QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 31 2005, 12:08 AM)
The above post is beyond contempt.
How do the vaporized steel and carbonated bodies fit into your conceptual framework, reality check ?
.
What are you on about, frater? Oh, don't bother answering that..I just remembered that you have less than zero physics knowledge/input, and so have probably misinterpreted/misapplied anything I've had to say to METAMARS AND GORDON ONLY. Please butt out if you've not got something other than 'innuendoing' smart-*** remarks. I venture to bet that I am more genuine in my grief and respect for the victims and their families than you are...which is why I wish to get at truth, rather than, like you seem to want to do, waste time just annoying the people who are actually thinking on the physics (rather than the politics for PERSONAL GAIN, such as you and steve1957 seem self-evidently bent on doing). Lay off, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the physics discussion. Ciao.
RC.
.
How do the vaporized steel and carbonated bodies fit into your conceptual framework, reality check ?
.
What are you on about, frater? Oh, don't bother answering that..I just remembered that you have less than zero physics knowledge/input, and so have probably misinterpreted/misapplied anything I've had to say to METAMARS AND GORDON ONLY. Please butt out if you've not got something other than 'innuendoing' smart-*** remarks. I venture to bet that I am more genuine in my grief and respect for the victims and their families than you are...which is why I wish to get at truth, rather than, like you seem to want to do, waste time just annoying the people who are actually thinking on the physics (rather than the politics for PERSONAL GAIN, such as you and steve1957 seem self-evidently bent on doing). Lay off, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the physics discussion. Ciao.
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Dec 31 2005, 12:21 AM)
Reality Check,
And yet with all those chaotic and differential factors the upper section still maintained its path vertically downwards through its axis, which was the path of most resistance and the only path wherein the upper section had to defy unstable equilibrium throughout its movement.
How would you account for this?
G
Somewhere much earlier in this thread I pointed out that the falling INTERNAL DEBRIS and upper segments would be 'focused' by the outer tube 'as a guide' (TRANSIENTLY UNTIL those outer segments failed and were broken/expelled by the air compression, impact chaos, sprung-tension-breaking etc AND/OR pulled down towards the centre of the building...thus piling up and 'scrunching' onto and about the central core structure more than anywhere else). There is more to this (as some videos will show as the collapse proceeds), so you'd best go back and read the whole thread (which I think might save you and everybody a lot of repetition which no-one really has time for nowadays...especially me right now, because of my work on another physics project).
RC.
.
And yet with all those chaotic and differential factors the upper section still maintained its path vertically downwards through its axis, which was the path of most resistance and the only path wherein the upper section had to defy unstable equilibrium throughout its movement.
How would you account for this?
G
Somewhere much earlier in this thread I pointed out that the falling INTERNAL DEBRIS and upper segments would be 'focused' by the outer tube 'as a guide' (TRANSIENTLY UNTIL those outer segments failed and were broken/expelled by the air compression, impact chaos, sprung-tension-breaking etc AND/OR pulled down towards the centre of the building...thus piling up and 'scrunching' onto and about the central core structure more than anywhere else). There is more to this (as some videos will show as the collapse proceeds), so you'd best go back and read the whole thread (which I think might save you and everybody a lot of repetition which no-one really has time for nowadays...especially me right now, because of my work on another physics project).
RC.
.
Gordon,
Like metamars, I have come to see you as a de-facto oracle, at least on this thread. However, considering what we have to work with around here, myself included, that honor may not, in itself, qualify you for any international science awards. There are other physics gurus on the PhysOrg forum but they choose not to risk burning there finger tips on a hot potato like 911.
I have yet to see a photo of the upper south section, in full list, with super imposed, projection lines approximating where the core sections would have spatially coincided. No one here, seems interested in this critical relationship. For the sake of argument, why can't we just concede the collapse of the upper section. My point is, what happens next is potentially more revealing, then weather the steel in the impact area, succumbed to the heat of the fire. Eye witness accounts, from people on the south side looking up, said the upper section was leaning over and well beyond the plane of the south face. How could the upper section rotate this far and this way, if it wasn't pivoting around the point, of the cores zone of compromise? If the core(s) were still intergrated, or at least in close proximity, where did all the acceleration, in the accelerated/mass come from? The center of gravity is now shifted to the south. When the last support structure failed, why didn't the angular momentum of the upper section, fulcrum against the straining lower core and rotate southward off the top? I've been asking this question, several different ways and never a taker or even a schneibster assault. Why is this not a legitimate question worth considering? IMHO, the weakest link in the chain of events, described in the official story, is the initial collapse of the south tower.
Like metamars, I have come to see you as a de-facto oracle, at least on this thread. However, considering what we have to work with around here, myself included, that honor may not, in itself, qualify you for any international science awards. There are other physics gurus on the PhysOrg forum but they choose not to risk burning there finger tips on a hot potato like 911.
I have yet to see a photo of the upper south section, in full list, with super imposed, projection lines approximating where the core sections would have spatially coincided. No one here, seems interested in this critical relationship. For the sake of argument, why can't we just concede the collapse of the upper section. My point is, what happens next is potentially more revealing, then weather the steel in the impact area, succumbed to the heat of the fire. Eye witness accounts, from people on the south side looking up, said the upper section was leaning over and well beyond the plane of the south face. How could the upper section rotate this far and this way, if it wasn't pivoting around the point, of the cores zone of compromise? If the core(s) were still intergrated, or at least in close proximity, where did all the acceleration, in the accelerated/mass come from? The center of gravity is now shifted to the south. When the last support structure failed, why didn't the angular momentum of the upper section, fulcrum against the straining lower core and rotate southward off the top? I've been asking this question, several different ways and never a taker or even a schneibster assault. Why is this not a legitimate question worth considering? IMHO, the weakest link in the chain of events, described in the official story, is the initial collapse of the south tower.
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunka...jpg/Plate11.JPG
Did the floors pancake upward? If the upper section rotated 20-25 degrees (according to NIST), how could the mass with a large portion no longer above the tower cause global collapse?
I'm sure the floors pancaked upward, and downward, no reason for them not to.
While rotated, the center of mass is still within the main tube of the towers.
The tube directed the falling mass inward.
Arthur
While rotated, the center of mass is still within the main tube of the towers.
The tube directed the falling mass inward.
Arthur
Reality check said
Somewhere much earlier in this thread I pointed out that the falling INTERNAL DEBRIS and upper segments would be 'focused' by the outer tube 'as a guide'
As regards the internal debris I cannot see much of it falling elsewhere other than inside the building. If by upper segments you mean the falling upper section, how would it fit, given that they are the same cross section? Also wouldn't it be even more difficult to fit if the perimeter columns were being pulled inwards by the floors, rather than being pushed outwards?
You must also ask yourself what happened to the core columns? How did they fail and where did they go?
I've already read all previous posts on this thread prior to posting my own observations.
Zoktoberfest, what you say is quite correct and the photo supplied by Guest was very revealing. The principle of conservation of angular momentum would dictate that this listing should continue and if we are being asked to believe that the crushing collapse was a series of collisions and freefalls then each collision would have given a further impetus to the angular movement.
NIST fail to explain why this angular movement was not continued.
If they had postulated that the central core was severed in two separate places, this would have fitted the evidence for both the movement of the antennae prior to perimeter column failure and to some extent this angular momentum. But I cannot imagine such a scenario arising from the impact and fire alone.
G
Somewhere much earlier in this thread I pointed out that the falling INTERNAL DEBRIS and upper segments would be 'focused' by the outer tube 'as a guide'
As regards the internal debris I cannot see much of it falling elsewhere other than inside the building. If by upper segments you mean the falling upper section, how would it fit, given that they are the same cross section? Also wouldn't it be even more difficult to fit if the perimeter columns were being pulled inwards by the floors, rather than being pushed outwards?
You must also ask yourself what happened to the core columns? How did they fail and where did they go?
I've already read all previous posts on this thread prior to posting my own observations.
Zoktoberfest, what you say is quite correct and the photo supplied by Guest was very revealing. The principle of conservation of angular momentum would dictate that this listing should continue and if we are being asked to believe that the crushing collapse was a series of collisions and freefalls then each collision would have given a further impetus to the angular movement.
NIST fail to explain why this angular movement was not continued.
If they had postulated that the central core was severed in two separate places, this would have fitted the evidence for both the movement of the antennae prior to perimeter column failure and to some extent this angular momentum. But I cannot imagine such a scenario arising from the impact and fire alone.
G
I guess I’ll just keep reposting answers to the questions everyone keeps reposting.
Pull means “PULL” teams out…
Here is the interview which I'm sure you know about...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
"Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"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."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"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/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"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/nyreg...igro_Daniel.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/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.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.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
It means "PULL" the teams out!
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
Thank you for using common sense. Have a nice day...
_______________________________________
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]
According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, "there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13."[Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]
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]
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side." Captain Chris Boyle recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders for on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
So are they lying?
9/11 conspiracy sites are being selective with the text they post. This alone should tell you they’re lying. I know a president who is also selective like that...
_______________________________________
Who is involved in the largest mass murder and cover-up conspiracy in the world? If you ask these conspiracy sites it’s these people because none want an investigation…
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of you. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.)
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation.
-All the people in the pentagon don't want an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist would gladly have a 757/missile (Heh!) rammed up their *** for Bush. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime.
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why?
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one want a Nobel prize for journalism.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites is also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
-Everyone in the NIST who think Bush is so cool they would cover up something this huge for him. Like the largest mass murder in US history.
-EVERY STRUCTUAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down. If you laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right?
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers.
_________________________________
There were a lot of first for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had it's fire proofing removed from it's trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had 1/4th to 1/3rd of it's steel beams which hold lateral load sheared off by a 757. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had 1/4 to 1/3rd of it's vertical load bearing beams in it's core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with it's bottom floors on fire. Not the Madrid or Windsor tower fires had almost 40 stories of load on it's supports after being hit by another building which left a 18 story gash. Both lost I-beams from the heat. Windsors central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever lost a portion of load bearing support from the impact of another building while fires raging and lowering the load specs of all the bottom floor supports.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
The administration said Saddam didn't have WMD until a day or two after the attack. If 9/11 was planned why didn't they prime the American people by spreading one more lie saying he had them? Doesn't make sense.
I'm going to say this so even a two year old can understand.
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What they want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter.
__________________________
They're saying these clowns planned the largest murder in US history???
__________________________
This is the kind of what sickens me. These people take fireman’s quotes out of context to sucker people like Guest:
But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
Do TRANSFORMERS make A high-pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new twist.
_____________________________________
If the upper floor bows it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor. Now the beams that are left from the impact are pulled wider than the beams below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full wieght of all the "Stories" above it connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 36. You can SEE photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
It sure as hell isn't being pushed out.
Note I use unbiased web sites.
That or www.construction.com is also in on the conspiracy...
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. Now if you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Note there are also many factors the NIST considered. You keep pulling one factor out at a time and say it couldn't have happened that way. Well maybe it couldn't have if only that ONE factor was in play.
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was MADE to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could FEEL the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution, hell, their computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
Do TRANSFORMERS make A high-pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new twist.
_____________________________________
If the upper floor bows it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor. Now the beams that are left from the impact are pulled wider than the beams below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full wieght of all the "Stories" above it connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 36. You can SEE photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
It sure as hell isn't being pushed out.
Note I use unbiased web sites. That or www.construction.com is also in on the conspiracy...
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. Now if you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Note there are also many factors the NIST considered. You keep pulling one factor out at a time and say it couldn't have happened that way. Well maybe it couldn't have if only that ONE factor was in play.
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was MADE to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could FEEL the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution, hell, their computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html
Pod People
"Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that [Edit: insert conspiracy here].
This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. The government shills are trying to conceal real news stories such as [Edit: 9/11 was a convenient excuse to invade Iraq as the Downing Street Memo shows, Spying on Americans, the Iraq War, Torturegate, Katrina response, and so on] So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by government propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares [edit: believe] the official story [edit: and divert attention from the real crimes].
At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact [edit: and collapse], and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky [edit: liberal] Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
Learn from your own people.
The pancake theory is impossible because there was no resistance
The towers fell at free fall speeds averaging 10 floors per second
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt this woman, let alone all that steel
Horrible choking from the smoke probably caused people to jump
The steel was extremely thick
Only explosives could explain what happened
Reply by 'Guest'...
Reply by 'Guest'...
You are proof that evolution is not a fact.
Gordon, Galdur, and the rest of the growing list of CT's speaking out against the nonsensical sophistry posted by the likes of... (well --- you know who)...
the last few days I have been sitting back biting my tongue on much of the nonsense posted by these 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters, but have been keeping up with the conversations going back & forth.
It has become a very interesting thread.
Not only is there a lot of science / physics discussion going on, but it is also 'flavoured & spiced' with Amazing Psychological Factors which are hard to pin down for everyone posting... but come through explicity in the style of some posters (a.k.a. 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters).
They think that they can come to a Science Board and support the 'Fairy Tale' with nonsensical sophistry ! HA !!!
Where's 'Thelma' ? ... 'Louise' ?
(sorry, private joke between the YID & I)
The question is where is 'Coastal' when it comes to adding any scientific input?
Well, notice YID... he sits on the sidelines (Just like at Pravda)... UNTIL he can reveal himself and make a character asassination post.
Didn't I warn you about that guy?
He idolizes the 'theocracy' of J Edgar Hoover... and many of YOUR posts lead me to wonder if you also worship this idolatry... (False Truth) ???
I must hand it to you that, your sophistry is quite convincing and has led me on a number of occasions to investigate your 'PLAUSIBLE' answers. You are much more 'convincing' related to 'plausibilties' (as opposed to Schneibster / aka - 'Common Sense'...etc).
Gordon Good Stuff ! Explains in common language what we all 'know'. You haven't posted any 'personal details' about what area your empirical expertise is related to... but, I can well understand what you are talking about.
Keep up the good work! What we are dealing with here is actually very simple basic concepts which 'some' want to argue (or 'debate') about. without having ANY relevant knowledge in relative fields.
Mind You 'some' of the 'good obfuscators' here can sound plausibly convincing; but only 'believers in fairy tales' will be convinced that they understand & know the Truth.
This 'Idea / Postulation' that ...
two 1" bolts sucked the 14" box-columns of the perimeter structure inward...
...may seem believable to those who have NO IDEA about structural design.... (but, doesn't make any sense at all to me (no matter how the 'evidence' of such is presented).
Later... (just couldn't resist addressing the post of 'common sense' above --- I still have to go through the rest of the thread from that time.
Who knows? I may have to edit / correct some of the above based upon what I read in the next few pages.
Cheers.
Heh... that's 'teeny mind' Schniebster.
Remember my IQ is Far Below yours.
Heh... that's 'teeny mind' Schniebster.
Remember my IQ is Far Below yours.
Originally posted by Schneibster
Worth mentioning that you’re welcome to come post over in physorg, but I think Faux is Larry, and Larry don’t like me much since I proved he was an idiot back on the old site (the “mathematics is religion” thread, he and drew both took it in the shorts on that one), so he’s being pretty abrasive and I’m not backing down, which means I’m kinda hostile over there. You might wanna keep our conversation over here if you don’t want to have to be thick-skinned. I’ll also apologize in advance if I get a little abrasive over here, too- this has been going on a long time, and I’m pretty frustrated- Larry in particular has exerted himself to be *** infantile, and his superior condescending attitude combined with his absolute idiocy makes a combination with me that is particularly volatile and flammable.
By ... Schneibster
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/11271/9_11_WTC_...etal_Pics_Video
Well... I will let the 'readers' decide for themselves...
Jeremiah 5:26 "For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men".
Jeremiah 6:13 "For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely".
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of you. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.)
AFAIK, they still have a gag order in place. The fact that there was EVER a gag order is just one of many examples of government suppressing evidence. Not that that sort of thing bothers you at all, or even makes you wonder WHY THEY WOULD DO SUCH A THING.
Then, too, the head of any organization need not be at all in agreement with the organization's members. You haven't produced one poll of rank and file members of the NYC Fire Dept., Police Dept., widows and widowers*, etc., which supports your pathetic arguments, straw men that they are.
AFAIK, they still have a gag order in place. The fact that there was EVER a gag order is just one of many examples of government suppressing evidence. Not that that sort of thing bothers you at all, or even makes you wonder WHY THEY WOULD DO SUCH A THING.
Then, too, the head of any organization need not be at all in agreement with the organization's members. You haven't produced one poll of rank and file members of the NYC Fire Dept., Police Dept., widows and widowers*, etc., which supports your pathetic arguments, straw men that they are.
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? Blah, blah, blah.
Just 2 or 3 pages ago, this was addressed by brian. The most significant fact of all , wrt your straw men arguments, is the one he quoted:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
"Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals"
================================================
Most people who make straw men arguments at least try and construct straw men that they can credibly knock down. Your straw men are pathetic, EVEN FOR STRAW MEN. YOU CAN'T EVEN KNOCK MOST OF THEM DOWN!!!
THIS WOULD BE FUNNY IF IT WEREN'T SO PATHETIC. **
Have you considered hiring a PR consultant, with expertise in straw men? Straw men vitamins? A strawman-ologist? Local farmer who will supply you with extra straw? Maybe if you fed strawberries to your straw men, or let them drink out of straws. I know. Perhaps if you let them drink strawberry milk out of straws! .... Naah, you need more than that ..... What could it be?
* Though not a scientific poll, Greg Szymanski claims that about 80% of the family members of WTC 1&2 collapse victims that he interviewed believe the government is not being straightforward re 911.
** Truth be told, I did laugh, a little.
Reply by 'Guest'...
Reply by 'Guest'...
You are proof that evolution is not a fact.
Gordon, Galdur, and the rest of the growing list of CT's speaking out against the nonsensical sophistry posted by the likes of... (well --- you know who)...
the last few days I have been sitting back biting my tongue on much of the nonsense posted by these 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters, but have been keeping up with the conversations going back & forth.
It has become a very interesting thread.
Not only is there a lot of science / physics discussion going on, but it is also 'flavoured & spiced' with Amazing Psychological Factors which are hard to pin down for everyone posting... but come through explicity in the style of some posters (a.k.a. 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters).
They think that they can come to a Science Board and support the 'Fairy Tale' with nonsensical sophistry ! HA !!!
Where's 'Thelma' ? ... 'Louise' ?
(sorry, private joke between the YID & I)
The question is where is 'Coastal' when it comes to adding any scientific input?
Well, notice YID... he sits on the sidelines (Just like at Pravda)... UNTIL he can reveal himself and make a character asassination post.
Didn't I warn you about that guy?
He idolizes the 'theocracy' of J Edgar Hoover... and many of YOUR posts lead me to wonder if you also worship this idolatry... (False Truth) ???
I must hand it to you that, your sophistry is quite convincing and has led me on a number of occasions to investigate your 'PLAUSIBLE' answers. You are much more 'convincing' related to 'plausibilties' (as opposed to Schneibster / aka - 'Common Sense'...etc).
Gordon Good Stuff ! Explains in common language what we all 'know'. You haven't posted any 'personal details' about what area your empirical expertise is related to... but, I can well understand what you are talking about.
Keep up the good work! What we are dealing with here is actually very simple basic concepts which 'some' want to argue (or 'debate') about. without having ANY relevant knowledge in relative fields.
Mind You 'some' of the 'good obfuscators' here can sound plausibly convincing; but only 'believers in fairy tales' will be convinced that they understand & know the Truth.
This 'Idea / Postulation' that ...
two 1" bolts sucked the 14" box-columns of the perimeter structure inward...
...may seem believable to those who have NO IDEA about structural design.... (but, doesn't make any sense at all to me (no matter how the 'evidence' of such is presented).
Later... (just couldn't resist addressing the post of 'common sense' above --- I still have to go through the rest of the thread from that time.
Who knows? I may have to edit / correct some of the above based upon what I read in the next few pages.
Cheers.
explicity is explicitly
asassination is assassination
plausibilties is plausibilities
MORON is Foxx/Faux/Larry
Jeremiah 5:26 "For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men".
Jeremiah 6:13 "For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely".
Finally something we agree on. That's scary
Pull means “PULL” teams out…
Here is the interview which I'm sure you know about...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
"Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"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."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"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/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"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/nyreg...igro_Daniel.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/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.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.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...yan_William.txt
What we have for sure...
Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"
Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
It means "PULL" the teams out!
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
Thank you for using common sense. Have a nice day...
_______________________________________
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]
According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, "there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13."[Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]
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]
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side." Captain Chris Boyle recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders for on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
So are they lying?
9/11 conspiracy sites are being selective with the text they post. This alone should tell you they’re lying. I know a president who is also selective like that...
_______________________________________
Who is involved in the largest mass murder and cover-up conspiracy in the world? If you ask these conspiracy sites it’s these people because none want an investigation…
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of you. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.)
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation.
-All the people in the pentagon don't want an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist would gladly have a 757/missile (Heh!) rammed up their *** for Bush. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime.
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why?
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one want a Nobel prize for journalism.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites is also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
-Everyone in the NIST who think Bush is so cool they would cover up something this huge for him. Like the largest mass murder in US history.
-EVERY STRUCTUAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down. If you laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right?
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers.
_________________________________
There were a lot of first for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had it's fire proofing removed from it's trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had 1/4th to 1/3rd of it's steel beams which hold lateral load sheared off by a 757. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had 1/4 to 1/3rd of it's vertical load bearing beams in it's core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with it's bottom floors on fire. Not the Madrid or Windsor tower fires had almost 40 stories of load on it's supports after being hit by another building which left a 18 story gash. Both lost I-beams from the heat. Windsors central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever lost a portion of load bearing support from the impact of another building while fires raging and lowering the load specs of all the bottom floor supports.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
The administration said Saddam didn't have WMD until a day or two after the attack. If 9/11 was planned why didn't they prime the American people by spreading one more lie saying he had them? Doesn't make sense.
I'm going to say this so even a two year old can understand.
A 13 story building falling onto a thin slab of concrete held in place by a few trusses with two bolts on either end has all the stopping power of a piece of paper held in place by two pieces of tape when hit with a falling brick.
And what happens to that piece of paper? It gets collected by the brick and only adds weight for the next impact with the piece of paper below it. Now you have a brick with the added weight of two pieces of paper, so on and so forth. It BUILDS speed to almost free fall, not slow down. Because every time it collects a floor it adds weight for the next impact. The heavier the weight above, the easier it smashes the floor below.
What they want us to believe is that Bush changed the laws of physics by creating a bomb he put on the bottom floor which makes 110 story buildings fall faster than free fall. That or he teleported bombs to each floor with his star trek transporter.
__________________________
They're saying these clowns planned the largest murder in US history???
__________________________
This is the kind of what sickens me. These people take fireman’s quotes out of context to sucker people like Guest:
QUOTE
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
Do TRANSFORMERS make A high-pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new twist.
_____________________________________
If the upper floor bows it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor. Now the beams that are left from the impact are pulled wider than the beams below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full wieght of all the "Stories" above it connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 36. You can SEE photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
It sure as hell isn't being pushed out.
Note I use unbiased web sites.
That or www.construction.com is also in on the conspiracy...Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. Now if you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Note there are also many factors the NIST considered. You keep pulling one factor out at a time and say it couldn't have happened that way. Well maybe it couldn't have if only that ONE factor was in play.
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was MADE to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could FEEL the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution, hell, their computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” |
But if you read on...
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
Hes a FIREMAN saying it could have been "electrical explosions".
Ever SEE a transformer explode???
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
Do TRANSFORMERS make A high-pitched noise before blowing up...
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
Well I guess that takes care of what the fireman saw and heard.. Or does it... No I'm sure I'll hear some new twist.
_____________________________________
If the upper floor bows it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor. Now the beams that are left from the impact are pulled wider than the beams below it. Being made of STRIPS of beams and not one solid steel wall, the beams need only to move far enough out of the way to let the beams above slide around the beams below it. The beams above and intact have the full wieght of all the "Stories" above it connected to it. Everything above rips apart everything below. In other words the beams above are no longer square with the beams below.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
Start at page 36. You can SEE photographic evidence the building was pulled in. Not just one floor but across many.
It sure as hell isn't being pushed out.
Note I use unbiased web sites.
That or www.construction.com is also in on the conspiracy...Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. Now if you think a bomb blew up the building you have to explain how a bomb pulled in the wall well before building 2 fell...
Note there are also many factors the NIST considered. You keep pulling one factor out at a time and say it couldn't have happened that way. Well maybe it couldn't have if only that ONE factor was in play.
Starting with the moment the plane hit survivors said the doors wouldn't open because the building was so out of alignment. The impacts alone BENT THE 110 STORY BUILDINGS. That building was MADE to sway. I grew up in NY and have been to that building many times. When the wind was strong you could FEEL the building sway. I can't imagine an impact that would cause the building to sway enough to knock it out of center. A humanly unimaginable energy. That alone should weaken the building. Once you start to pile on the fire, unique construction, sagging trusses, shifted load distribution, hell, their computer model even took the wind shifting into account...
It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html
Pod People
"Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that [Edit: insert conspiracy here].
This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. The government shills are trying to conceal real news stories such as [Edit: 9/11 was a convenient excuse to invade Iraq as the Downing Street Memo shows, Spying on Americans, the Iraq War, Torturegate, Katrina response, and so on] So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by government propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares [edit: believe] the official story [edit: and divert attention from the real crimes].
At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact [edit: and collapse], and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky [edit: liberal] Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
Learn from your own people.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 31 2005, 01:38 AM)
I'm sure the floors pancaked upward, and downward, no reason for them not to.
While rotated, the center of mass is still within the main tube of the towers.
The tube directed the falling mass inward.
Arthur
The angular momentum just stops and the upper section just slides right into the tube? What force stopped the angular momentum? What happened to the core, the strongest part of the building?
While rotated, the center of mass is still within the main tube of the towers.
The tube directed the falling mass inward.
Arthur
The angular momentum just stops and the upper section just slides right into the tube? What force stopped the angular momentum? What happened to the core, the strongest part of the building?
Everyone.
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns (so causing the top section to ROTATE IN SITU rather than TRANSLATE BODILY off centre).
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure elements (basically 'unzipping' some of whatever still-connected beams components remained relatively in place; AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side').
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns' (anyone with a rudimentary acquaintance with the principles of the martial art "JIU JITSU"...or whatever they call it now....will know that a relatively SMALL force is all that is needed to REDIRECT an overwhelmingly GREATER force...which is why in jiu jitsu it is easier to redirect the greater oncoming force of an opponent than it is to 'resist' it...and if any of you doubt it, just look up the statistics on how many idiots who cut large branches off a tree and are severly injured when that branch doesn't fall straight down, but is caused to SWING (ROTATE) INWARDS towards them...all because of a few STRANDS of wood and bark they omitted to sever FROM THE UNDERSIDE, which they should have done beforehand!...those strands weren't enough to stop the branch falling, but they were surprisingly EFFECTIVE at REDIRECTING the TRAJECTORY of that falling.).
And after the collapse from above began, it doesn't matter WHAT the temperature/softness or other condition of the debris was, IT WAS THE WEIGHT THAT MATTERED....and any 'resisting points' would be LOCALLY overloaded and either expelled or subsumed in the debris cascade 'funnelling' into the building. So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points. No magic involved. No immoveable objects involved. Just irresistable and ever-increasing weight/momentum/impulse/impact/chaos for which the buildings were OBVIOUSLY NOT DESIGNED. The failure is with the architect and planners, not with the physics.
RealityCheck.
PS: Really, I haven't the time to go over these obvious things again. So I shall leave you all to it. Knock yourselves out, as they say. Good luck, guys and gals! RC.
.
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns (so causing the top section to ROTATE IN SITU rather than TRANSLATE BODILY off centre).
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure elements (basically 'unzipping' some of whatever still-connected beams components remained relatively in place; AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side').
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns' (anyone with a rudimentary acquaintance with the principles of the martial art "JIU JITSU"...or whatever they call it now....will know that a relatively SMALL force is all that is needed to REDIRECT an overwhelmingly GREATER force...which is why in jiu jitsu it is easier to redirect the greater oncoming force of an opponent than it is to 'resist' it...and if any of you doubt it, just look up the statistics on how many idiots who cut large branches off a tree and are severly injured when that branch doesn't fall straight down, but is caused to SWING (ROTATE) INWARDS towards them...all because of a few STRANDS of wood and bark they omitted to sever FROM THE UNDERSIDE, which they should have done beforehand!...those strands weren't enough to stop the branch falling, but they were surprisingly EFFECTIVE at REDIRECTING the TRAJECTORY of that falling.).
And after the collapse from above began, it doesn't matter WHAT the temperature/softness or other condition of the debris was, IT WAS THE WEIGHT THAT MATTERED....and any 'resisting points' would be LOCALLY overloaded and either expelled or subsumed in the debris cascade 'funnelling' into the building. So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points. No magic involved. No immoveable objects involved. Just irresistable and ever-increasing weight/momentum/impulse/impact/chaos for which the buildings were OBVIOUSLY NOT DESIGNED. The failure is with the architect and planners, not with the physics.
RealityCheck.
PS: Really, I haven't the time to go over these obvious things again. So I shall leave you all to it. Knock yourselves out, as they say. Good luck, guys and gals! RC.
.
I'm sure the floors pancaked upward, and downward, no reason for them not to.
The progression of the interface would be faster across the upper section than through the lower section, simply because the upper section's structure is comprised of thinner cross sectional material which had been subject to a greater amount of thermal weakening than that in the lower section.
Hence it would be more likely to suffer damage thus dissipating its directed energy and allowing the collapse to be arrested more quickly than otherwise
G
The progression of the interface would be faster across the upper section than through the lower section, simply because the upper section's structure is comprised of thinner cross sectional material which had been subject to a greater amount of thermal weakening than that in the lower section.
Hence it would be more likely to suffer damage thus dissipating its directed energy and allowing the collapse to be arrested more quickly than otherwise
G
The pancake theory is impossible because there was no resistance
The towers fell at free fall speeds averaging 10 floors per second
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt this woman, let alone all that steel
Horrible choking from the smoke probably caused people to jump
The steel was extremely thick
Only explosives could explain what happened
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
" It's like evolution. You can have a lot of hypothesis on how evolution works and the first people to question them are people studying evolution but evolution itself is FACT.
" It's like evolution. You can have a lot of hypothesis on how evolution works and the first people to question them are people studying evolution but evolution itself is FACT.
Reply by 'Guest'...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Schneibster " It's like evolution. You can have a lot of hypothesis on how evolution works and the first people to question them are people studying evolution but evolution itself is FACT. |
Reply by 'Guest'...
You are proof that evolution is not a fact.
Gordon, Galdur, and the rest of the growing list of CT's speaking out against the nonsensical sophistry posted by the likes of... (well --- you know who)...
the last few days I have been sitting back biting my tongue on much of the nonsense posted by these 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters, but have been keeping up with the conversations going back & forth.
It has become a very interesting thread.
Not only is there a lot of science / physics discussion going on, but it is also 'flavoured & spiced' with Amazing Psychological Factors which are hard to pin down for everyone posting... but come through explicity in the style of some posters (a.k.a. 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters).
They think that they can come to a Science Board and support the 'Fairy Tale' with nonsensical sophistry ! HA !!!
Where's 'Thelma' ? ... 'Louise' ?
(sorry, private joke between the YID & I)
The question is where is 'Coastal' when it comes to adding any scientific input?
Well, notice YID... he sits on the sidelines (Just like at Pravda)... UNTIL he can reveal himself and make a character asassination post.
Didn't I warn you about that guy?
He idolizes the 'theocracy' of J Edgar Hoover... and many of YOUR posts lead me to wonder if you also worship this idolatry... (False Truth) ???
I must hand it to you that, your sophistry is quite convincing and has led me on a number of occasions to investigate your 'PLAUSIBLE' answers. You are much more 'convincing' related to 'plausibilties' (as opposed to Schneibster / aka - 'Common Sense'...etc).
Gordon Good Stuff ! Explains in common language what we all 'know'. You haven't posted any 'personal details' about what area your empirical expertise is related to... but, I can well understand what you are talking about.
Keep up the good work! What we are dealing with here is actually very simple basic concepts which 'some' want to argue (or 'debate') about. without having ANY relevant knowledge in relative fields.
Mind You 'some' of the 'good obfuscators' here can sound plausibly convincing; but only 'believers in fairy tales' will be convinced that they understand & know the Truth.
This 'Idea / Postulation' that ...
two 1" bolts sucked the 14" box-columns of the perimeter structure inward...
...may seem believable to those who have NO IDEA about structural design.... (but, doesn't make any sense at all to me (no matter how the 'evidence' of such is presented).
Later... (just couldn't resist addressing the post of 'common sense' above --- I still have to go through the rest of the thread from that time.
Who knows? I may have to edit / correct some of the above based upon what I read in the next few pages.
Cheers.
Well, I did some digging Foxx/Faux/Larry... I now understand why you can't get Schneibster out of your tinny mind..
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/11271/9_11_WTC_...etal_Pics_Video
HAHAHA Now I know why you can't get him out of your mind! He REAMED YOU A NEW ONE!
He has you down to a TEE. Heh!
Foxx/Faux/Larry credibility in realtime ->
Something else I found. He wrote a perl program to play with...
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
HEHEHE! What a tool...
QUOTE
Worth mentioning that you’re welcome to come post over in physorg, but I think Faux is Larry, and Larry don’t like me much since I proved he was an idiot back on the old site (the “mathematics is religion” thread, he and drew both took it in the shorts on that one), so he’s being pretty abrasive and I’m not backing down, which means I’m kinda hostile over there. You might wanna keep our conversation over here if you don’t want to have to be thick-skinned. I’ll also apologize in advance if I get a little abrasive over here, too- this has been going on a long time, and I’m pretty frustrated- Larry in particular has exerted himself to be *** infantile, and his superior condescending attitude combined with his absolute idiocy makes a combination with me that is particularly volatile and flammable.
Schneibster
Schneibster
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/11271/9_11_WTC_...etal_Pics_Video
HAHAHA Now I know why you can't get him out of your mind! He REAMED YOU A NEW ONE!
He has you down to a TEE. Heh!
Foxx/Faux/Larry credibility in realtime ->
Something else I found. He wrote a perl program to play with...
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
HEHEHE! What a tool...
"Common Sense"
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 31 2005, 03:34 AM)
"Common Sense"
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
You just keep believeing in a God that says all children are innocent then proceeds to kill the first born of a whole race because of what one man does. If that's your idea of a loving God you can have him. What ever floats your boat steve, just don't float it in my ocean. I'll sink it like the titanaic.
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
You just keep believeing in a God that says all children are innocent then proceeds to kill the first born of a whole race because of what one man does. If that's your idea of a loving God you can have him. What ever floats your boat steve, just don't float it in my ocean. I'll sink it like the titanaic.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster...
Well, I did some digging Foxx/Faux/Larry... I now understand why you can't get Schneibster out of your tinny mind..
Well, I did some digging Foxx/Faux/Larry... I now understand why you can't get Schneibster out of your tinny mind..
Heh... that's 'teeny mind' Schniebster.
Remember my IQ is Far Below yours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Schneibster... Well, I did some digging Foxx/Faux/Larry... I now understand why you can't get Schneibster out of your tinny mind.. |
Heh... that's 'teeny mind' Schniebster.
Remember my IQ is Far Below yours.
Originally posted by Schneibster
Worth mentioning that you’re welcome to come post over in physorg, but I think Faux is Larry, and Larry don’t like me much since I proved he was an idiot back on the old site (the “mathematics is religion” thread, he and drew both took it in the shorts on that one), so he’s being pretty abrasive and I’m not backing down, which means I’m kinda hostile over there. You might wanna keep our conversation over here if you don’t want to have to be thick-skinned. I’ll also apologize in advance if I get a little abrasive over here, too- this has been going on a long time, and I’m pretty frustrated- Larry in particular has exerted himself to be *** infantile, and his superior condescending attitude combined with his absolute idiocy makes a combination with me that is particularly volatile and flammable.
By ... Schneibster
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/11271/9_11_WTC_...etal_Pics_Video
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
HAHAHA Now I know why you can't get him out of your mind! He REAMED YOU A NEW ONE!
He has you down to a TEE. Heh!
Foxx/Faux/Larry credibility in realtime ->
Something else I found. He wrote a perl program to play with...
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
HEHEHE! What a tool...
HAHAHA Now I know why you can't get him out of your mind! He REAMED YOU A NEW ONE!
He has you down to a TEE. Heh!
Foxx/Faux/Larry credibility in realtime ->
Something else I found. He wrote a perl program to play with...
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
#!/usr/bin/perl
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for 2 WTC)
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step
$p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far
$a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant)
$t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories)
$mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section
$rfc = 110 – $fc;# initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors
while($rfc > 0) {
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula
print(“Impact velocity for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v2, “n”);
$p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact
print(“Impulse delivered for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $p, “n”);
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact
print(“Impact kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1, “n”);
$fc++; # increment falling floor count
$mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print(“Velocity after impact for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $v3, “n”);
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact
print(“Remaining kinetic energy for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke2, “n”);
$de += $ke1 – $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total
print(“The kinetic energy dissipated for story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $ke1 – $ke2, ”
n”);
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula
print(“The time spent collapsing story ”, $rfc, ” was ”, $t1, “n”);
$t += $t1; # add step time to running total
$rfc—; # decrement remaining floor count
}
print(“The total time was ”, $t, “n”);
print(“The total energy dissipated during the collapse was ”, $de, “n”);
print(“The remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse was ”, $ke2, “n”
);
**END PROGRAM**
HEHEHE! What a tool...
Well... I will let the 'readers' decide for themselves...
Jeremiah 5:26 "For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men".
Jeremiah 6:13 "For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely".
QUOTE
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of you. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.)
AFAIK, they still have a gag order in place. The fact that there was EVER a gag order is just one of many examples of government suppressing evidence. Not that that sort of thing bothers you at all, or even makes you wonder WHY THEY WOULD DO SUCH A THING.
Then, too, the head of any organization need not be at all in agreement with the organization's members. You haven't produced one poll of rank and file members of the NYC Fire Dept., Police Dept., widows and widowers*, etc., which supports your pathetic arguments, straw men that they are.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of you. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) |
AFAIK, they still have a gag order in place. The fact that there was EVER a gag order is just one of many examples of government suppressing evidence. Not that that sort of thing bothers you at all, or even makes you wonder WHY THEY WOULD DO SUCH A THING.
Then, too, the head of any organization need not be at all in agreement with the organization's members. You haven't produced one poll of rank and file members of the NYC Fire Dept., Police Dept., widows and widowers*, etc., which supports your pathetic arguments, straw men that they are.
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? Blah, blah, blah.
Just 2 or 3 pages ago, this was addressed by brian. The most significant fact of all , wrt your straw men arguments, is the one he quoted:
QUOTE
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
"Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals"
================================================
Most people who make straw men arguments at least try and construct straw men that they can credibly knock down. Your straw men are pathetic, EVEN FOR STRAW MEN. YOU CAN'T EVEN KNOCK MOST OF THEM DOWN!!!
