467) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]

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 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell

Windsor Building Partial Collapse

In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell