Here's what I posted the last time Rosie's nonsense was posted here:
She starts out by claiming that "ALL" the steel was removed and shipped off to "Canada" ... er ... "China", "right away". She says there is no metal to test. That is absolutely false. Hundreds of structural engineers and other investigators had plenty of time to visit the WTC site and see the steel insitu, before the steel was removed. Then it went to Fresh Kill where again they got to examine it and retain those samples they considered important to understanding what happened. And tens of thousands of pieces of steel are still being retained for historical purposes and future studies. Rosie is either uninformed or a partisan liar.
Next, in the video, she says that WTC 7 "got hit by nothing". She's either uninformed or a liar. It got hit by significant amounts of debris from the collapse of the towers. That debris ripped a huge hole out of the south side of building. According to the firemen who where on the scene, a 20 story high hole.
Then she claims there were "pools of molten steel" under all three buildings. Well I challenge you to name a single eyewitness who has actually and verifiably used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. I challenge you to name a single expert in fire or steel who says finding molten steel was impossible given the circumstances. I challenge you to tell us what kept any steel that was molten, molten for over 6 weeks after the collapse. Rosie seems to think it was bombs. Show me how that might work.
Next, she claims it took the towers "9 seconds" to fall and that is the same as "free-fall". Well her claim is FALSE. From numerous credible sources (including actual videos of the collapse which one can time) one can learn that the towers actually took about 15 seconds to collapse. One can look at hundreds of still images of the collapses and immediately see that there was debris free-falling much faster than the collapsing level of the towers were descending. She surely has to have seen these images. So Rosie is either a liar or hasn't bothered to apply the least bit of thought to interpreting what she saw or the least bit of energy into investigating the issue.
So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either. All she is really doing is hurting the effort to find out what really happened on 9/11. There are good questions to ask but if *truthers* make no effort to stop idiots like Rosie from muddying the water with nonsense and lies, you will never find the truth. People like her are the *truth* movement's worst enemy.
And in anticipation of nolu_chan's "notice", let me add:
: Truth Movement members almost seem unable to post articles that aren't deceptive or contain outright lies about what happened to the WTC structures and the Pentagon. And they seem to have particular trouble dealing with visual materials that prove their claims false. Why is that?
They continue to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds when video clearly shows they took 15 seconds to collapse. They continue to claim the entrance hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across when photos convincingly prove it was closer to 90 feet. They continue to make an assortment of similar, demonstrably false claims despite all efforts to get them to change their ways.
Why can't *truthers* face the truth? They (and we) will never find out what really happened on 9/11, if they can't do that. Because a *Truth Movement* cannot be founded on disinformation and outright lies. That should be obvious to all. But apparently they can't see that either. It is sad.
#21. To: BeAChooser, Nolu Chan, Christine, Zipporah, Kamala, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, Everyone Interested In How Silly The Government's Official Collapse Story REALLY Sounds (#1)
So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either.
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
BUT, demolition experts the world over should be VERY thankful to OBL, and those 19 Mooslim cohorts that set out to prove the worlds "experts" wrong!!! They showed that not only DOES it work, but with an extremely high success rate! In fact, 100% success rate (it would have worked on the Pentagon too, but that one was a little to "sprawled out")!
Just think of all the profit potential this has for demolition firms... Hell, all they need is to purchase some decommissioned aircraft; have it outfitted with remote control capability (Systems Planning Corporation - [Zakheim's old haunt] can help them with that, it's their specialty); buy 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (around 30 grand at today's prices); and in less than 2 hours have that sucker down!!!!! It'll save god-only-knows how many man-hours rigging buildings for weeks and months in advance, plus the costs of the explosives themselves, and the need for high paid professionals to handle those explosives. And that's for one of the world's LARGEST structures!! Why shit, if it's a small enough eye-sore (like a 20 story run-down old office they need to "take out" to make room for a parking lot for the new bank) they could probably even get by with a little old twin-engine Cessna - and get the job done REALLY dirt cheap!!!
Wonder when Controled Demolition Inc is gonna start using this newfound technology???
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
Actually, I think you are wrong, in part because some structural engineers and demolition experts came forward right after 911 saying that they knew right away that the towers were in trouble.
http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat/2002-04-29-klein.htm "Why the Towers Fell': Larry Klein ... snip ... I had a chance to listen to someone who specializes in taking buildings down (imploding them), and he stated that when he saw the damage to the Towers he knew they were coming down, and he tried to call the New York City emergency agency and couldn't get through."
And if you told the rest of those professionals what we now know ... that the planes would impact the building at nearly maximum velocity, that the impact would shatter numerous structural members and severely damage fireproofing coatings on the remaining steel, that the planes had nearly full fuel tanks, that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional in the towers, that fire fighters would be unable to reach and fight the fires either ... then I suspect a great many more would have had doubts about the structures, too.
This is what you quoted from innieway in your reply to him:
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
And the first line of your answer:
Actually, I think you are wrong, in part because some structural engineers and demolition experts came forward right after 911 saying that they knew right away that the towers were in trouble.
I guess you are still trying to learn the kindergarten version of the dictionary, yes, the one with all the full color pretty pictures in it.
I figured I would clue you in before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself than you already are (if at all possible) - but prior is the opposite of after.
I figured I would clue you in before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself than you already are (if at all possible) - but prior is the opposite of after.
ladybug, don't you think that what the experts said shortly after the collapse might be an indication of what they would have said before the collapse ... PROVIDED they knew all the facts we now know about the situation?
In other words (and I clarify this only because you seem to have had difficulty understand my reasoning the first time I stated it), if PRIOR TO 911, you told the professional engineering community around the world that large commercial jets would impact the towers at nearly maximum velocity, that the impacts would shatter numerous structural members and severely damage fireproofing coatings on the remaining steel, that the planes would have nearly full fuel tanks, that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional, that fire fighters would be unable to reach and fight the fires ... then I suspect a great many more than "not a single one" would have had doubts about the structures surviving.
Now you once told me with great confidence that "there are structural engineers out there that KNOW that the official story is NOT POSSIBLE, but you will not listen to THOSE experts" so I'm challenging you to NAME some of those structural engineers who think the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes. Can you offer a name or are you just PRETENDING that there are structural engineers out there that agree with you and the rest of the 4um *truthers*? Last time I asked that question of you ... well ... you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
I shall address your closing statement first.
Anyone who knows me (there are a couple on the forum) knows for a fact that I do not spend as much time online in the summer time. I spend the vast majority of my time producing our own food, including vegetable gardens, milking goats and a cow, and even growing our own feed for the milk animals. I also make our own butter, and so on. So that means I have much less time to address your drivel than you may like.
As to "experts", for starters, it only takes common sense to realize something is definitely wrong with the official 9/11 story, but if you need an expert to tell you this, here is a site that has several educated folks that can put common sense into "big words" for people like you that only believe what the "officials" tell you.
I am sure you will find a list of excuses why these officials don't count, but I really don't care what ignorant people like you think.
My point regarding your reply to inniway's post is simple. If flying planes into buildings is such a sure fired way to make the damn thing fall into it's own footprint, then you find me an expert that thinks this is such a great idea. After all, it worked so well on 9/11 - they dropped 3 buildings with only 2 planes.
Until you can provide me with such an expert, there is no need for you to grace me with one of your precious little 15 posts for the day.
Gosh, that must be hell on such a big mouth as you to be so limited.
As to "experts", for starters, it only takes common sense to realize something is definitely wrong with the official 9/11 story
But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether what experts throughout the world seem to think caused the WTC towers to collapse is correct or not. Now you said in a previous thread, with 100 percent confidence, that there are structural engineers out there who do not think the official explanation is correct ... who you seem to think support the notion of bombs or thermite or energy beams or nuclear bombs being the cause. And I'm challenging you to back that claim up. If you can't even name one such engineer, why should we believe any other claim you make?
here is a site that has several educated folks that can put common sense into "big words" for people like you that only believe what the "officials" tell you.
Except, as far as I know, that site doesn't name one structural engineer who says WTC 1 or WTC 2 were brought down by something other than a plane impact and fire. That "journal" was in fact started by a sub-atomic particle physicist who spent the last 30 years doing nothing but studying sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. A sub-atomic particle physicist who claimed a paper he'd written was "peer reviewed", when in fact the only folks who'd reviewed it were a bunch of marxists who published papers on marxist economics. A sub-atomic particle physicist who it has been demonstrated time and again to have a great deal of trouble dealing with the reality shown in photos and videos. Who like you, dismisses every REAL expert in subjects like structural engineering, demolition, steel, concrete, fire, seismology and macro-world physics in the entire world. Who instead has surrounded himself with "educated folks" with majors like water treatment, dental materials, theology and philosophy who, like him, promote lies such as the towers collapsed in 10 seconds.
I am sure you will find a list of excuses why these officials don't count, but I really don't care what ignorant people like you think.
And therein lies the problem. You are quite happy letting the folks at the above site LIE to you about many facts surrounding 9/11. At least we know now that being lied to isn't the core reason why you joined the 9/11 *Truth* Movement.
If flying planes into buildings is such a sure fired way to make the damn thing fall into it's own footprint
Except the WTC towers did not fall into their own footprint. That's just another lie you've been willing to accept just because "truth* movement leaders made that claim.
Until you can provide me with such an expert,
I'm not the one who is lacking a REAL expert to back up what my views and claims.
Except the WTC towers did not fall into their own footprint. That's just another lie you've been willing to accept just because "truth* movement leaders made that claim.
To the extent that it's physically possible to reduce a building over 1300 feet high with around 4,000,000 sq. ft. of floorspace into a pile of rubble (the amount of area that rubble would occupy) - yes, they DID fall into their own footprints...
From your reply (#28) to me you claim that we now know that the planes had nearly full fuel tanks, and that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional in the towers.
How much fuel DID get "dumped" into each tower? From all accounts I have been able to find, the estimate is around 10,000 gallons. How much of that 10,000 gallons was consumed in the huge fireball OUTSIDE the building in the second impact? SOMETHING other than office furniture was the fuel source for that fireball... According to Boeing's website, a 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel. Considerably more than the reported 10,000 The range (according to the Boeing website) of a 767 would be able to fly from New York to Beijing. Yet the destinations were from East Coast to West Coast. For economic reasons, they would not fuel that flight to maximum capacity as that would cut back on a considerable amount of weight, thus making take-off easier and burning less fuel...
WHY would fire suppression systems NOT be functional??? IF it were because the main water line feeding the sprinkler system was severed by the impact of the plane the result would be a helluva "gusher" from the water pressure on the line... OR was the firewater line just "conveniently" turned off???
I'm not the one who is lacking a REAL expert to back up what my views and claims.
To the extent that it's physically possible to reduce a building over 1300 feet high with around 4,000,000 sq. ft. of floorspace into a pile of rubble (the amount of area that rubble would occupy) - yes, they DID fall into their own footprints...
No, they did NOT fall into their own footprint. You do know what the term "footprint" means, don't you, innieway? Or is your knowledge about that just as flawed as your knowledge about steel? The foot print of a building is NOT an area with a diameter more than three times the width or depth of a building. "Fall into their own footprint" is a catchy phrase that folks who haven't bothered to actually look at the videos of what happened or who don't begin to understand what they saw in those videos say over and over in lieu of real thought and understanding. Pathetic.
From your reply (#28) to me you claim that we now know that the planes had nearly full fuel tanks,
We know the planes had enough fuel to make a transcontinental flights. "Full" was probably a poor choice of words.
and that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional in the towers.
Yes, we now know that the fire suppression systems on the floors in question were not functional (as a result of the damage done by the impacts).
How much fuel DID get "dumped" into each tower? From all accounts I have been able to find, the estimate is around 10,000 gallons. How much of that 10,000 gallons was consumed in the huge fireball OUTSIDE the building in the second impact?
WHY would fire suppression systems NOT be functional???
The issue was what engineers would likely have said about the prospects of the building IF they knew ahead of time that jet fuel would START large fires and that fire suppression systems would not be available to fight them? You are trying to follow this conversation, aren't you, innieway?
IF it were because the main water line feeding the sprinkler system was severed by the impact of the plane the result would be a helluva "gusher" from the water pressure on the line... OR was the firewater line just "conveniently" turned off???
Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the NIST reports about this subject.
To the extent that it's physically possible to reduce a building over 1300 feet high with around 4,000,000 sq. ft. of floorspace into a pile of rubble (the amount of area that rubble would occupy) - yes, they DID fall into their own footprints...
No, they did NOT fall into their own footprint. You do know what the term "footprint" means, don't you, innieway? Or is your knowledge about that just as flawed as your knowledge about steel? The foot print of a building is NOT an area with a diameter more than three times the width or depth of a building. "Fall into their own footprint" is a catchy phrase that folks who haven't bothered to actually look at the videos of what happened or who don't begin to understand what they saw in those videos say over and over in lieu of real thought and understanding. Pathetic.
No, it is YOU who is .
If you honestly think for one second that even if CDI had been hired to "demo" a building that height, they could have reduced it to the pile of rubble it was reduced to AND keep that pile of rubble within the actual length by width dimensions of the building then you are even MORE IGNORANT than your blather makes you appear... That is why I said "To the extent that it's PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE"
Yes, we now know that the fire suppression systems on the floors in question were not functional (as a result of the damage done by the impacts).
Just how big do you think the firewater line in each building was? I promise you it wasn't some dinky 2" line. Have you ever seen a water line burst under pressure? A lot of water is gonna be going somewhere...
Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the NIST reports about this subject.
Perhaps you work for NIST. That would certainly explain why you're so fucking adamant about supporting NIST and this administration's lies, and (like this administration) refusing to answer (by dodging) logical questions which so far have yet to be answered...
If you honestly think for one second that even if CDI had been hired to "demo" a building that height, they could have reduced it to the pile of rubble it was reduced to AND keep that pile of rubble within the actual length by width dimensions of the building then you are even MORE IGNORANT than your blather makes you appear...
That's not something I have ever claimed. But that is something that many members of the so-called *truth* movement have claimed on more than one occasion. In fact, if you watch that video I linked of Dr Wood being interviewed, you will even hear her say the material falling outside the perimeter of the towers was not debris. ROTFLOL!
A lot of water is gonna be going somewhere...
Well it didn't go on the fire. That much is clear.
Perhaps you work for NIST.
Nah. But I have taken the time to actually read a NIST report or too.
"pakistan of 50-60 years ago had a significant christna population"
"they do this in Pakistan. a christian can be merely accused of saying insulting things about Islam/koran/mohammed. and then found guilty. based strictly on a muslim's word. regardless of christian's testimony." What's with all the excess periods, RJ? Why don't you capitalize the first word of sentences?
"Fuck you." How *literate*.
"don't post an article critical of a Gold Star Mother!!!" Wouldn't a literate person know by now that Cindy Sheehan is NOT a Gold Star Mom?
"It is a pattern familiar." Is that French?
" They indoctrinated with poison against our country, and so are the Mexicans." Gee ... did you forget the "are" before indoctrinated?
" that's 4 sure." You meant "for" ... not "four". But who is counting...
"Please don't think I don't participate in trying to make the system work, I've tried to educate many people. It earns me enemies & grief. and I do vote." You do seem to have a problem with commas and periods ... for someone soooooo literate.
But I'm sure you're quite literate in the language of a republican bath house.
Why are you homophobic, Red? Do you think it's a sin? Mind you, I'm not saying I'm gay or not gay. I'm just curious why you keep making comments about "gays" and "fags" (your word). You know, don't you, what a psychologist would say about that?