THIS WOULD BE FUNNY IF IT WEREN'T SO PATHETIC. **
Have you considered hiring a PR consultant, with expertise in straw men? Straw men vitamins? A strawman-ologist? Local farmer who will supply you with extra straw? Maybe if you fed strawberries to your straw men, or let them drink out of straws. I know. Perhaps if you let them drink strawberry milk out of straws! .... Naah, you need more than that ..... What could it be?
* Though not a scientific poll, Greg Szymanski claims that about 80% of the family members of WTC 1&2 collapse victims that he interviewed believe the government is not being straightforward re 911.
** Truth be told, I did laugh, a little.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 31 2005, 02:58 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
" It's like evolution. You can have a lot of hypothesis on how evolution works and the first people to question them are people studying evolution but evolution itself is FACT.
" It's like evolution. You can have a lot of hypothesis on how evolution works and the first people to question them are people studying evolution but evolution itself is FACT.
Reply by 'Guest'...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Schneibster " It's like evolution. You can have a lot of hypothesis on how evolution works and the first people to question them are people studying evolution but evolution itself is FACT. |
Reply by 'Guest'...
You are proof that evolution is not a fact.
Gordon, Galdur, and the rest of the growing list of CT's speaking out against the nonsensical sophistry posted by the likes of... (well --- you know who)...
the last few days I have been sitting back biting my tongue on much of the nonsense posted by these 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters, but have been keeping up with the conversations going back & forth.
It has become a very interesting thread.
Not only is there a lot of science / physics discussion going on, but it is also 'flavoured & spiced' with Amazing Psychological Factors which are hard to pin down for everyone posting... but come through explicity in the style of some posters (a.k.a. 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters).
They think that they can come to a Science Board and support the 'Fairy Tale' with nonsensical sophistry ! HA !!!
Where's 'Thelma' ? ... 'Louise' ?
(sorry, private joke between the YID & I)
The question is where is 'Coastal' when it comes to adding any scientific input?
Well, notice YID... he sits on the sidelines (Just like at Pravda)... UNTIL he can reveal himself and make a character asassination post.
Didn't I warn you about that guy?
He idolizes the 'theocracy' of J Edgar Hoover... and many of YOUR posts lead me to wonder if you also worship this idolatry... (False Truth) ???
I must hand it to you that, your sophistry is quite convincing and has led me on a number of occasions to investigate your 'PLAUSIBLE' answers. You are much more 'convincing' related to 'plausibilties' (as opposed to Schneibster / aka - 'Common Sense'...etc).
Gordon Good Stuff ! Explains in common language what we all 'know'. You haven't posted any 'personal details' about what area your empirical expertise is related to... but, I can well understand what you are talking about.
Keep up the good work! What we are dealing with here is actually very simple basic concepts which 'some' want to argue (or 'debate') about. without having ANY relevant knowledge in relative fields.
Mind You 'some' of the 'good obfuscators' here can sound plausibly convincing; but only 'believers in fairy tales' will be convinced that they understand & know the Truth.
This 'Idea / Postulation' that ...
two 1" bolts sucked the 14" box-columns of the perimeter structure inward...
...may seem believable to those who have NO IDEA about structural design.... (but, doesn't make any sense at all to me (no matter how the 'evidence' of such is presented).
Later... (just couldn't resist addressing the post of 'common sense' above --- I still have to go through the rest of the thread from that time.
Who knows? I may have to edit / correct some of the above based upon what I read in the next few pages.
Cheers.
explicity is explicitly
asassination is assassination
plausibilties is plausibilities
MORON is Foxx/Faux/Larry
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 31 2005, 03:42 AM)
Jeremiah 5:26 "For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men".
Jeremiah 6:13 "For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely".
Finally something we agree on. That's scary
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 31 2005, 02:47 AM)
Everyone.
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns' (anyone with a rudimentary acquaintance with the principles of the martial art "JIU JITSU"...or whatever they call it now....will know that a relatively SMALL force is all that is needed to REDIRECT an overwhelmingly GREATER force...which is why in jiu jitsu it is easier to redirect the greater oncoming force of an opponent than it is to 'resist' it...and if any of you doubt it, just look up the statistics on how many idiots who cut large branches off a tree and are severly injured when that branch doesn't fall straight down, but is caused to SWING (ROTATE) INWARDS towards them...all because of a few STRANDS of wood and bark they omitted to sever FROM THE UNDERSIDE, which they should have done beforehand!...those strands weren't enough to stop the branch falling, but they were surprisingly EFFECTIVE at REDIRECTING the TRAJECTORY of that falling.).
Your analogy is misleading because it would be the equivalent of the branch then crushing the reminder of the branch and tree. Sliding back into the core is the path of most resistance not least.
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns' (anyone with a rudimentary acquaintance with the principles of the martial art "JIU JITSU"...or whatever they call it now....will know that a relatively SMALL force is all that is needed to REDIRECT an overwhelmingly GREATER force...which is why in jiu jitsu it is easier to redirect the greater oncoming force of an opponent than it is to 'resist' it...and if any of you doubt it, just look up the statistics on how many idiots who cut large branches off a tree and are severly injured when that branch doesn't fall straight down, but is caused to SWING (ROTATE) INWARDS towards them...all because of a few STRANDS of wood and bark they omitted to sever FROM THE UNDERSIDE, which they should have done beforehand!...those strands weren't enough to stop the branch falling, but they were surprisingly EFFECTIVE at REDIRECTING the TRAJECTORY of that falling.).
Your analogy is misleading because it would be the equivalent of the branch then crushing the reminder of the branch and tree. Sliding back into the core is the path of most resistance not least.
Gag order? You mind showing me a main stream news article on this? It's the first time I heard of it...
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 31 2005, 03:34 AM)
"Common Sense"
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
God just luuurves stupid dishonest delicensed ex stockbrokers and shills like our steve1957, dincha-kno? Cause steve1957 is a non dogooder who does shifty crimes and has to lie to his grandchildren bout it so they think he's grand! when he just a shill and con and non christian who hides his evil works behind bibles and conspiracy theories. nice one steve1957!!good to see you still in the "flimflam business"!Wonder how much you stole from your kids and grandkids trust funds without their knowin anythin about it!!!you a good godboy steve!!I know you steve and your a turd under the shoe of society!!!You born from scheisters and you die one!!trainin up any o your kids or grandkids for "the game" steve? Any of em look promisin?like their sh*t steve the first?come from a long line of stevesh*t stupid crooks an stokbrokers and shills I bet!!!!!what a pedigre what a pedigre!!!
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 31 2005, 04:04 AM)
Gag order? You mind showing me a main stream news article on this? It's the first time I heard of it...
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 31 2005, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 31 2005, 03:34 AM)
"Common Sense"
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
God just luuurves stupid dishonest delicensed ex stockbrokers and shills like our steve1957, dincha-kno? Cause steve1957 is a non dogooder who does shifty crimes and has to lie to his grandchildren bout it so they think he's grand! when he just a shill and con and non christian who hides his evil works behind bibles and conspiracy theories. nice one steve1957!!good to see you still in the "flimflam business"!Wonder how much you stole from your kids and grandkids trust funds without their knowin anythin about it!!!you a good godboy steve!!I know you steve and your a turd under the shoe of society!!!You born from scheisters and you die one!!trainin up any o your kids or grandkids for "the game" steve? Any of em look promisin?like their sh*t steve the first?come from a long line of stevesh*t stupid crooks an stokbrokers and shills I bet!!!!!what a pedigre what a pedigre!!!
Duhhh... yeah, Really relevant input there.
Attack the 'messenger' rather than the 'message'.
'Coastal' is that 'YOU' posting as 'Guest' ?
Why do we continue 'discussing' with Trolls ???...
Because, these 'gravity-driven Fairy Tale supporters' will attempt to try to support nonsense at any expense.
'You' are not Really fooling anyone with your BS...
(oh... correction... it seems you are 'fooling' some idiots).
Wanna buy a bridge?
I DO have ONE for SALE !!!
Duhhh... yeah, Really relevant input there.
Attack the 'messenger' rather than the 'message'.
'Coastal' is that 'YOU' posting as 'Guest' ?
Why do we continue 'discussing' with Trolls ???...
Because, these 'gravity-driven Fairy Tale supporters' will attempt to try to support nonsense at any expense.
'You' are not Really fooling anyone with your BS...
(oh... correction... it seems you are 'fooling' some idiots).
Wanna buy a bridge?
I DO have ONE for SALE !!!
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 31 2005, 04:19 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 31 2005, 04:04 AM)
Gag order? You mind showing me a main stream news article on this? It's the first time I heard of it...
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
You mean from 5 main stream media corporations?
http://www.rense.com/general69/corp.htm
In other words you don't...
Until I see some good evidence I'm going to assume those web sites are lying. It's not the first time they lie about the fire fighters.
I come from the lower east side of NY. I lived in the shadows of the world trade most of my life. I now live 10 miles from ground 0. I SAW the buildings burn with my own eyes. I'm getting sick and tired of seeing these sites lie about the brave people who save lives every day.
I can deal with the other bullshait but the lies told about fireman is sick. People should tell these sites to stop the lies.
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
You mean from 5 main stream media corporations?
http://www.rense.com/general69/corp.htm
In other words you don't...
Until I see some good evidence I'm going to assume those web sites are lying. It's not the first time they lie about the fire fighters.
I come from the lower east side of NY. I lived in the shadows of the world trade most of my life. I now live 10 miles from ground 0. I SAW the buildings burn with my own eyes. I'm getting sick and tired of seeing these sites lie about the brave people who save lives every day.
I can deal with the other bullshait but the lies told about fireman is sick. People should tell these sites to stop the lies.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 31 2005, 04:25 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 31 2005, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 31 2005, 03:34 AM)
"Common Sense"
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
God just luuurves stupid dishonest delicensed ex stockbrokers and shills like our steve1957, dincha-kno? Cause steve1957 is a non dogooder who does shifty crimes and has to lie to his grandchildren bout it so they think he's grand! when he just a shill and con and non christian who hides his evil works behind bibles and conspiracy theories. nice one steve1957!!good to see you still in the "flimflam business"!Wonder how much you stole from your kids and grandkids trust funds without their knowin anythin about it!!!you a good godboy steve!!I know you steve and your a turd under the shoe of society!!!You born from scheisters and you die one!!trainin up any o your kids or grandkids for "the game" steve? Any of em look promisin?like their sh*t steve the first?come from a long line of stevesh*t stupid crooks an stokbrokers and shills I bet!!!!!what a pedigre what a pedigre!!!
Duhhh... yeah, Really relevant input there.
Attack the 'messenger' rather than the 'message'.
'Coastal' is that 'YOU' posting as 'Guest' ?
Why do we continue 'discussing' with Trolls ???...
Because, these 'gravity-driven Fairy Tale supporters' will attempt to try to support nonsense at any expense.
'You' are not Really fooling anyone with your BS...
(oh... correction... it seems you are 'fooling' some idiots).
Wanna buy a bridge?
I DO have ONE for SALE !!!
Gravity-driven? As apposed to worm-hole driven collapse? Or bomb-suction driven collapse? (***?) What about conspiracy-driven collapse?
Duhhh... yeah, Really relevant input there.
Attack the 'messenger' rather than the 'message'.
'Coastal' is that 'YOU' posting as 'Guest' ?
Why do we continue 'discussing' with Trolls ???...
Because, these 'gravity-driven Fairy Tale supporters' will attempt to try to support nonsense at any expense.
'You' are not Really fooling anyone with your BS...
(oh... correction... it seems you are 'fooling' some idiots).
Wanna buy a bridge?
I DO have ONE for SALE !!!
Gravity-driven? As apposed to worm-hole driven collapse? Or bomb-suction driven collapse? (***?) What about conspiracy-driven collapse?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 31 2005, 04:31 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 31 2005, 04:25 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 31 2005, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 31 2005, 03:34 AM)
"Common Sense"
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
How dare you say the bible isn't true, when this verse proves God is talking about you personally...
Jeremiah 4:22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge".
God just luuurves stupid dishonest delicensed ex stockbrokers and shills like our steve1957, dincha-kno? Cause steve1957 is a non dogooder who does shifty crimes and has to lie to his grandchildren bout it so they think he's grand! when he just a shill and con and non christian who hides his evil works behind bibles and conspiracy theories. nice one steve1957!!good to see you still in the "flimflam business"!Wonder how much you stole from your kids and grandkids trust funds without their knowin anythin about it!!!you a good godboy steve!!I know you steve and your a turd under the shoe of society!!!You born from scheisters and you die one!!trainin up any o your kids or grandkids for "the game" steve? Any of em look promisin?like their sh*t steve the first?come from a long line of stevesh*t stupid crooks an stokbrokers and shills I bet!!!!!what a pedigre what a pedigre!!!
Duhhh... yeah, Really relevant input there.
Attack the 'messenger' rather than the 'message'.
'Coastal' is that 'YOU' posting as 'Guest' ?
Why do we continue 'discussing' with Trolls ???...
Because, these 'gravity-driven Fairy Tale supporters' will attempt to try to support nonsense at any expense.
'You' are not Really fooling anyone with your BS...
(oh... correction... it seems you are 'fooling' some idiots).
Wanna buy a bridge?
I DO have ONE for SALE !!!
Gravity-driven? As apposed to worm-hole driven collapse? Or bomb-suction driven collapse? (***?) What about conspiracy-driven collapse?
Please explain the 'telescoping behaviour' of massive steel columns?
WHAT caused the instant dematerialization of steel structures ??? ...
(the 4 " thick floors of the suspended truss floors) ???
[Remember that the core-floors were 5" thick and were NOT connected to the suspended truss floors except through a couple of 1 " bolts which connected the truss-floors to the 54" spandrels which ringed the central core like a tensioning belt]??? Do you understand what a 'spandrel' IS ???
HOW would such a scenario affect the dematerializion (OR sudden loss of ALL structural integrity of steel structures within the central core?)
I look forward to your 'plausible explanation hypothesis' of HOW this could have happened?
I'll show you a MSM article on the gag order as soon as you show me one that tells William Rodriguez' full story. For that matter, can you show me a MSM editorial that questions what the heck was Cheney doing directing fighter traffic on 911? And what Mineta's testimony really meant, in that context? How about an MSM news program video that shows the perfect collapse of WTC 7? I'd settle for that, and so would have Professor Steven Jones when he was on Tucker Carlson's show.
FWIW, I was skeptical myself, and exchanged emails with some guy at globalnewsmatrix.com. IIRC, he indicated the gag order was mentioned in the Berg/Rodriguez RICO suit. Just did a quick look at the current document from the Berg/Rodriguez web site, and now can't find it in there. (searched for the word "gag" ) I also can't find the email, which is probably over a year old. Your question is quite legitimate, even if your straw men aren't. I wouldn't have looked, otherwise.
There's some chance I'll be going into NYC over the next few weeks. Visiting a fire house or two for first hand confirmation would be cool.
Duhhh... yeah, Really relevant input there.
Attack the 'messenger' rather than the 'message'.
'Coastal' is that 'YOU' posting as 'Guest' ?
Why do we continue 'discussing' with Trolls ???...
Because, these 'gravity-driven Fairy Tale supporters' will attempt to try to support nonsense at any expense.
'You' are not Really fooling anyone with your BS...
(oh... correction... it seems you are 'fooling' some idiots).
Wanna buy a bridge?
I DO have ONE for SALE !!!
Gravity-driven? As apposed to worm-hole driven collapse? Or bomb-suction driven collapse? (***?) What about conspiracy-driven collapse?
Please explain the 'telescoping behaviour' of massive steel columns?
WHAT caused the instant dematerialization of steel structures ??? ...
(the 4 " thick floors of the suspended truss floors) ???
[Remember that the core-floors were 5" thick and were NOT connected to the suspended truss floors except through a couple of 1 " bolts which connected the truss-floors to the 54" spandrels which ringed the central core like a tensioning belt]??? Do you understand what a 'spandrel' IS ???
HOW would such a scenario affect the dematerializion (OR sudden loss of ALL structural integrity of steel structures within the central core?)
I look forward to your 'plausible explanation hypothesis' of HOW this could have happened?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 31 2005, 02:47 AM)
Everyone.
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns (so causing the top section to ROTATE IN SITU rather than TRANSLATE BODILY off centre).
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure elements (basically 'unzipping' some of whatever still-connected beams components remained relatively in place; AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side').
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns' (anyone with a rudimentary acquaintance with the principles of the martial art "JIU JITSU"...or whatever they call it now....will know that a relatively SMALL force is all that is needed to REDIRECT an overwhelmingly GREATER force...which is why in jiu jitsu it is easier to redirect the greater oncoming force of an opponent than it is to 'resist' it...and if any of you doubt it, just look up the statistics on how many idiots who cut large branches off a tree and are severly injured when that branch doesn't fall straight down, but is caused to SWING (ROTATE) INWARDS towards them...all because of a few STRANDS of wood and bark they omitted to sever FROM THE UNDERSIDE, which they should have done beforehand!...those strands weren't enough to stop the branch falling, but they were surprisingly EFFECTIVE at REDIRECTING the TRAJECTORY of that falling.).
And after the collapse from above began, it doesn't matter WHAT the temperature/softness or other condition of the debris was, IT WAS THE WEIGHT THAT MATTERED....and any 'resisting points' would be LOCALLY overloaded and either expelled or subsumed in the debris cascade 'funnelling' into the building. So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points. No magic involved. No immoveable objects involved. Just irresistable and ever-increasing weight/momentum/impulse/impact/chaos for which the buildings were OBVIOUSLY NOT DESIGNED. The failure is with the architect and planners, not with the physics.
RealityCheck.
PS: Really, I haven't the time to go over these obvious things again. So I shall leave you all to it. Knock yourselves out, as they say. Good luck, guys and gals! RC.
.
Realitycheck was kind enough to to write this. Why don't you read it.
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns (so causing the top section to ROTATE IN SITU rather than TRANSLATE BODILY off centre).
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure elements (basically 'unzipping' some of whatever still-connected beams components remained relatively in place; AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side').
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns' (anyone with a rudimentary acquaintance with the principles of the martial art "JIU JITSU"...or whatever they call it now....will know that a relatively SMALL force is all that is needed to REDIRECT an overwhelmingly GREATER force...which is why in jiu jitsu it is easier to redirect the greater oncoming force of an opponent than it is to 'resist' it...and if any of you doubt it, just look up the statistics on how many idiots who cut large branches off a tree and are severly injured when that branch doesn't fall straight down, but is caused to SWING (ROTATE) INWARDS towards them...all because of a few STRANDS of wood and bark they omitted to sever FROM THE UNDERSIDE, which they should have done beforehand!...those strands weren't enough to stop the branch falling, but they were surprisingly EFFECTIVE at REDIRECTING the TRAJECTORY of that falling.).
And after the collapse from above began, it doesn't matter WHAT the temperature/softness or other condition of the debris was, IT WAS THE WEIGHT THAT MATTERED....and any 'resisting points' would be LOCALLY overloaded and either expelled or subsumed in the debris cascade 'funnelling' into the building. So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points. No magic involved. No immoveable objects involved. Just irresistable and ever-increasing weight/momentum/impulse/impact/chaos for which the buildings were OBVIOUSLY NOT DESIGNED. The failure is with the architect and planners, not with the physics.
RealityCheck.
PS: Really, I haven't the time to go over these obvious things again. So I shall leave you all to it. Knock yourselves out, as they say. Good luck, guys and gals! RC.
.
Realitycheck was kind enough to to write this. Why don't you read it.
QUOTE
Gag order? You mind showing me a main stream news article on this? It's the first time I heard of it...
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
I'll show you a MSM article on the gag order as soon as you show me one that tells William Rodriguez' full story. For that matter, can you show me a MSM editorial that questions what the heck was Cheney doing directing fighter traffic on 911? And what Mineta's testimony really meant, in that context? How about an MSM news program video that shows the perfect collapse of WTC 7? I'd settle for that, and so would have Professor Steven Jones when he was on Tucker Carlson's show.
FWIW, I was skeptical myself, and exchanged emails with some guy at globalnewsmatrix.com. IIRC, he indicated the gag order was mentioned in the Berg/Rodriguez RICO suit. Just did a quick look at the current document from the Berg/Rodriguez web site, and now can't find it in there. (searched for the word "gag" ) I also can't find the email, which is probably over a year old. Your question is quite legitimate, even if your straw men aren't. I wouldn't have looked, otherwise.
There's some chance I'll be going into NYC over the next few weeks. Visiting a fire house or two for first hand confirmation would be cool.
If you have enough explosives to blow up the buildings why fly planes into them? Just hit the button and blame the terrorist. If you have planes flying into the buildings why blow them up? America would have had the same response whether they stand or fall.
How anyone can be so gullible is mind boggling.
How anyone can be so gullible is mind boggling.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 31 2005, 05:28 AM)
If you have enough explosives to blow up the buildings why fly planes into them? Just hit the button and blame the terrorist. If you have planes flying into the buildings why blow them up? America would have had the same response whether they stand or fall.
How anyone can be so gullible is mind boggling.
More nonsense... and anyone who has a head on their shoulders recognizes it.
How anyone can be so gullible is mind boggling.
More nonsense... and anyone who has a head on their shoulders recognizes it.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 31 2005, 05:36 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 31 2005, 05:28 AM)
If you have enough explosives to blow up the buildings why fly planes into them? Just hit the button and blame the terrorist. If you have planes flying into the buildings why blow them up? America would have had the same response whether they stand or fall.
How anyone can be so gullible is mind boggling.
More nonsense... and anyone who has a head on their shoulders recognizes it.
You know you make some LAME posts.
Hey, this is great! Since you live close to NYC, can you do your own informal poll of NYC firefighters and post the results?
You can ask them the gag order question, and you can also ask them if they believe in a FEMA Fairy Tale scenario, or a Demolition Scenario. And if they believe in the FEMA version, is it FEMA + LIHOP or FEMA + Osama Bin Laden only?
If they say "FEMA + Bin Laden", please ask them WHY. After all, Zogby tells us 49% of NYC residents believed in LIHOP or MIHOP. MIHOP implies a demolition scenario (at least in my view; the converse is definitely true), and LIHOP suggests it as a possibility, or not, depending on one's predisposition.
So if the firemen really weigh in at, what would you say, 15%, please have the firemen explain, in their own words, how they came to the conclusion that Uncle Sam is telling it like it is.
After all, the huge disparity between 15% and 49% can't be explained away as a statistical fluke. There must be something in the firefighters work experience and training that influenced them into the FEMA camp, while so many more of their non-firefighting neighbors believe in government conspiracy or foreknowledge.
I'll show you a MSM article on the gag order as soon as you show me one that tells William Rodriguez' full story. For that matter, can you show me a MSM editorial that questions what the heck was Cheney doing directing fighter traffic on 911? And what Mineta's testimony really meant, in that context? How about an MSM news program video that shows the perfect collapse of WTC 7? I'd settle for that, and so would have Professor Steven Jones when he was on Tucker Carlson's show.
FWIW, I was skeptical myself, and exchanged emails with some guy at globalnewsmatrix.com. IIRC, he indicated the gag order was mentioned in the Berg/Rodriguez RICO suit. Just did a quick look at the current document from the Berg/Rodriguez web site, and now can't find it in there. (searched for the word "gag" ) I also can't find the email, which is probably over a year old. Your question is quite legitimate, even if your straw men aren't. I wouldn't have looked, otherwise.
There's some chance I'll be going into NYC over the next few weeks. Visiting a fire house or two for first hand confirmation would be cool.
In other words you have nothing. The fire fighters AREN'T under a gag order. I wouldn't want to change the subject on you.
Hey, this is great! Since you live close to NYC, can you do your own informal poll of NYC firefighters and post the results?
You can ask them the gag order question, and you can also ask them if they believe in a FEMA Fairy Tale scenario, or a Demolition Scenario. And if they believe in the FEMA version, is it FEMA + LIHOP or FEMA + Osama Bin Laden only?
If they say "FEMA + Bin Laden", please ask them WHY. After all, Zogby tells us 49% of NYC residents believed in LIHOP or MIHOP. MIHOP implies a demolition scenario (at least in my view; the converse is definitely true), and LIHOP suggests it as a possibility, or not, depending on one's predisposition.
So if the firemen really weigh in at, what would you say, 15%, please have the firemen explain, in their own words, how they came to the conclusion that Uncle Sam is telling it like it is.
After all, the huge disparity between 15% and 49% can't be explained away as a statistical fluke. There must be something in the firefighters work experience and training that influenced them into the FEMA camp, while so many more of their non-firefighting neighbors believe in government conspiracy or foreknowledge.
I don't know fireman but I have lunch almost everyday with a retired NYC cop and he laughed at this.
I don't go into NY much but if I see one I'll ask them. I'm also curious. I hope they don't wrap me in a fire hose and dangle me from the George Washington Bridge.
Hey, this is great! Since you live close to NYC, can you do your own informal poll of NYC firefighters and post the results?
You can ask them the gag order question, and you can also ask them if they believe in a FEMA Fairy Tale scenario, or a Demolition Scenario. And if they believe in the FEMA version, is it FEMA + LIHOP or FEMA + Osama Bin Laden only?
If they say "FEMA + Bin Laden", please ask them WHY. After all, Zogby tells us 49% of NYC residents believed in LIHOP or MIHOP. MIHOP implies a demolition scenario (at least in my view; the converse is definitely true), and LIHOP suggests it as a possibility, or not, depending on one's predisposition.
So if the firemen really weigh in at, what would you say, 15%, please have the firemen explain, in their own words, how they came to the conclusion that Uncle Sam is telling it like it is.
After all, the huge disparity between 15% and 49% can't be explained away as a statistical fluke. There must be something in the firefighters work experience and training that influenced them into the FEMA camp, while so many more of their non-firefighting neighbors believe in government conspiracy or foreknowledge.
Not true.
The poll was RIGHT AFTER THE LEADING DEMOCRAT (AND NY IS A VERY BLUE STATE) made a big rukus in the news saying Bush New about it beforehand. He later RETRACTED his statement saying, "I don't believe that, that's just what some people are saying". So then this poll, take RIGHT AFTER this hits the news (Aug 30th 04) but what they were agreeing to was the statement: that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,"
That does not say they SPECIFICALLY KNEW about the WTC attacks or how/when they were going to be carried out.
It does NOT include the concept of MIHOP.
Arthur
Yep, it would be cool to hear an independant analysis of 'their quotes'...
But no matter what you find, you will NOT be able to provide 'incontrovertible EVIDENCE'
Let me ask a relevant question...
IF these 'spooks' (as we contend) actually 'pulled-off' this psy-opts game...
... would 'they' leave Obvious signatures???
Pish posh. Hoffman and David Ray Griffin receive virtually no coverage from MSM or left or right political web sites/publications/media.
If you doubt this censoring phenomena, see leftgatekeepers.com and read "Into the Buzzsaw".
YOU were the one who insisted on limiting the domain of your sources to our Orwellian media. You get what you deserve.
If you wish to think out of the box, you will have to look outside the media box. So, if you want sources for the gag order, just use Google. You will definitely find them.
The credibility of these sources is a serious issue, in general, just like the credibility of MSM and so-called alternative media is. Your implicit recommendation for dealing with this very real problem - only MSM sources - is ludicrous, as you should well know if you've read this thread.
How anyone can be so gullible is mind boggling.
More nonsense... and anyone who has a head on their shoulders recognizes it.
You know you make some LAME posts.
QUOTE
I now live 10 miles from ground 0.
Hey, this is great! Since you live close to NYC, can you do your own informal poll of NYC firefighters and post the results?
You can ask them the gag order question, and you can also ask them if they believe in a FEMA Fairy Tale scenario, or a Demolition Scenario. And if they believe in the FEMA version, is it FEMA + LIHOP or FEMA + Osama Bin Laden only?
If they say "FEMA + Bin Laden", please ask them WHY. After all, Zogby tells us 49% of NYC residents believed in LIHOP or MIHOP. MIHOP implies a demolition scenario (at least in my view; the converse is definitely true), and LIHOP suggests it as a possibility, or not, depending on one's predisposition.
So if the firemen really weigh in at, what would you say, 15%, please have the firemen explain, in their own words, how they came to the conclusion that Uncle Sam is telling it like it is.
After all, the huge disparity between 15% and 49% can't be explained away as a statistical fluke. There must be something in the firefighters work experience and training that influenced them into the FEMA camp, while so many more of their non-firefighting neighbors believe in government conspiracy or foreknowledge.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 31 2005, 05:21 AM)
QUOTE
Gag order? You mind showing me a main stream news article on this? It's the first time I heard of it...
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
I'll show you a MSM article on the gag order as soon as you show me one that tells William Rodriguez' full story. For that matter, can you show me a MSM editorial that questions what the heck was Cheney doing directing fighter traffic on 911? And what Mineta's testimony really meant, in that context? How about an MSM news program video that shows the perfect collapse of WTC 7? I'd settle for that, and so would have Professor Steven Jones when he was on Tucker Carlson's show.
FWIW, I was skeptical myself, and exchanged emails with some guy at globalnewsmatrix.com. IIRC, he indicated the gag order was mentioned in the Berg/Rodriguez RICO suit. Just did a quick look at the current document from the Berg/Rodriguez web site, and now can't find it in there. (searched for the word "gag" ) I also can't find the email, which is probably over a year old. Your question is quite legitimate, even if your straw men aren't. I wouldn't have looked, otherwise.
There's some chance I'll be going into NYC over the next few weeks. Visiting a fire house or two for first hand confirmation would be cool.
In other words you have nothing. The fire fighters AREN'T under a gag order. I wouldn't want to change the subject on you.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 31 2005, 05:43 AM)
QUOTE
I now live 10 miles from ground 0.
Hey, this is great! Since you live close to NYC, can you do your own informal poll of NYC firefighters and post the results?
You can ask them the gag order question, and you can also ask them if they believe in a FEMA Fairy Tale scenario, or a Demolition Scenario. And if they believe in the FEMA version, is it FEMA + LIHOP or FEMA + Osama Bin Laden only?
If they say "FEMA + Bin Laden", please ask them WHY. After all, Zogby tells us 49% of NYC residents believed in LIHOP or MIHOP. MIHOP implies a demolition scenario (at least in my view; the converse is definitely true), and LIHOP suggests it as a possibility, or not, depending on one's predisposition.
So if the firemen really weigh in at, what would you say, 15%, please have the firemen explain, in their own words, how they came to the conclusion that Uncle Sam is telling it like it is.
After all, the huge disparity between 15% and 49% can't be explained away as a statistical fluke. There must be something in the firefighters work experience and training that influenced them into the FEMA camp, while so many more of their non-firefighting neighbors believe in government conspiracy or foreknowledge.
I don't know fireman but I have lunch almost everyday with a retired NYC cop and he laughed at this.
I don't go into NY much but if I see one I'll ask them. I'm also curious. I hope they don't wrap me in a fire hose and dangle me from the George Washington Bridge.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 31 2005, 05:43 AM)
QUOTE
I now live 10 miles from ground 0.
Hey, this is great! Since you live close to NYC, can you do your own informal poll of NYC firefighters and post the results?
You can ask them the gag order question, and you can also ask them if they believe in a FEMA Fairy Tale scenario, or a Demolition Scenario. And if they believe in the FEMA version, is it FEMA + LIHOP or FEMA + Osama Bin Laden only?
If they say "FEMA + Bin Laden", please ask them WHY. After all, Zogby tells us 49% of NYC residents believed in LIHOP or MIHOP. MIHOP implies a demolition scenario (at least in my view; the converse is definitely true), and LIHOP suggests it as a possibility, or not, depending on one's predisposition.
So if the firemen really weigh in at, what would you say, 15%, please have the firemen explain, in their own words, how they came to the conclusion that Uncle Sam is telling it like it is.
After all, the huge disparity between 15% and 49% can't be explained away as a statistical fluke. There must be something in the firefighters work experience and training that influenced them into the FEMA camp, while so many more of their non-firefighting neighbors believe in government conspiracy or foreknowledge.
Not true.
The poll was RIGHT AFTER THE LEADING DEMOCRAT (AND NY IS A VERY BLUE STATE) made a big rukus in the news saying Bush New about it beforehand. He later RETRACTED his statement saying, "I don't believe that, that's just what some people are saying". So then this poll, take RIGHT AFTER this hits the news (Aug 30th 04) but what they were agreeing to was the statement: that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,"
That does not say they SPECIFICALLY KNEW about the WTC attacks or how/when they were going to be carried out.
It does NOT include the concept of MIHOP.
Arthur
QUOTE
Originally posted by Metamars...
There's some chance I'll be going into NYC over the next few weeks. Visiting a fire house or two for first hand confirmation would be cool.
There's some chance I'll be going into NYC over the next few weeks. Visiting a fire house or two for first hand confirmation would be cool.
Yep, it would be cool to hear an independant analysis of 'their quotes'...
But no matter what you find, you will NOT be able to provide 'incontrovertible EVIDENCE'
Let me ask a relevant question...
IF these 'spooks' (as we contend) actually 'pulled-off' this psy-opts game...
... would 'they' leave Obvious signatures???
And it's not about Uncle Sam telling it like it is. It's about the 9/11 sites telling it like it is. A fireman shouldn't have to watch every word they say like a politician just because some morons will take it out of context. These people are just trying to do a job and save lives. they don't want to get into your petty anti-government fantacy.
You can't be that dence to think the NYC fire department is stupid enough to take ANYONES view without weighing the evidence. If you say the fire department thinks Bush killed over 300 of their people THEY WOULD SHUT NY DOWN! You don't know the union. And NY voted against Bush. People here aren't stupid. Stop saying we believe everything Bush says because it only shows your ignorance.
The problem isn't we believe in Bush. The problem is YOU HAVE 0 EVIDENCE.
You can't be that dence to think the NYC fire department is stupid enough to take ANYONES view without weighing the evidence. If you say the fire department thinks Bush killed over 300 of their people THEY WOULD SHUT NY DOWN! You don't know the union. And NY voted against Bush. People here aren't stupid. Stop saying we believe everything Bush says because it only shows your ignorance.
The problem isn't we believe in Bush. The problem is YOU HAVE 0 EVIDENCE.
QUOTE
n other words you have nothing. The fire fighters AREN'T under a gag order. I wouldn't want to change the subject on you.
Pish posh. Hoffman and David Ray Griffin receive virtually no coverage from MSM or left or right political web sites/publications/media.
If you doubt this censoring phenomena, see leftgatekeepers.com and read "Into the Buzzsaw".
YOU were the one who insisted on limiting the domain of your sources to our Orwellian media. You get what you deserve.
If you wish to think out of the box, you will have to look outside the media box. So, if you want sources for the gag order, just use Google. You will definitely find them.
The credibility of these sources is a serious issue, in general, just like the credibility of MSM and so-called alternative media is. Your implicit recommendation for dealing with this very real problem - only MSM sources - is ludicrous, as you should well know if you've read this thread.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 31 2005, 06:04 AM)
And it's not about Uncle Sam telling it like it is. It's about the 9/11 sites telling it like it is. A fireman shouldn't have to watch every word they say like a politician just because some morons will take it out of context. These people are just trying to do a job and save lives. they don't want to get into your petty anti-government fantacy.
You can't be that dence to think the NYC fire department is stupid enough to take ANYONES view without weighing the evidence. If you say the fire department thinks Bush killed over 300 of their people THEY WOULD SHUT NY DOWN! You don't know the union. And NY voted against Bush. People here aren't stupid. Stop saying we believe everything Bush says because it only shows your ignorance.
The problem isn't we believe in Bush. The problem is YOU HAVE 0 EVIDENCE.
Schneibster... what purpose do you serve here?
What's your 'game/viewpoint' Lil Buddy???
Apparently the IQ Quotient is NOT related to 'spelling'... (OR is that purposeful spelling obfuscations ?)
You can't be that dence to think the NYC fire department is stupid enough to take ANYONES view without weighing the evidence. If you say the fire department thinks Bush killed over 300 of their people THEY WOULD SHUT NY DOWN! You don't know the union. And NY voted against Bush. People here aren't stupid. Stop saying we believe everything Bush says because it only shows your ignorance.
The problem isn't we believe in Bush. The problem is YOU HAVE 0 EVIDENCE.
Schneibster... what purpose do you serve here?
What's your 'game/viewpoint' Lil Buddy???
Apparently the IQ Quotient is NOT related to 'spelling'... (OR is that purposeful spelling obfuscations ?)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 31 2005, 04:04 AM)
Gag order? You mind showing me a main stream news article on this? It's the first time I heard of it...
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
You could ask this guy
This would be interesting
This would be interesting
The data, floor plans and schematics found by Isaac not only reveal the WTC structural design but give an inside look at every nook and cranny of the building, including designs of the 99 elevators in the two buildings as well as giving an impression of the building’s strengths and weaknesses from a fire department’s point of view.
He is a Rove fan too
And like a true researcher with an eye for detail, he added: “Why don’t you give Karl Rove a call and ask him what he thinks? His number is 202-456-5578. I’m sure he won’t mind if you give him a call!”
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/29736.htm
Speaking of Hoffman: he's had articles bounced from nyc indymedia within hours of posting. Now, that's what I call censorship.
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
You could ask this guy
QUOTE
“It’s just amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11.
This would be interesting
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “It’s just amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. |
This would be interesting
The data, floor plans and schematics found by Isaac not only reveal the WTC structural design but give an inside look at every nook and cranny of the building, including designs of the 99 elevators in the two buildings as well as giving an impression of the building’s strengths and weaknesses from a fire department’s point of view.
He is a Rove fan too
QUOTE
And like a true researcher with an eye for detail, he added: “Why don’t you give Karl Rove a call and ask him what he thinks? His number is 202-456-5578. I’m sure he won’t mind if you give him a call!”
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/29736.htm
QUOTE
Pish posh. Hoffman and David Ray Griffin receive virtually no coverage from MSM or left or right political web sites/publications/media.
Speaking of Hoffman: he's had articles bounced from nyc indymedia within hours of posting. Now, that's what I call censorship.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 31 2005, 06:25 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 31 2005, 04:04 AM)
Gag order? You mind showing me a main stream news article on this? It's the first time I heard of it...
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
You could ask this guy
This would be interesting
This would be interesting
The data, floor plans and schematics found by Isaac not only reveal the WTC structural design but give an inside look at every nook and cranny of the building, including designs of the 99 elevators in the two buildings as well as giving an impression of the building’s strengths and weaknesses from a fire department’s point of view.
He is a Rove fan too
And like a true researcher with an eye for detail, he added: “Why don’t you give Karl Rove a call and ask him what he thinks? His number is 202-456-5578. I’m sure he won’t mind if you give him a call!”
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/29736.htm
I forgot the editors comments
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/29736.htm
I forgot the editors comments
Editor’s Note: A story like Paul Isaac’s is especially inspirational at a time when the government and media are leading Americans down a one way street to hell with no way back.
All signals point to another government orchestrated terrorist attack on American soil, this one larger and more deadly than 9/11. It’s a helpless feeling to know the traitors are within and there are so few in Americans aware of the truth. It’s like walking into church, knowing the devil is standing on the altar and everyone keeps on praying anyway
Absolutely NO 9/11 sites please.
You could ask this guy
QUOTE
“It’s just amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11.
This would be interesting
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “It’s just amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. |
This would be interesting
The data, floor plans and schematics found by Isaac not only reveal the WTC structural design but give an inside look at every nook and cranny of the building, including designs of the 99 elevators in the two buildings as well as giving an impression of the building’s strengths and weaknesses from a fire department’s point of view.
He is a Rove fan too
QUOTE
And like a true researcher with an eye for detail, he added: “Why don’t you give Karl Rove a call and ask him what he thinks? His number is 202-456-5578. I’m sure he won’t mind if you give him a call!”
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/29736.htm
I forgot the editors comments
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And like a true researcher with an eye for detail, he added: “Why don’t you give Karl Rove a call and ask him what he thinks? His number is 202-456-5578. I’m sure he won’t mind if you give him a call!” |
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/29736.htm
I forgot the editors comments
Editor’s Note: A story like Paul Isaac’s is especially inspirational at a time when the government and media are leading Americans down a one way street to hell with no way back.
All signals point to another government orchestrated terrorist attack on American soil, this one larger and more deadly than 9/11. It’s a helpless feeling to know the traitors are within and there are so few in Americans aware of the truth. It’s like walking into church, knowing the devil is standing on the altar and everyone keeps on praying anyway
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 31 2005, 04:00 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 31 2005, 02:47 AM)
Everyone.
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns' (anyone with a rudimentary acquaintance with the principles of the martial art "JIU JITSU"...or whatever they call it now....will know that a relatively SMALL force is all that is needed to REDIRECT an overwhelmingly GREATER force...which is why in jiu jitsu it is easier to redirect the greater oncoming force of an opponent than it is to 'resist' it...and if any of you doubt it, just look up the statistics on how many idiots who cut large branches off a tree and are severly injured when that branch doesn't fall straight down, but is caused to SWING (ROTATE) INWARDS towards them...all because of a few STRANDS of wood and bark they omitted to sever FROM THE UNDERSIDE, which they should have done beforehand!...those strands weren't enough to stop the branch falling, but they were surprisingly EFFECTIVE at REDIRECTING the TRAJECTORY of that falling.).
Your analogy is misleading because it would be the equivalent of the branch then crushing the reminder of the branch and tree. Sliding back into the core is the path of most resistance not least.
.
Hi Guest.
No time for anything but a quick reply; thus:
How is a "swinging branch" an 'analogy' of a collapsing building? How is a "jiu jitsu throw" an 'analogy' of a collapsing building? These were NOT "examples of analogy", they were ONLY examples DEMONSTRATING the PRINCIPLE of FORCE RE-DIRECTION before anything else happening.
To treat what happened AFTER that re-direction will properly involve OTHER further 'principles' and 'mechanisms' (thermodynamics; chaos dynamics; material geometry versus performance; metallurgy; mass/weight impulse/impact effects etc etc etc...MANY things working 'in concert' at that point after the 'top' swung in to essentially fall into the rest of the building. And these OTHER things have ALREADY been covered here and there in this thread (so make yourself a hot toddy and get into some heavy/tedious reading for New Year's eve, mate! hehehe).
And please remember the SCOPE of what it was I covered in the relevant post regarding this PARTICULAR ASPECT of 'top structure' behaviour; and also the DIFFERENCE between 'principle demonstration' and 'direct analogy' examples. Thanks and good luck, Guest! Gotta go now....
RC.
.
If and when I make it to NYC, my question will be regarding a gag order, nothing else. I suggested reproducing Zogby's poll to "Common Sense", as he seems to imply that firemen are just fine and dandy with a gravity-driven collapse scenario, which is just the opposite of what I expect to be the case, especially in light of the Zogby poll.
As for your "obvious signature" question, I don't understand it. We have an embarassingly huge number of examples of the government keeping evidence in it's own greedy hands, or worse, destroying it. Nobody ever goes to jail for this garbage, which is why it just goes on and on and on, like the energizer bunny.
This is obviously Uncle Sam disrespecting us little people.
The psy-opts features of 911 are, of course, primarily the terror, and secondarily the confusion factor. I have theorized that confusion actually make the public more malleable, by inducing a state of consciousness somewhat like that in between dreaming and wakefulness, wherein one is trying to figure out whether one is dreaming, or not. Anyway... Of course, it also serves to discredit, to waste the time and energy of, and thus ultimately to demoralize citizens who see through the government claptrap. (Of course, the most demoralizing thing of all is the almost complete lack of public figures who acknowledge the problem.)
As for a gag order being an indication of psyops, I think of it mostly as plain old government CYA. Of course, they don't want the whole truth getting out, nor even part of the truth getting out unless they can spin it in some devious way. It's a little more compicated than that, though, because as Mike Ruppert has pointed out, elites are in such total control that they often don't seem to give a hoot what anybody thinks. Consider Bush's performance during the Katrina fiasco....
It might be a psy-op if, e.g., it turned out not to be true, and thus 911 reporters (like Szymanski) take a hit in their credibility. Or as yet another example of Uncle Sam disrespecting the rights of the citizenry - in this case, that of free speech. Here, the psychological value to the conspirators is to further demoralize the citizenry.
Frankly, the parsimonious explanation, IMHO, is CYA.
Who is this "leading Democrat". And why would the 30% of Registered Republicans who agreed with LIHOP/MIHOP in the Zogby poll care what any Democrat thought?
For that matter, are Democrats such lemmings that they would answer a poll just based on what a "leading Democrat" said?
The question is where is 'Coastal' when it comes to adding any scientific input?
Sitting here laughing myself sick at you and Steve!
What could have possibly possessed you to think you could bring this lunacy to a physics board??
You're getting beat like a red-headed stepchild.
I almost feel sorry for you.......
....almost.
Amen (and amen means it's true, huh Steve?).
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns' (anyone with a rudimentary acquaintance with the principles of the martial art "JIU JITSU"...or whatever they call it now....will know that a relatively SMALL force is all that is needed to REDIRECT an overwhelmingly GREATER force...which is why in jiu jitsu it is easier to redirect the greater oncoming force of an opponent than it is to 'resist' it...and if any of you doubt it, just look up the statistics on how many idiots who cut large branches off a tree and are severly injured when that branch doesn't fall straight down, but is caused to SWING (ROTATE) INWARDS towards them...all because of a few STRANDS of wood and bark they omitted to sever FROM THE UNDERSIDE, which they should have done beforehand!...those strands weren't enough to stop the branch falling, but they were surprisingly EFFECTIVE at REDIRECTING the TRAJECTORY of that falling.).
Your analogy is misleading because it would be the equivalent of the branch then crushing the reminder of the branch and tree. Sliding back into the core is the path of most resistance not least.
.
Hi Guest.
No time for anything but a quick reply; thus:
How is a "swinging branch" an 'analogy' of a collapsing building? How is a "jiu jitsu throw" an 'analogy' of a collapsing building? These were NOT "examples of analogy", they were ONLY examples DEMONSTRATING the PRINCIPLE of FORCE RE-DIRECTION before anything else happening.
To treat what happened AFTER that re-direction will properly involve OTHER further 'principles' and 'mechanisms' (thermodynamics; chaos dynamics; material geometry versus performance; metallurgy; mass/weight impulse/impact effects etc etc etc...MANY things working 'in concert' at that point after the 'top' swung in to essentially fall into the rest of the building. And these OTHER things have ALREADY been covered here and there in this thread (so make yourself a hot toddy and get into some heavy/tedious reading for New Year's eve, mate! hehehe).
And please remember the SCOPE of what it was I covered in the relevant post regarding this PARTICULAR ASPECT of 'top structure' behaviour; and also the DIFFERENCE between 'principle demonstration' and 'direct analogy' examples. Thanks and good luck, Guest! Gotta go now....
RC.
.
Common Sense,
I found this quote in the article from PM which you recommended, entitled, Debunking the myths
“retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
So it would appear that thermal expansion will cause the beam ends to act outwards against the perimeter columns. Only when constrained from free travel by beam geometry or other stiffening such as the concrete floors does it sag, but still while pushing outwards on the perimeter columns.
Was this one of the “myths” which they have “debunked“, or is he wrong?
I have been analysing your collapse scenario but I am having some difficulty. For instance, in your first sentence you say, “If the upper floor bows it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor.
“If” --- Does it or doesn’t it?
“the upper floor” ---- I am sure you do not mean the 110th floor.
“Bows” ----- The terminology which we usually use is to sag or to hog, but I am sure that this is just a case of us being used to different terminologies.
“It pulls on the outer beams and and inner beams” -- Again I would say perimeter or core columns and would ask from where and by what mechanism did this force arise. Please do not think that I am being pedantic for no reason other than to score points. This is not my intention and these misunderstandings arise mainly through our different terminologies ------ Divided by a common language as they say.
I will work my way through your ideas and get back to you shortly.
G
I found this quote in the article from PM which you recommended, entitled, Debunking the myths
“retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
So it would appear that thermal expansion will cause the beam ends to act outwards against the perimeter columns. Only when constrained from free travel by beam geometry or other stiffening such as the concrete floors does it sag, but still while pushing outwards on the perimeter columns.
Was this one of the “myths” which they have “debunked“, or is he wrong?
I have been analysing your collapse scenario but I am having some difficulty. For instance, in your first sentence you say, “If the upper floor bows it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor.
“If” --- Does it or doesn’t it?
“the upper floor” ---- I am sure you do not mean the 110th floor.
“Bows” ----- The terminology which we usually use is to sag or to hog, but I am sure that this is just a case of us being used to different terminologies.
“It pulls on the outer beams and and inner beams” -- Again I would say perimeter or core columns and would ask from where and by what mechanism did this force arise. Please do not think that I am being pedantic for no reason other than to score points. This is not my intention and these misunderstandings arise mainly through our different terminologies ------ Divided by a common language as they say.
I will work my way through your ideas and get back to you shortly.
G
QUOTE
Yep, it would be cool to hear an independant analysis of 'their quotes'...
But no matter what you find, you will NOT be able to provide 'incontrovertible EVIDENCE'
Let me ask a relevant question...
IF these 'spooks' (as we contend) actually 'pulled-off' this psy-opts game...
... would 'they' leave Obvious signatures???
But no matter what you find, you will NOT be able to provide 'incontrovertible EVIDENCE'
Let me ask a relevant question...
IF these 'spooks' (as we contend) actually 'pulled-off' this psy-opts game...
... would 'they' leave Obvious signatures???
If and when I make it to NYC, my question will be regarding a gag order, nothing else. I suggested reproducing Zogby's poll to "Common Sense", as he seems to imply that firemen are just fine and dandy with a gravity-driven collapse scenario, which is just the opposite of what I expect to be the case, especially in light of the Zogby poll.
As for your "obvious signature" question, I don't understand it. We have an embarassingly huge number of examples of the government keeping evidence in it's own greedy hands, or worse, destroying it. Nobody ever goes to jail for this garbage, which is why it just goes on and on and on, like the energizer bunny.
This is obviously Uncle Sam disrespecting us little people.
The psy-opts features of 911 are, of course, primarily the terror, and secondarily the confusion factor. I have theorized that confusion actually make the public more malleable, by inducing a state of consciousness somewhat like that in between dreaming and wakefulness, wherein one is trying to figure out whether one is dreaming, or not. Anyway... Of course, it also serves to discredit, to waste the time and energy of, and thus ultimately to demoralize citizens who see through the government claptrap. (Of course, the most demoralizing thing of all is the almost complete lack of public figures who acknowledge the problem.)
As for a gag order being an indication of psyops, I think of it mostly as plain old government CYA. Of course, they don't want the whole truth getting out, nor even part of the truth getting out unless they can spin it in some devious way. It's a little more compicated than that, though, because as Mike Ruppert has pointed out, elites are in such total control that they often don't seem to give a hoot what anybody thinks. Consider Bush's performance during the Katrina fiasco....
It might be a psy-op if, e.g., it turned out not to be true, and thus 911 reporters (like Szymanski) take a hit in their credibility. Or as yet another example of Uncle Sam disrespecting the rights of the citizenry - in this case, that of free speech. Here, the psychological value to the conspirators is to further demoralize the citizenry.
Frankly, the parsimonious explanation, IMHO, is CYA.
QUOTE
Not true.
The poll was RIGHT AFTER THE LEADING DEMOCRAT (AND NY IS A VERY BLUE STATE) made a big rukus in the news saying Bush New about it beforehand.
The poll was RIGHT AFTER THE LEADING DEMOCRAT (AND NY IS A VERY BLUE STATE) made a big rukus in the news saying Bush New about it beforehand.
Who is this "leading Democrat". And why would the 30% of Registered Republicans who agreed with LIHOP/MIHOP in the Zogby poll care what any Democrat thought?
For that matter, are Democrats such lemmings that they would answer a poll just based on what a "leading Democrat" said?
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side'
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns'
So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points.
RealityCheck.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the upper section rotated, say anti-clockwise, about a horizontal axis which passes through or about the weakest point of the core columns. This was possible because of the failure of the perimeter columns on one wall and at least some failure of the columns on adjacent walls. The result was to move the columns on the opposite wall from compression to tension.
However at this point we must diverge. How was it possible for these columns in tension due to the anti-clockwise rotating mass, then have the ability to arrest the angular momentum and reverse it to force a clockwise rotation?
Where did the force come from that pulled the upper section back? The extension of these columns and thus the force set up within them is a reaction to and directly related to the angular momentum. It may have been possible for these columns to arrest the angular momentum by strain, but from where do we get the additional force required to reverse the momentum. Are you stating that it was the springiness of the perimeter columns which caused this? And if this was the case how then was that new clockwise angular momentum arrested?
I also note our agreement on the breakup of the upper section. While we may disagree on the mechanism at least we are in agreement that a significant result would be the breakup of the upper section, thus consuming some of the available energy through strain energy and dissipating the directed energy available to progress collapse, thus arresting the collapse earlier than would have been the case otherwise.
G
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side'
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns'
So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points.
RealityCheck.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the upper section rotated, say anti-clockwise, about a horizontal axis which passes through or about the weakest point of the core columns. This was possible because of the failure of the perimeter columns on one wall and at least some failure of the columns on adjacent walls. The result was to move the columns on the opposite wall from compression to tension.
However at this point we must diverge. How was it possible for these columns in tension due to the anti-clockwise rotating mass, then have the ability to arrest the angular momentum and reverse it to force a clockwise rotation?
Where did the force come from that pulled the upper section back? The extension of these columns and thus the force set up within them is a reaction to and directly related to the angular momentum. It may have been possible for these columns to arrest the angular momentum by strain, but from where do we get the additional force required to reverse the momentum. Are you stating that it was the springiness of the perimeter columns which caused this? And if this was the case how then was that new clockwise angular momentum arrested?
I also note our agreement on the breakup of the upper section. While we may disagree on the mechanism at least we are in agreement that a significant result would be the breakup of the upper section, thus consuming some of the available energy through strain energy and dissipating the directed energy available to progress collapse, thus arresting the collapse earlier than would have been the case otherwise.
G
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 31 2005, 02:58 AM)
The question is where is 'Coastal' when it comes to adding any scientific input?
Sitting here laughing myself sick at you and Steve!
What could have possibly possessed you to think you could bring this lunacy to a physics board??
You're getting beat like a red-headed stepchild.
I almost feel sorry for you.......
....almost.
Amen (and amen means it's true, huh Steve?).
Coastal
I didn't bring God, but God brought me into this room for reasons that go far beyond your comprehension level.
Part of me feels like it's to give some of you half wits a dose of reality regarding how physics really works, seeings how most everybody on this board couldn't make it past the first grade.
And another part of me understands that God has His way in the whirlwind and may be using these posts for other reasons that neither one of us understand yet.
So you might as well enjoy your ignorance and stupidity and blindness while it lasts, because there will be a time in the very near future when your eyes will finally be opened so you'll be able to see a glimpse of reality.
Only God knows just how far down in the muck and mire you've sunk, but I'll say this, that anybody and I mean ANYBODY who claims the towers were not blown up with explosives and promotes the governments lies and fairy tales is so far deep into delusions and dishonesty they're pretty sick. It's the same as the Nazi syndrome. People like to blame it all on Hitler, but the people who supported the cause were just as evil, and this my boy is no different than what the Nazi's did.
Instead of killing Jews, we're slaughtering Muslims. Same story, just the names have changed.
Part of me understands and forgives the nitwits for being so blind, but because I'm still human another part of me wants to reach through that computer and smack these scared little chickens in the mouth for spreading all those lies that are helping to slaughter thousands of innocent people.
But thanks be to God I understand enough of the Scriptures to know for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN it is true. And I can see it unfold even today. Like this verse...
Daniel 12:10 "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand".
And let me tell you this, anybody who continues spread these lies about the magician in the cave doing 9/11 is wicked, very wicked, so of course the wicked cannot understand, just as it's written.
I didn't bring God, but God brought me into this room for reasons that go far beyond your comprehension level.
Part of me feels like it's to give some of you half wits a dose of reality regarding how physics really works, seeings how most everybody on this board couldn't make it past the first grade.
And another part of me understands that God has His way in the whirlwind and may be using these posts for other reasons that neither one of us understand yet.
So you might as well enjoy your ignorance and stupidity and blindness while it lasts, because there will be a time in the very near future when your eyes will finally be opened so you'll be able to see a glimpse of reality.
Only God knows just how far down in the muck and mire you've sunk, but I'll say this, that anybody and I mean ANYBODY who claims the towers were not blown up with explosives and promotes the governments lies and fairy tales is so far deep into delusions and dishonesty they're pretty sick. It's the same as the Nazi syndrome. People like to blame it all on Hitler, but the people who supported the cause were just as evil, and this my boy is no different than what the Nazi's did.
Instead of killing Jews, we're slaughtering Muslims. Same story, just the names have changed.
Part of me understands and forgives the nitwits for being so blind, but because I'm still human another part of me wants to reach through that computer and smack these scared little chickens in the mouth for spreading all those lies that are helping to slaughter thousands of innocent people.
But thanks be to God I understand enough of the Scriptures to know for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN it is true. And I can see it unfold even today. Like this verse...
Daniel 12:10 "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand".
And let me tell you this, anybody who continues spread these lies about the magician in the cave doing 9/11 is wicked, very wicked, so of course the wicked cannot understand, just as it's written.
Re: FDNY Gag order:
‘BOMBS INSIDE WTC’
FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH
By Victor Thorn
NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.
The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New York’s own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldn’t have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.
He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, “We all have to be very careful about how we handle it.”
Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.
Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.
Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC “open grave site” on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: “I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.”
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html
explicity is explicitly
asassination is assassination
plausibilties is plausibilities
MORON is Foxx/Faux/Larry
explicity is explicitly
asassination is assassination
plausibilties is plausibilities
MORON is Foxx/Faux/Larry
Apparently the IQ Quotient is NOT related to 'spelling'... (OR is that purposeful spelling obfuscations ?)
Spelling cop provided by
Pish posh. Hoffman and David Ray Griffin receive virtually no coverage from MSM or left or right political web sites/publications/media.
If you doubt this censoring phenomena, see leftgatekeepers.com and read "Into the Buzzsaw".
YOU were the one who insisted on limiting the domain of your sources to our Orwellian media. You get what you deserve.
If you wish to think out of the box, you will have to look outside the media box. So, if you want sources for the gag order, just use Google. You will definitely find them.
The credibility of these sources is a serious issue, in general, just like the credibility of MSM and so-called alternative media is. Your implicit recommendation for dealing with this very real problem - only MSM sources - is ludicrous, as you should well know if you've read this thread.
Just stop for a minute and listen to what you're saying. The media is also in on the largest mass murder in our nations history??? The evidence you provide is that they don't push your conspiracy theories??? The media isn't just Murdock. It's the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of reporters. You're saying they are ALL in on this mass murder! Even the ones from other countries!
Just listen to yourself. I also want others to listen to you.
This isn't I Love Bush here. Just a little common sense. That's all I ask.
Maybe your all not lairs. Maybe some of you really believe this. Maybe it has to do with you guys growing up in the sticks and not exposed to as many con artists as I have. As I said earlier, I came from NY. We have a lot of people in NY and a lot of con artist like Steve. By the time you're 10 you already know the government lies along with everyone else. The only way to tell who's telling the truth is by evidence and analyzing statements. People who give only part of the facts which just happen to support their case are lying. Bush and Cheney are prime examples. There are a few on this thread which I and others have already exposed.
Maybe you honestly believed those web sites when they said the fire fighters were under a gag order. But the honest thing to do is correct and retract the statement or put up the evidence. Not ask me to search for evidence on something else then call the entire news media accomplises to murder. That makes no sense.
Guest, I said NO 9/11 conspiracy web site only evidence. I don't believe a word in them.
How can the entire NYC police and fire departments be silenced and not a word in say the NY Times? That alone make me lean to this being a HOAX.
Your question, like your point of view, is naive and self serving. (And worse than that, if you already know the contents of this post.) Read leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then come and tell us why we should confuse the NY Times' editorial policies with anything regarding a balanced, fair, and people-first presentation of basic truths a real democracy should have access to.
If you still claim, after reading those, that you trust MSM, then there's not much point in discussing aspects of 911 with you that don't relate to physics.
And frankly, there's probably not much point in discussing the physics of 911 with you, either.
Speaking of the NY Times:
(emphasis mine; the original article has many hyperlinks )
Your question, like your point of view, is naive and self serving. (And worse than that, if you already know the contents of this post.) Read leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then come and tell us why we should confuse the NY Times' editorial policies with anything regarding a balanced, fair, and people-first presentation of basic truths a real democracy should have access to.
If you still claim, after reading those, that you trust MSM, then there's not much point in discussing aspects of 911 with you that don't relate to physics.
And frankly, there's probably not much point in discussing the physics of 911 with you, either.
Speaking of the NY Times:
(emphasis mine; the original article has many hyperlinks )
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles6/Pe...NYT-Fiction.htm
Pulp Fiction at the New York Times:
Fawning at the Feet of Mammon
by Kim Petersen
Dissident Voice
June 23, 2003
Editorial manipulation is nothing new at the NY Times. In 1880 former managing editor at the New York Times John Swinton scathingly delineated the then state of the free press.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
Such was the state of the media at the end of the nineteenth century. Nowadays authentic reporter Al Giordano, a critic of “the deteriorating New York Times” and mover behind the progressive website Narco News, reports the news and exposes slipshod journalism. Narco News has often cast the spotlight on journalistic shenanigans. Mr. Giordano credits the Internet and, in particular, bloggers “with the shake-ups at the previously impermeable New York Times.”
The NY Times, “considered the Cathedral of journalism,” has seen a plethora of its writers skewered for amateur journalism or corruption.
Journalism professor Carlos Ramírez reported on how NY Times correspondent Sam Dillon was “KOed” out of Mexico following a cover-up for a high profile drug peddler.
The Venezuelan backbeat saw a gaggle of NY Times writers tainted by inauthentic journalism.
During the short-lived Venezuelan coup New York Times reporter Juan Forero reported that President Chávez had “resigned” when, in fact, Mr. Chávez had been abducted at gunpoint. Mr. Forero did not source his knowingly false claim
Subsequently Gail Collins, on behalf of the NY Times editorial board, was compelled to offer an apology on the Venezuelan coup story. “Nobody should ever cheer the overthrow of a democratically elected government. You're right, we dropped the ball on our first Venezuela editorial.”
Francisco Toro a self-confessed, rabidly anti-Chavez reporter was hired by the NY Times in contravention of the paper’s policy of impartiality in reporting. Eventually things came to a head and Mr. Toro resigned over his conflict-of-interest.
Too many writers were guilty of lazy journalism and sourced their stories unchallenged out of the American embassy. There is no problem with reporting the US version of events but reporting it exclusive of other versions and without verification is tendentious and unprofessional. It is gullible journalism. Former NY Times executive editor Max Frankel, who Mr. Giordano praised as an authentic journalist, pointed out the folly of going hook, line, and sinker for the Whitehouse line. “It would be unwise to expect trustworthy information from Washington,” said he.
Another case of shoddy reporting at the NY Times is the textbook blunder of James Risen who monitors the CIA. Mr. Risen committed the error of allowing the source to oversee his manuscript. The CIA were permitted to censor sections of his book The Main Enemy, a historical assessment of CIA and KGB intrigues from the Cold War era, while he was still covering the CIA for the NY Times.
Then there is the case of NY Times writer Judith Miller. Ms. Miller has committed the cardinal mistake of using unsubstantiated sources. Ms. Miller finds herself now treading water over repeated articles asseverating weapons of destruction in Iraq with mysterious sources. The source of her stories is reputed to be the convicted swindler Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, the self-same group which led the US –UK invaders to believe they would be showered with roses and adoration by the liberated Iraqis. Nonetheless Ms. Miller was so cocksure of her stories that she claimed she had uncovered not only the “smoking gun” but also the “silver bullet.” This self-same Ms.Miller had the audacity to expostulate in May to a graduating class at Barnard College: “Journalists need to draw conclusions about whether journalistic objectivity was compromised during the war.” Ms. Miller questioned, “Were those who wanted to go to war deceiving themselves about Saddam's capabilities?” As reporter William E. Jackson Jr. noted this was “remarkably candid -- and ironic.”
Then there is a NY Times heavyweight, chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman. BJ Sabri, in a logically compelling article, exposed Mr. Friedman as an “insidious prophet of petty fascism, where arrogant judgments, studied preconceptions, bloated self-righteousness, and a message for hatred and violence constitute a value system.”
As for NY Times veteran op-ed writer William Safire, he’s not to be trusted at all.
Another recent victim from the self-inflicted wound of lazy reporting is the NY Times’ Lynette Clemetson. Investigative reporter Greg Palast takes Ms. Clemetson to the task for her remarks concerning former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Said Ms. Clemetson: “Ms. McKinney suggest[ed] that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”
That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”
Problem is, McKinney never said it.
That’s right. The “quote” from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin’ made up.
Hi, Lynette. My name is Greg Palast, and I wanted to follow up on a story of yours. It says, let’s see, after the opening -- it’s about Cynthia McKinney -- it’s dated Washington byline August 21. “McKinney’s [opponent] capitalized on the furor caused by Miss McKinney’s suggestion this year that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” Now, I have been trying my darndest to find this phrase . . . I can’t. . .
Lynette Clemetson, New York Times: Did you search the Atlanta Journal Constitution?
Yes, but I haven’t been able to find that statement.
I’ve heard that statement -- it was all over the place.
I know it was all over the place, except no one can find it and that’s why I’m concerned. Now did you see the statement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution?
Yeah....
[Note: No such direct quote from McKinney can be found in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.]
And did you confirm this with McKinney?
Well, I worked with her office. The statement is from the floor of the House [of Representatives].... Right?
So did you check the statement from the Floor of the House?
I mean I wouldn’t have done the story. . . . Have you looked at House transcripts?
Yes. Did you check that?
Of course.
You did check it?
[Note: No such McKinney statement can be found in the transcripts or other records of the House of Representatives.]
I think you have to go back to the House transcripts.... I mean it was all over the place at the time.
Yes, this is one fact the Times reporter didn’t fake: The McKinney “quote” was, indeed, all over the place: in the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and needless to say, all the other metropolitan dailies -- everywhere but in Congresswoman McKinney’s mouth.
Nor was it in the Congressional Record, nor in any recorded talk, nor on her Website, nor in any of her radio talks. Here’s the Congresswoman’s statement from the record:
“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”
Oh.
Ms. Clemetson was caught in a web of her own spinning.
“All the News That's Fit to Print,” is the self-titled billing for the NY Times and with so many of its journalistic misdemeanors exposed, one wonders about the criteria for being “fit to print.” Nonetheless, since it is still the unofficial voice of the Washington establishment we continue to engage, as Noam Chomsky said, in “the masochistic exercise of reading the NY Times.”
Who is this "leading Democrat". And why would the 30% of Registered Republicans who agreed with LIHOP/MIHOP in the Zogby poll care what any Democrat thought?
For that matter, are Democrats such lemmings that they would answer a poll just based on what a "leading Democrat" said?
Cynthia McKinney first, Howard Dean later
Because it was just in the papers in NY. Remember, there was NO suggestion in the question of a possible MIHOP scenario. Even the LIHOP connection is very weak and vague, meaning someone could reply YES because they thought that we had GENERAL knowledge of an IMPENDING attack and didn't warn the NY residents (and there was quite a bit in the news along THOSE angles at the time, i.e. the briefing the president got that included a vague reference to a potential terrorist threat).
If you want CREDIBILITY to the agenda you are pushing, you need to get a poll which asks SPECIFICALLY did the Govt. LIHOP or MIHOP.
A LIHOP question would be "Did the Govt KNOW that planes were going to be flown into the WTC towers beforehand and do nothing to prevent it?"
A MIHOP question would be "Was the Govt (or members of ) aid or assist the crashing of planes into the WTC towers?"
The poll you reference DID NOT ask EITHER question.
Yes
Arthur
Your question, like your point of view, is naive and self serving. (And worse than that, if you already know the contents of this post.) Read leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then come and tell us why we should confuse the NY Times' editorial policies with anything regarding a balanced, fair, and people-first presentation of basic truths a real democracy should have access to.
If you still claim, after reading those, that you trust MSM, then there's not much point in discussing aspects of 911 with you that don't relate to physics.
And frankly, there's probably not much point in discussing the physics of 911 with you, either.
Speaking of the NY Times:
(emphasis mine; the original article has many hyperlinks )
Your question, like your point of view, is naive and self serving. (And worse than that, if you already know the contents of this post.) Read leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then come and tell us why we should confuse the NY Times' editorial policies with anything regarding a balanced, fair, and people-first presentation of basic truths a real democracy should have access to.
If you still claim, after reading those, that you trust MSM, then there's not much point in discussing aspects of 911 with you that don't relate to physics.
And frankly, there's probably not much point in discussing the physics of 911 with you, either.
Speaking of the NY Times:
(emphasis mine; the original article has many hyperlinks )
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles6/Pe...NYT-Fiction.htm
Pulp Fiction at the New York Times:
Fawning at the Feet of Mammon
by Kim Petersen
Dissident Voice
June 23, 2003
Editorial manipulation is nothing new at the NY Times. In 1880 former managing editor at the New York Times John Swinton scathingly delineated the then state of the free press.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
Such was the state of the media at the end of the nineteenth century. Nowadays authentic reporter Al Giordano, a critic of “the deteriorating New York Times” and mover behind the progressive website Narco News, reports the news and exposes slipshod journalism. Narco News has often cast the spotlight on journalistic shenanigans. Mr. Giordano credits the Internet and, in particular, bloggers “with the shake-ups at the previously impermeable New York Times.”
The NY Times, “considered the Cathedral of journalism,” has seen a plethora of its writers skewered for amateur journalism or corruption.
Journalism professor Carlos Ramírez reported on how NY Times correspondent Sam Dillon was “KOed” out of Mexico following a cover-up for a high profile drug peddler.
The Venezuelan backbeat saw a gaggle of NY Times writers tainted by inauthentic journalism.
During the short-lived Venezuelan coup New York Times reporter Juan Forero reported that President Chávez had “resigned” when, in fact, Mr. Chávez had been abducted at gunpoint. Mr. Forero did not source his knowingly false claim
Subsequently Gail Collins, on behalf of the NY Times editorial board, was compelled to offer an apology on the Venezuelan coup story. “Nobody should ever cheer the overthrow of a democratically elected government. You're right, we dropped the ball on our first Venezuela editorial.”
Francisco Toro a self-confessed, rabidly anti-Chavez reporter was hired by the NY Times in contravention of the paper’s policy of impartiality in reporting. Eventually things came to a head and Mr. Toro resigned over his conflict-of-interest.
Too many writers were guilty of lazy journalism and sourced their stories unchallenged out of the American embassy. There is no problem with reporting the US version of events but reporting it exclusive of other versions and without verification is tendentious and unprofessional. It is gullible journalism. Former NY Times executive editor Max Frankel, who Mr. Giordano praised as an authentic journalist, pointed out the folly of going hook, line, and sinker for the Whitehouse line. “It would be unwise to expect trustworthy information from Washington,” said he.
Another case of shoddy reporting at the NY Times is the textbook blunder of James Risen who monitors the CIA. Mr. Risen committed the error of allowing the source to oversee his manuscript. The CIA were permitted to censor sections of his book The Main Enemy, a historical assessment of CIA and KGB intrigues from the Cold War era, while he was still covering the CIA for the NY Times.
Then there is the case of NY Times writer Judith Miller. Ms. Miller has committed the cardinal mistake of using unsubstantiated sources. Ms. Miller finds herself now treading water over repeated articles asseverating weapons of destruction in Iraq with mysterious sources. The source of her stories is reputed to be the convicted swindler Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, the self-same group which led the US –UK invaders to believe they would be showered with roses and adoration by the liberated Iraqis. Nonetheless Ms. Miller was so cocksure of her stories that she claimed she had uncovered not only the “smoking gun” but also the “silver bullet.” This self-same Ms.Miller had the audacity to expostulate in May to a graduating class at Barnard College: “Journalists need to draw conclusions about whether journalistic objectivity was compromised during the war.” Ms. Miller questioned, “Were those who wanted to go to war deceiving themselves about Saddam's capabilities?” As reporter William E. Jackson Jr. noted this was “remarkably candid -- and ironic.”
Then there is a NY Times heavyweight, chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman. BJ Sabri, in a logically compelling article, exposed Mr. Friedman as an “insidious prophet of petty fascism, where arrogant judgments, studied preconceptions, bloated self-righteousness, and a message for hatred and violence constitute a value system.”
As for NY Times veteran op-ed writer William Safire, he’s not to be trusted at all.
Another recent victim from the self-inflicted wound of lazy reporting is the NY Times’ Lynette Clemetson. Investigative reporter Greg Palast takes Ms. Clemetson to the task for her remarks concerning former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Said Ms. Clemetson: “Ms. McKinney suggest[ed] that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”
That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”
Problem is, McKinney never said it.
That’s right. The “quote” from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin’ made up.
Hi, Lynette. My name is Greg Palast, and I wanted to follow up on a story of yours. It says, let’s see, after the opening -- it’s about Cynthia McKinney -- it’s dated Washington byline August 21. “McKinney’s [opponent] capitalized on the furor caused by Miss McKinney’s suggestion this year that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” Now, I have been trying my darndest to find this phrase . . . I can’t. . .
Lynette Clemetson, New York Times: Did you search the Atlanta Journal Constitution?
Yes, but I haven’t been able to find that statement.
I’ve heard that statement -- it was all over the place.
I know it was all over the place, except no one can find it and that’s why I’m concerned. Now did you see the statement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution?
Yeah....
[Note: No such direct quote from McKinney can be found in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.]
And did you confirm this with McKinney?
Well, I worked with her office. The statement is from the floor of the House [of Representatives].... Right?
So did you check the statement from the Floor of the House?
I mean I wouldn’t have done the story. . . . Have you looked at House transcripts?
Yes. Did you check that?
Of course.
You did check it?
[Note: No such McKinney statement can be found in the transcripts or other records of the House of Representatives.]
I think you have to go back to the House transcripts.... I mean it was all over the place at the time.
Yes, this is one fact the Times reporter didn’t fake: The McKinney “quote” was, indeed, all over the place: in the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and needless to say, all the other metropolitan dailies -- everywhere but in Congresswoman McKinney’s mouth.
Nor was it in the Congressional Record, nor in any recorded talk, nor on her Website, nor in any of her radio talks. Here’s the Congresswoman’s statement from the record:
“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”
Oh.
Ms. Clemetson was caught in a web of her own spinning.
“All the News That's Fit to Print,” is the self-titled billing for the NY Times and with so many of its journalistic misdemeanors exposed, one wonders about the criteria for being “fit to print.” Nonetheless, since it is still the unofficial voice of the Washington establishment we continue to engage, as Noam Chomsky said, in “the masochistic exercise of reading the NY Times.”
Metamars,
I used to live in Dunwoody, GA.
Cynthia McKinney was the REP from MY district.
I HEARD HER SAY IT.
It was on a RADIO INTERVIEW.
What she said was:
Now the first statement, no problem, classic Washington.
BUT, the SECOND STATEMENT IMPLIES the President is complict in the deaths.
She was in a RE-ELECTION bid and the FUROR that this SECOND statement caused COST her the election.
This is from CM's own Web Site.
Now the first statement, no problem, classic Washington.
BUT, the SECOND STATEMENT IMPLIES the President is complict in the deaths.
She was in a RE-ELECTION bid and the FUROR that this SECOND statement caused COST her the election.
This is from CM's own Web Site.
We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why. After all, we hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane crashes, and even natural disasters in order to understand what happened and to prevent them from happening again or minimizing the tragic effects when they do. Why then does the Administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack upon our nation?
News reports from Der Spiegel to the London Observer, from the Los Angeles Times to MSNBC to CNN, indicate that many different warnings were received by the Administration. In addition, it has even been reported that the United States government broke bin Laden's secure communications before September 11. Sadly, the United States government is being sued today by survivors of the Embassy bombings because, from court reports, it appears clear that the US had received prior warnings, but did little to secure and protect the staff at our embassies.
Did the same thing happen to us again?
I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For example, it is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which, have soared since September 11.
So that whole post of yours is, ONCE AGAIN, Disinformation.
Arthur
I'm tempted to ask you "Do you really believe your arguments are at all convincing?", but I already know the answer, now don't I? Honestly, you not only come off as a pope, but a desperate pope. There seems to be no straw so insignificant that you won't grasp at it, and no theory so implausible that you won't present it, if you somehow think it'll help convince anybody that the government Fairy Tales are true.
Has it occurred to you that you might be hurting your own side of the debate?
Your theory as to why Cynthia McKinney lost her first re-election bid shows real ignorance. Why don't you look into it?
Just to amuse us further, please tell us your guesses as to the poll results of the following questions:
Q1 (to Democrats): Do you consider Cynthia McKinney a "leading Democrat"?
Q2 (to Democrats): Since some people claim that Democrats responded to poll questions in a manner reflecting Cynthia McKinney's implied doubts as to Bush Administration culpability, why did the Democrats in Georgia, lemmings that they are, not guarantee her re-election?
Q3 (to registered Republicans who previously indicated a belief in LIHOP or MIHOP) Would it have made a damn bit of difference ito your answer to our previous question if we rephrased the question like so:
Do you feel either of the following is true:
"Did the Govt KNOW that planes were going to be flown into the WTC towers beforehand and do nothing to prevent it?"
OR
"Was the Govt (or members of ) aid or assist the crashing of planes into the WTC towers?"
I'm trying to tell you, but you're not listening. Did you look into any of the references I gave you?
Just to make it crystal clear: the near total absence of serious 911 investigation and reporting from within MSM, "liberal alternative media", and "conservative alternative media" speaks to a gatekeeper phenomenon which clearly transcends politics (including of both left and right).
I've gone into this in much more detail at the Randi Rhodes forum. Since you listen to AAR, you should have no trouble finding that. I'm not going to expound on length on the subject here, as this forum is supposed to be physics oriented.
Our friend Gordon has apparently put the final nail in the FEMA Fairy Tale coffin (short of definitive computer modeling) - over 4 years after 911. Where was the investigative reporter from the NY Times that knocked on the doors of engineering professors to produce this relatively simple calculation, say 3.5 years ago, when it could have made a much bigger difference? AAR* or Democracy Now**? Rush Limbaugh or American Conservative Magazine?
So much for the middle, the left, and the right.
* AAR wasn't around then, but they've had more than enough time to have interviewed Jim Hoffman or David Ray Griffin, who have researched this on their own nickel.
** Democracy Now did have Griffin on all too briefly. Their "coverage" of 911 is shameful.
I'm trying to tell you, but you're not listening. Did you look into any of the references I gave you?
Just to make it crystal clear: the near total absence of serious 911 investigation and reporting from within MSM, "liberal alternative media", and "conservative alternative media" speaks to a gatekeeper phenomenon which clearly transcends politics (including of both left and right).
I've gone into this in much more detail at the Randi Rhodes forum. Since you listen to AAR, you should have no trouble finding that. I'm not going to expound on length on the subject here, as this forum is supposed to be physics oriented.
Our friend Gordon has apparently put the final nail in the FEMA Fairy Tale coffin (short of definitive computer modeling) - over 4 years after 911. Where was the investigative reporter from the NY Times that knocked on the doors of engineering professors to produce this relatively simple calculation, say 3.5 years ago, when it could have made a much bigger difference? AAR* or Democracy Now**? Rush Limbaugh or American Conservative Magazine?
So much for the middle, the left, and the right.
* AAR wasn't around then, but they've had more than enough time to have interviewed Jim Hoffman or David Ray Griffin, who have researched this on their own nickel.
** Democracy Now did have Griffin on all too briefly. Their "coverage" of 911 is shameful.
I said I listen to them. I didn't say I believe everything I hear. Malloy also spews non-sense from time to time but someone has to attract the mindless vote for liberals. If not Rush, Hannity and O'lielly guide them to the republicans as they did in the 90's. You are now in the same league as the republicans who thought Clinton sold secrets to China. Someone has to be the voice of reason on the left.
Now, AMASINGLY you involve the liberal left in this cover-up! Only Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy are true liberals right... They're the only ones who know the truth and are willing to say it. It can't be that Randi (And I love what shes doing) is the Anne Coulter of the left.... No. Dude, they are political radio host from the left. Nothing more.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason the coverage might me weak is the because of the evidence?
Don't even TRY to say Gordon proved something here. If he did all he has to do is have a paper pass peer review at a structual engineering journal. It's that simple. If he does then I'm there. Until then save me the skin on my fingers.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason the coverage might me weak is the because of the evidence?
Yes, but in light of all the evidence and analysis discussed on this this voluminous thread, why on earth would I accept that as a plausible explanation? Your argument isn't lame on it's face, but becomes lame as you look into the gatekeeper phenomenon on the one hand, and the extensive evidence for 911 government conspiracy on the other. (I include the obvious habit of suppression and destruction of evidence in this last.)
Also, it's not like gatekeeping is limited to 911.
The pattern of censorship of selected news items is quite obvious. The most important commonality between the topics so censored involve the murdering of innocent Americans, or large scale crime (such as drug peddling) or large scale "non-crime" (that should be criminal) such as the government slush funds, described in CAFR's - Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.
The bigger the crime, and the more useful the enterprise (whether technically criminial or not) in transferring money and power from low, middle, and even upper class to certain groups and corporations, the more likely it is to be censored.
To call this a phenomenon to be blamed on liberals or conservatives is an insult to both. Furthermore, I don't doubt at all that many people who do so do it deliberately to deflect attention from the issues themselves. After all, if it's just "damn liberals" or "damn conservatives" squaking about something, why pay them any heed?
Yes, but in light of all the evidence and analysis discussed on this this voluminous thread, why on earth would I accept that as a plausible explanation? Your argument isn't lame on it's face, but becomes lame as you look into the gatekeeper phenomenon on the one hand, and the extensive evidence for 911 government conspiracy on the other. (I include the obvious habit of suppression and destruction of evidence in this last.)
Also, it's not like gatekeeping is limited to 911.
The pattern of censorship of selected news items is quite obvious. The most important commonality between the topics so censored involve the murdering of innocent Americans, or large scale crime (such as drug peddling) or large scale "non-crime" (that should be criminal) such as the government slush funds, described in CAFR's - Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.
The bigger the crime, and the more useful the enterprise (whether technically criminial or not) in transferring money and power from low, middle, and even upper class to certain groups and corporations, the more likely it is to be censored.
To call this a phenomenon to be blamed on liberals or conservatives is an insult to both. Furthermore, I don't doubt at all that many people who do so do it deliberately to deflect attention from the issues themselves. After all, if it's just "damn liberals" or "damn conservatives" squaking about something, why pay them any heed?
I said I listen to them. I didn't say I believe everything I hear. Malloy also spews non-sense from time to time but someone has to attract the mindless vote for liberals. If not Rush, Hannity and O'lielly guide them to the republicans as they did in the 90's. You are now in the same league as the republicans who thought Clinton sold secrets to China. Someone has to be the voice of reason on the left.
Now, AMASINGLY you involve the liberal left in this cover-up! Only Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy are true liberals right... They're the only ones who know the truth and are willing to say it. It can't be that Randi (And I love what shes doing) is the Anne Coulter of the left.... No. Dude, they are political radio host from the left. Nothing more.
I invite the interested reader to peruse the articles at leftgatekeepers.com, so they can decide for themselves how reasonable this insulting argument is. IMO, anybody who reads leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then makes a comment like this, cannot be taken seriously.
I actually anticipated part of this response, in that I figured that the NY Times would be called "too conservative" and/or AAR and Democracy Now only a small part of the left.
It is the cumulative effect of censorship across the board that is so striking, and so damning. The statistical improbability of a single flagship media vehicle (left, right, or mainstream) to not have a single editor or reporter (that we know of) who vigorously disputes the governement 911 Fairy Tales is not indicative of anything.
The across the board silence or lack of serious investigation of 'gatekeeper' topics, such as 911, is extraordinarily significant.
Apparently, "Common Sense" finds it common sensical to stick his head in the sand regarding these processes, but I beg to differ. I note that he has not addressed any serious point of those pointing to gatekeeping and censoring.
Really, this forum is not the place for that, anyway, but since "Common Sense" chooses to remark on the issue by dismissing it - he claims exceptions to the gatekeeping rule are for the politcally expedient purpose of catering to the "mindless" - I feel compelled to point out the obvious.
I agree we need a serious and thorough investigation, complete with computer modeling, with all inputs and methodologies placed in the public domain so that peer review can occur.
If and when such a thing is done, I believe it will simply confirm one of the most important (THE most imortant, in my view) points that Gordon's posting's* clearly imply - and that is, not even a local collapse can get going (beyond a few inches), because the potential energy gets dissipated in the non-elastic deformation of the steel so rapidly.
If you can't get a local collapse, you sure aren't going to get a global one, never mind one that's symmetrical and takes only 4-8 more seconds than free fall.
If you care to refute Gordon's calculation of strain energy, have at it.
In fact, this is as good a time and place as any to amplify my request to other members of this board regarding the dissemination of Hoffman's, Trumpman's, and Jones' papers to university physicists, engineers, and applied mathematicians. Please also print out Gordon's strain energy calculations (and other postings) and present these also.
After all, we could certainly do with more opinions than merely my own and "Common Sense's".
==================
* I still haven't had the opportunity to verify, which I plan to do by going to a local university. Unfortunately, I am "car challenged", and have been for a while.
QUOTE
b. FDNY employees were and continue to be under a “gag order” imposed by senior FDNY officials on instructions of ex-CIA director James Woolsey and others, which forbids them to talk about (among other things) multiple explosions at the WTC on 9-11;
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint3.htm
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint3.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| b. FDNY employees were and continue to be under a “gag order” imposed by senior FDNY officials on instructions of ex-CIA director James Woolsey and others, which forbids them to talk about (among other things) multiple explosions at the WTC on 9-11; http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint3.htm |
‘BOMBS INSIDE WTC’
FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH
By Victor Thorn
NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.
The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New York’s own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldn’t have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.
He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, “We all have to be very careful about how we handle it.”
Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.
Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.
Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC “open grave site” on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: “I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.”
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html
QUOTE
Foxx/Faux/Larry said: Not only is there a lot of science / physics discussion going on, but it is also 'flavoured & spiced' with Amazing Psychological Factors which are hard to pin down for everyone posting... but come through explicity in the style of some posters (a.k.a. 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters).
Well, notice YID... he sits on the sidelines (Just like at Pravda)... UNTIL he can reveal himself and make a character asassination post.
I must hand it to you that, your sophistry is quite convincing and has led me on a number of occasions to investigate your 'PLAUSIBLE' answers. You are much more 'convincing' related to 'plausibilties' (as opposed to Schneibster / aka - 'Common Sense'...etc).
Well, notice YID... he sits on the sidelines (Just like at Pravda)... UNTIL he can reveal himself and make a character asassination post.
I must hand it to you that, your sophistry is quite convincing and has led me on a number of occasions to investigate your 'PLAUSIBLE' answers. You are much more 'convincing' related to 'plausibilties' (as opposed to Schneibster / aka - 'Common Sense'...etc).
explicity is explicitly
asassination is assassination
plausibilties is plausibilities
MORON is Foxx/Faux/Larry
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Foxx/Faux/Larry said: Not only is there a lot of science / physics discussion going on, but it is also 'flavoured & spiced' with Amazing Psychological Factors which are hard to pin down for everyone posting... but come through explicity in the style of some posters (a.k.a. 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters). Well, notice YID... he sits on the sidelines (Just like at Pravda)... UNTIL he can reveal himself and make a character asassination post. I must hand it to you that, your sophistry is quite convincing and has led me on a number of occasions to investigate your 'PLAUSIBLE' answers. You are much more 'convincing' related to 'plausibilties' (as opposed to Schneibster / aka - 'Common Sense'...etc). |
explicity is explicitly
asassination is assassination
plausibilties is plausibilities
MORON is Foxx/Faux/Larry
Apparently the IQ Quotient is NOT related to 'spelling'... (OR is that purposeful spelling obfuscations ?)
Spelling cop provided by
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 31 2005, 06:23 AM)
QUOTE
n other words you have nothing. The fire fighters AREN'T under a gag order. I wouldn't want to change the subject on you.
Pish posh. Hoffman and David Ray Griffin receive virtually no coverage from MSM or left or right political web sites/publications/media.
If you doubt this censoring phenomena, see leftgatekeepers.com and read "Into the Buzzsaw".
YOU were the one who insisted on limiting the domain of your sources to our Orwellian media. You get what you deserve.
If you wish to think out of the box, you will have to look outside the media box. So, if you want sources for the gag order, just use Google. You will definitely find them.
The credibility of these sources is a serious issue, in general, just like the credibility of MSM and so-called alternative media is. Your implicit recommendation for dealing with this very real problem - only MSM sources - is ludicrous, as you should well know if you've read this thread.
Just stop for a minute and listen to what you're saying. The media is also in on the largest mass murder in our nations history??? The evidence you provide is that they don't push your conspiracy theories??? The media isn't just Murdock. It's the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of reporters. You're saying they are ALL in on this mass murder! Even the ones from other countries!
Just listen to yourself. I also want others to listen to you.
This isn't I Love Bush here. Just a little common sense. That's all I ask.
Maybe your all not lairs. Maybe some of you really believe this. Maybe it has to do with you guys growing up in the sticks and not exposed to as many con artists as I have. As I said earlier, I came from NY. We have a lot of people in NY and a lot of con artist like Steve. By the time you're 10 you already know the government lies along with everyone else. The only way to tell who's telling the truth is by evidence and analyzing statements. People who give only part of the facts which just happen to support their case are lying. Bush and Cheney are prime examples. There are a few on this thread which I and others have already exposed.
Maybe you honestly believed those web sites when they said the fire fighters were under a gag order. But the honest thing to do is correct and retract the statement or put up the evidence. Not ask me to search for evidence on something else then call the entire news media accomplises to murder. That makes no sense.
Guest, I said NO 9/11 conspiracy web site only evidence. I don't believe a word in them.
How can the entire NYC police and fire departments be silenced and not a word in say the NY Times? That alone make me lean to this being a HOAX.
QUOTE
How can the entire NYC police and fire departments be silenced and not a word in say the NY Times?
Your question, like your point of view, is naive and self serving. (And worse than that, if you already know the contents of this post.) Read leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then come and tell us why we should confuse the NY Times' editorial policies with anything regarding a balanced, fair, and people-first presentation of basic truths a real democracy should have access to.
If you still claim, after reading those, that you trust MSM, then there's not much point in discussing aspects of 911 with you that don't relate to physics.
And frankly, there's probably not much point in discussing the physics of 911 with you, either.
Speaking of the NY Times:
(emphasis mine; the original article has many hyperlinks )
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How can the entire NYC police and fire departments be silenced and not a word in say the NY Times? |
Your question, like your point of view, is naive and self serving. (And worse than that, if you already know the contents of this post.) Read leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then come and tell us why we should confuse the NY Times' editorial policies with anything regarding a balanced, fair, and people-first presentation of basic truths a real democracy should have access to.
If you still claim, after reading those, that you trust MSM, then there's not much point in discussing aspects of 911 with you that don't relate to physics.
And frankly, there's probably not much point in discussing the physics of 911 with you, either.
Speaking of the NY Times:
(emphasis mine; the original article has many hyperlinks )
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles6/Pe...NYT-Fiction.htm
Pulp Fiction at the New York Times:
Fawning at the Feet of Mammon
by Kim Petersen
Dissident Voice
June 23, 2003
Editorial manipulation is nothing new at the NY Times. In 1880 former managing editor at the New York Times John Swinton scathingly delineated the then state of the free press.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
Such was the state of the media at the end of the nineteenth century. Nowadays authentic reporter Al Giordano, a critic of “the deteriorating New York Times” and mover behind the progressive website Narco News, reports the news and exposes slipshod journalism. Narco News has often cast the spotlight on journalistic shenanigans. Mr. Giordano credits the Internet and, in particular, bloggers “with the shake-ups at the previously impermeable New York Times.”
The NY Times, “considered the Cathedral of journalism,” has seen a plethora of its writers skewered for amateur journalism or corruption.
Journalism professor Carlos Ramírez reported on how NY Times correspondent Sam Dillon was “KOed” out of Mexico following a cover-up for a high profile drug peddler.
The Venezuelan backbeat saw a gaggle of NY Times writers tainted by inauthentic journalism.
During the short-lived Venezuelan coup New York Times reporter Juan Forero reported that President Chávez had “resigned” when, in fact, Mr. Chávez had been abducted at gunpoint. Mr. Forero did not source his knowingly false claim
Subsequently Gail Collins, on behalf of the NY Times editorial board, was compelled to offer an apology on the Venezuelan coup story. “Nobody should ever cheer the overthrow of a democratically elected government. You're right, we dropped the ball on our first Venezuela editorial.”
Francisco Toro a self-confessed, rabidly anti-Chavez reporter was hired by the NY Times in contravention of the paper’s policy of impartiality in reporting. Eventually things came to a head and Mr. Toro resigned over his conflict-of-interest.
Too many writers were guilty of lazy journalism and sourced their stories unchallenged out of the American embassy. There is no problem with reporting the US version of events but reporting it exclusive of other versions and without verification is tendentious and unprofessional. It is gullible journalism. Former NY Times executive editor Max Frankel, who Mr. Giordano praised as an authentic journalist, pointed out the folly of going hook, line, and sinker for the Whitehouse line. “It would be unwise to expect trustworthy information from Washington,” said he.
Another case of shoddy reporting at the NY Times is the textbook blunder of James Risen who monitors the CIA. Mr. Risen committed the error of allowing the source to oversee his manuscript. The CIA were permitted to censor sections of his book The Main Enemy, a historical assessment of CIA and KGB intrigues from the Cold War era, while he was still covering the CIA for the NY Times.
Then there is the case of NY Times writer Judith Miller. Ms. Miller has committed the cardinal mistake of using unsubstantiated sources. Ms. Miller finds herself now treading water over repeated articles asseverating weapons of destruction in Iraq with mysterious sources. The source of her stories is reputed to be the convicted swindler Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, the self-same group which led the US –UK invaders to believe they would be showered with roses and adoration by the liberated Iraqis. Nonetheless Ms. Miller was so cocksure of her stories that she claimed she had uncovered not only the “smoking gun” but also the “silver bullet.” This self-same Ms.Miller had the audacity to expostulate in May to a graduating class at Barnard College: “Journalists need to draw conclusions about whether journalistic objectivity was compromised during the war.” Ms. Miller questioned, “Were those who wanted to go to war deceiving themselves about Saddam's capabilities?” As reporter William E. Jackson Jr. noted this was “remarkably candid -- and ironic.”
Then there is a NY Times heavyweight, chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman. BJ Sabri, in a logically compelling article, exposed Mr. Friedman as an “insidious prophet of petty fascism, where arrogant judgments, studied preconceptions, bloated self-righteousness, and a message for hatred and violence constitute a value system.”
As for NY Times veteran op-ed writer William Safire, he’s not to be trusted at all.
Another recent victim from the self-inflicted wound of lazy reporting is the NY Times’ Lynette Clemetson. Investigative reporter Greg Palast takes Ms. Clemetson to the task for her remarks concerning former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Said Ms. Clemetson: “Ms. McKinney suggest[ed] that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”
That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”
Problem is, McKinney never said it.
That’s right. The “quote” from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin’ made up.
Hi, Lynette. My name is Greg Palast, and I wanted to follow up on a story of yours. It says, let’s see, after the opening -- it’s about Cynthia McKinney -- it’s dated Washington byline August 21. “McKinney’s [opponent] capitalized on the furor caused by Miss McKinney’s suggestion this year that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” Now, I have been trying my darndest to find this phrase . . . I can’t. . .
Lynette Clemetson, New York Times: Did you search the Atlanta Journal Constitution?
Yes, but I haven’t been able to find that statement.
I’ve heard that statement -- it was all over the place.
I know it was all over the place, except no one can find it and that’s why I’m concerned. Now did you see the statement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution?
Yeah....
[Note: No such direct quote from McKinney can be found in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.]
And did you confirm this with McKinney?
Well, I worked with her office. The statement is from the floor of the House [of Representatives].... Right?
So did you check the statement from the Floor of the House?
I mean I wouldn’t have done the story. . . . Have you looked at House transcripts?
Yes. Did you check that?
Of course.
You did check it?
[Note: No such McKinney statement can be found in the transcripts or other records of the House of Representatives.]
I think you have to go back to the House transcripts.... I mean it was all over the place at the time.
Yes, this is one fact the Times reporter didn’t fake: The McKinney “quote” was, indeed, all over the place: in the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and needless to say, all the other metropolitan dailies -- everywhere but in Congresswoman McKinney’s mouth.
Nor was it in the Congressional Record, nor in any recorded talk, nor on her Website, nor in any of her radio talks. Here’s the Congresswoman’s statement from the record:
“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”
Oh.
Ms. Clemetson was caught in a web of her own spinning.
“All the News That's Fit to Print,” is the self-titled billing for the NY Times and with so many of its journalistic misdemeanors exposed, one wonders about the criteria for being “fit to print.” Nonetheless, since it is still the unofficial voice of the Washington establishment we continue to engage, as Noam Chomsky said, in “the masochistic exercise of reading the NY Times.”
We aren't talking about the obviously unbalanced news media. I KNOW they lean right. You aren't telling me jack. I regularly read talkingpointsmemo.com, fair.org, mediamatters.org, sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com, the dailykos.org and others. My radio station is Air America. When I'm at work I stream it. So you aren't talking to someone who's been brainwashed by the right. Even in my post about the people you think are involved I say "(And I almost believe this one)" when it came to the media. But it's a long way from being bias for a party to helping a murderer get away with 3000 murders. And when you have a pool that large of people you will always have a % who will come out. There ARE liberals in the media but not as vocal. For instance we know the president lied about the intelligence because the MSM had Scott Ritter, Richard Clark and others who came out and said as much. The Downing Street Memos are more evidence. So the media isn't as locked down as you want people to believe. You would think there would be a mention SOMEWHERE about the thousands of fireman who are gagged.
This is why I'm here, to inject simple common sense into this debate.
This is why I'm here, to inject simple common sense into this debate.
With the MSM no threat some pre-emptive measures taken?
THE FBI SHUT DOWN OF ARAB MUSLIM WEB SITES
IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO 9/11.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fbishut.html
--------
Wonder what thoughts went through Ben Cohen's mind on September 11, one week after he published this irreverant article -
-"You may know some despicable characters, but are they mean enough to apply for this job posting?
ENEMY WANTED. Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate. Interested enemies send letter and photo or video (threatening, ok) to Enemy Search Committee, Priorities Campaign, 1350 Broadway, NY, NY, 10018.
Here's the deal: We know our politicians have their work cut out for them. They need to find an enemy to justify maintaining the Pentagon budget as if the Cold War never ended. But the pool of credible enemies is evaporating. North Korea is even going diplomatic. The Soviets took themselves out of the running years ago. And countries like Iraq -- or tough looking trading partners like China -- don't make the cut" ----
http://www.alternet.org/story/11427/
THE FBI SHUT DOWN OF ARAB MUSLIM WEB SITES
IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO 9/11.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fbishut.html
--------
Wonder what thoughts went through Ben Cohen's mind on September 11, one week after he published this irreverant article -
-"You may know some despicable characters, but are they mean enough to apply for this job posting?
ENEMY WANTED. Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate. Interested enemies send letter and photo or video (threatening, ok) to Enemy Search Committee, Priorities Campaign, 1350 Broadway, NY, NY, 10018.
Here's the deal: We know our politicians have their work cut out for them. They need to find an enemy to justify maintaining the Pentagon budget as if the Cold War never ended. But the pool of credible enemies is evaporating. North Korea is even going diplomatic. The Soviets took themselves out of the running years ago. And countries like Iraq -- or tough looking trading partners like China -- don't make the cut" ----
http://www.alternet.org/story/11427/
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 31 2005, 04:14 PM)
We aren't talking about the obviously unbalanced news media. I KNOW they lean right. You aren't telling me jack. I regularly read talkingpointsmemo.com, fair.org, mediamatters.org, sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com, the dailykos.org and others. My radio station is Air America. When I'm at work I stream it. So you aren't talking to someone who's been brainwashed by the right. Even in my post about the people you think are involved I say "(And I almost believe this one)" when it came to the media. But it's a long way from being bias for a party to helping a murderer get away with 3000 murders. And when you have a pool that large of people you will always have a % who will come out. There ARE liberals in the media but not as vocal. For instance we know the president lied about the intelligence because the MSM had Scott Ritter, Richard Clark and others who came out and said as much. The Downing Street Memos are more evidence. So the media isn't as locked down as you want people to believe. You would think there would be a mention SOMEWHERE about the thousands of fireman who are gagged.
This is why I'm here, to inject simple common sense into this debate.
Another thing, don't make an attack on my character the first thing you write. It makes your argument look like you think it's so vacuous you need to turn everyone against me before you give it. It's a three legged stool for social midgets and I don't want to get out my saw AGAIN.
This is why I'm here, to inject simple common sense into this debate.
Another thing, don't make an attack on my character the first thing you write. It makes your argument look like you think it's so vacuous you need to turn everyone against me before you give it. It's a three legged stool for social midgets and I don't want to get out my saw AGAIN.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 31 2005, 07:17 AM)
QUOTE
Not true.
The poll was RIGHT AFTER THE LEADING DEMOCRAT (AND NY IS A VERY BLUE STATE) made a big rukus in the news saying Bush New about it beforehand.
The poll was RIGHT AFTER THE LEADING DEMOCRAT (AND NY IS A VERY BLUE STATE) made a big rukus in the news saying Bush New about it beforehand.
Who is this "leading Democrat". And why would the 30% of Registered Republicans who agreed with LIHOP/MIHOP in the Zogby poll care what any Democrat thought?
For that matter, are Democrats such lemmings that they would answer a poll just based on what a "leading Democrat" said?
Cynthia McKinney first, Howard Dean later
Because it was just in the papers in NY. Remember, there was NO suggestion in the question of a possible MIHOP scenario. Even the LIHOP connection is very weak and vague, meaning someone could reply YES because they thought that we had GENERAL knowledge of an IMPENDING attack and didn't warn the NY residents (and there was quite a bit in the news along THOSE angles at the time, i.e. the briefing the president got that included a vague reference to a potential terrorist threat).
If you want CREDIBILITY to the agenda you are pushing, you need to get a poll which asks SPECIFICALLY did the Govt. LIHOP or MIHOP.
A LIHOP question would be "Did the Govt KNOW that planes were going to be flown into the WTC towers beforehand and do nothing to prevent it?"
A MIHOP question would be "Was the Govt (or members of ) aid or assist the crashing of planes into the WTC towers?"
The poll you reference DID NOT ask EITHER question.
Yes
Arthur
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 31 2005, 12:08 AM)
The above post is beyond contempt.
How do the vaporized steel and carbonated bodies fit into your conceptual framework, reality check ?
.
What are you on about, frater? Oh, don't bother answering that..I just remembered that you have less than zero physics knowledge/input, and so have probably misinterpreted/misapplied anything I've had to say to METAMARS AND GORDON ONLY. Please butt out if you've not got something other than 'innuendoing' smart-*** remarks. I venture to bet that I am more genuine in my grief and respect for the victims and their families than you are...which is why I wish to get at truth, rather than, like you seem to want to do, waste time just annoying the people who are actually thinking on the physics (rather than the politics for PERSONAL GAIN, such as you and steve1957 seem self-evidently bent on doing). Lay off, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the physics discussion. Ciao.
RC.
what, are you trying to tell me that PHYSICS is going to explain the tower's collapse ?
.
How do the vaporized steel and carbonated bodies fit into your conceptual framework, reality check ?
.
What are you on about, frater? Oh, don't bother answering that..I just remembered that you have less than zero physics knowledge/input, and so have probably misinterpreted/misapplied anything I've had to say to METAMARS AND GORDON ONLY. Please butt out if you've not got something other than 'innuendoing' smart-*** remarks. I venture to bet that I am more genuine in my grief and respect for the victims and their families than you are...which is why I wish to get at truth, rather than, like you seem to want to do, waste time just annoying the people who are actually thinking on the physics (rather than the politics for PERSONAL GAIN, such as you and steve1957 seem self-evidently bent on doing). Lay off, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the physics discussion. Ciao.
RC.
what, are you trying to tell me that PHYSICS is going to explain the tower's collapse ?
.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 31 2005, 03:32 PM)
QUOTE
How can the entire NYC police and fire departments be silenced and not a word in say the NY Times?
Your question, like your point of view, is naive and self serving. (And worse than that, if you already know the contents of this post.) Read leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then come and tell us why we should confuse the NY Times' editorial policies with anything regarding a balanced, fair, and people-first presentation of basic truths a real democracy should have access to.
If you still claim, after reading those, that you trust MSM, then there's not much point in discussing aspects of 911 with you that don't relate to physics.
And frankly, there's probably not much point in discussing the physics of 911 with you, either.
Speaking of the NY Times:
(emphasis mine; the original article has many hyperlinks )
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How can the entire NYC police and fire departments be silenced and not a word in say the NY Times? |
Your question, like your point of view, is naive and self serving. (And worse than that, if you already know the contents of this post.) Read leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then come and tell us why we should confuse the NY Times' editorial policies with anything regarding a balanced, fair, and people-first presentation of basic truths a real democracy should have access to.
If you still claim, after reading those, that you trust MSM, then there's not much point in discussing aspects of 911 with you that don't relate to physics.
And frankly, there's probably not much point in discussing the physics of 911 with you, either.
Speaking of the NY Times:
(emphasis mine; the original article has many hyperlinks )
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles6/Pe...NYT-Fiction.htm
Pulp Fiction at the New York Times:
Fawning at the Feet of Mammon
by Kim Petersen
Dissident Voice
June 23, 2003
Editorial manipulation is nothing new at the NY Times. In 1880 former managing editor at the New York Times John Swinton scathingly delineated the then state of the free press.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
Such was the state of the media at the end of the nineteenth century. Nowadays authentic reporter Al Giordano, a critic of “the deteriorating New York Times” and mover behind the progressive website Narco News, reports the news and exposes slipshod journalism. Narco News has often cast the spotlight on journalistic shenanigans. Mr. Giordano credits the Internet and, in particular, bloggers “with the shake-ups at the previously impermeable New York Times.”
The NY Times, “considered the Cathedral of journalism,” has seen a plethora of its writers skewered for amateur journalism or corruption.
Journalism professor Carlos Ramírez reported on how NY Times correspondent Sam Dillon was “KOed” out of Mexico following a cover-up for a high profile drug peddler.
The Venezuelan backbeat saw a gaggle of NY Times writers tainted by inauthentic journalism.
During the short-lived Venezuelan coup New York Times reporter Juan Forero reported that President Chávez had “resigned” when, in fact, Mr. Chávez had been abducted at gunpoint. Mr. Forero did not source his knowingly false claim
Subsequently Gail Collins, on behalf of the NY Times editorial board, was compelled to offer an apology on the Venezuelan coup story. “Nobody should ever cheer the overthrow of a democratically elected government. You're right, we dropped the ball on our first Venezuela editorial.”
Francisco Toro a self-confessed, rabidly anti-Chavez reporter was hired by the NY Times in contravention of the paper’s policy of impartiality in reporting. Eventually things came to a head and Mr. Toro resigned over his conflict-of-interest.
Too many writers were guilty of lazy journalism and sourced their stories unchallenged out of the American embassy. There is no problem with reporting the US version of events but reporting it exclusive of other versions and without verification is tendentious and unprofessional. It is gullible journalism. Former NY Times executive editor Max Frankel, who Mr. Giordano praised as an authentic journalist, pointed out the folly of going hook, line, and sinker for the Whitehouse line. “It would be unwise to expect trustworthy information from Washington,” said he.
Another case of shoddy reporting at the NY Times is the textbook blunder of James Risen who monitors the CIA. Mr. Risen committed the error of allowing the source to oversee his manuscript. The CIA were permitted to censor sections of his book The Main Enemy, a historical assessment of CIA and KGB intrigues from the Cold War era, while he was still covering the CIA for the NY Times.
Then there is the case of NY Times writer Judith Miller. Ms. Miller has committed the cardinal mistake of using unsubstantiated sources. Ms. Miller finds herself now treading water over repeated articles asseverating weapons of destruction in Iraq with mysterious sources. The source of her stories is reputed to be the convicted swindler Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, the self-same group which led the US –UK invaders to believe they would be showered with roses and adoration by the liberated Iraqis. Nonetheless Ms. Miller was so cocksure of her stories that she claimed she had uncovered not only the “smoking gun” but also the “silver bullet.” This self-same Ms.Miller had the audacity to expostulate in May to a graduating class at Barnard College: “Journalists need to draw conclusions about whether journalistic objectivity was compromised during the war.” Ms. Miller questioned, “Were those who wanted to go to war deceiving themselves about Saddam's capabilities?” As reporter William E. Jackson Jr. noted this was “remarkably candid -- and ironic.”
Then there is a NY Times heavyweight, chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman. BJ Sabri, in a logically compelling article, exposed Mr. Friedman as an “insidious prophet of petty fascism, where arrogant judgments, studied preconceptions, bloated self-righteousness, and a message for hatred and violence constitute a value system.”
As for NY Times veteran op-ed writer William Safire, he’s not to be trusted at all.
Another recent victim from the self-inflicted wound of lazy reporting is the NY Times’ Lynette Clemetson. Investigative reporter Greg Palast takes Ms. Clemetson to the task for her remarks concerning former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Said Ms. Clemetson: “Ms. McKinney suggest[ed] that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”
That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”
Problem is, McKinney never said it.
That’s right. The “quote” from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin’ made up.
Hi, Lynette. My name is Greg Palast, and I wanted to follow up on a story of yours. It says, let’s see, after the opening -- it’s about Cynthia McKinney -- it’s dated Washington byline August 21. “McKinney’s [opponent] capitalized on the furor caused by Miss McKinney’s suggestion this year that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” Now, I have been trying my darndest to find this phrase . . . I can’t. . .
Lynette Clemetson, New York Times: Did you search the Atlanta Journal Constitution?
Yes, but I haven’t been able to find that statement.
I’ve heard that statement -- it was all over the place.
I know it was all over the place, except no one can find it and that’s why I’m concerned. Now did you see the statement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution?
Yeah....
[Note: No such direct quote from McKinney can be found in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.]
And did you confirm this with McKinney?
Well, I worked with her office. The statement is from the floor of the House [of Representatives].... Right?
So did you check the statement from the Floor of the House?
I mean I wouldn’t have done the story. . . . Have you looked at House transcripts?
Yes. Did you check that?
Of course.
You did check it?
[Note: No such McKinney statement can be found in the transcripts or other records of the House of Representatives.]
I think you have to go back to the House transcripts.... I mean it was all over the place at the time.
Yes, this is one fact the Times reporter didn’t fake: The McKinney “quote” was, indeed, all over the place: in the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and needless to say, all the other metropolitan dailies -- everywhere but in Congresswoman McKinney’s mouth.
Nor was it in the Congressional Record, nor in any recorded talk, nor on her Website, nor in any of her radio talks. Here’s the Congresswoman’s statement from the record:
“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”
Oh.
Ms. Clemetson was caught in a web of her own spinning.
“All the News That's Fit to Print,” is the self-titled billing for the NY Times and with so many of its journalistic misdemeanors exposed, one wonders about the criteria for being “fit to print.” Nonetheless, since it is still the unofficial voice of the Washington establishment we continue to engage, as Noam Chomsky said, in “the masochistic exercise of reading the NY Times.”
Metamars,
I used to live in Dunwoody, GA.
Cynthia McKinney was the REP from MY district.
I HEARD HER SAY IT.
It was on a RADIO INTERVIEW.
What she said was:
QUOTE
"What did this administration know, and when did it know it about the events of Sept. 11? "Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
Now the first statement, no problem, classic Washington.
BUT, the SECOND STATEMENT IMPLIES the President is complict in the deaths.
She was in a RE-ELECTION bid and the FUROR that this SECOND statement caused COST her the election.
This is from CM's own Web Site.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "What did this administration know, and when did it know it about the events of Sept. 11? "Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?" |
Now the first statement, no problem, classic Washington.
BUT, the SECOND STATEMENT IMPLIES the President is complict in the deaths.
She was in a RE-ELECTION bid and the FUROR that this SECOND statement caused COST her the election.
This is from CM's own Web Site.
We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why. After all, we hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane crashes, and even natural disasters in order to understand what happened and to prevent them from happening again or minimizing the tragic effects when they do. Why then does the Administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack upon our nation?
News reports from Der Spiegel to the London Observer, from the Los Angeles Times to MSNBC to CNN, indicate that many different warnings were received by the Administration. In addition, it has even been reported that the United States government broke bin Laden's secure communications before September 11. Sadly, the United States government is being sued today by survivors of the Embassy bombings because, from court reports, it appears clear that the US had received prior warnings, but did little to secure and protect the staff at our embassies.
Did the same thing happen to us again?
I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For example, it is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which, have soared since September 11.
So that whole post of yours is, ONCE AGAIN, Disinformation.
Arthur
One of your own (American) Presidential candidates, Lyndon Larouche , not only predicted a Reichstag type event after Bush stole the first election he also pointed out some of the to come weaknesses in the official tale when being interviewed live on radio as it was happening on September 11.
"Stockwell: Lyndon, is there any reason to assume that this would be something other than Osama bin Laden?
LaRouche: Sure. There are many. Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity. Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--
--LaRouche: I don't think this is an Islamic national operation. I think this was on the other side. I would say the capability, and the motivation, for the intention, does not come from the Arab world. And the isolated Arab groups, which might intend to do something like that, don't have that capability.
Stockwell: Done by—
LaRouche: Well, by people you want the United States to go to war against the Arab world, along the line of what Brzezinski and his man Huntington talk about as the "Clash of Civilizations"! It's a geopolitical provocation! It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States.
Stockwell: The use of agents provocateur has been used very many times in the past.
LaRouche: Ah, this is standard operating procedure. It's standard geopolitical tricks. Nothing esoteric about it. It's what's done all the time. This is just done on a grander scale." ---
Transcript -
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/010911stockwell.html
As a matter of interest, did the mainstream media report these claims made by such a distinguished gentleman?
Before the usual "Larouche is a nut job" comes from the shills consider this below -
Also, commenting on the injustice behind the LaRouche charges and conviction was former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, described the case as representing "a broader range of deliberate cunning and systematic misconduct over a longer period of time utilizing the power of the Federal government than any other prosecution by the U.S. Government in my time or to my knowledge."
Why arrange the vast forces of the state against a "nut job"? Only fear provokes such measures.
"Stockwell: Lyndon, is there any reason to assume that this would be something other than Osama bin Laden?
LaRouche: Sure. There are many. Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity. Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--
--LaRouche: I don't think this is an Islamic national operation. I think this was on the other side. I would say the capability, and the motivation, for the intention, does not come from the Arab world. And the isolated Arab groups, which might intend to do something like that, don't have that capability.
Stockwell: Done by—
LaRouche: Well, by people you want the United States to go to war against the Arab world, along the line of what Brzezinski and his man Huntington talk about as the "Clash of Civilizations"! It's a geopolitical provocation! It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States.
Stockwell: The use of agents provocateur has been used very many times in the past.
LaRouche: Ah, this is standard operating procedure. It's standard geopolitical tricks. Nothing esoteric about it. It's what's done all the time. This is just done on a grander scale." ---
Transcript -
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/010911stockwell.html
As a matter of interest, did the mainstream media report these claims made by such a distinguished gentleman?
Before the usual "Larouche is a nut job" comes from the shills consider this below -
Also, commenting on the injustice behind the LaRouche charges and conviction was former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, described the case as representing "a broader range of deliberate cunning and systematic misconduct over a longer period of time utilizing the power of the Federal government than any other prosecution by the U.S. Government in my time or to my knowledge."
Why arrange the vast forces of the state against a "nut job"? Only fear provokes such measures.
If Lyndon Larouche is a distinguished gentlemen, Boy George is the king of England.
"Although LaRouche has no formal qualifications, he has written extensively on economic, scientific, political, and cultural topics. Critics regard him as a conspiracy theorist, attention-seeker and political extremist, while Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and others have described him as a fascist, a cult leader, and an anti-Semite.
He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
It figures you would bring up and a-line yourself with a convicted con artist to make your case. One of Steve's old cellmates no doubt.
You just pass on everything you hear without checking on any facts. You're making your side look foolish.
"Although LaRouche has no formal qualifications, he has written extensively on economic, scientific, political, and cultural topics. Critics regard him as a conspiracy theorist, attention-seeker and political extremist, while Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and others have described him as a fascist, a cult leader, and an anti-Semite.
He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
It figures you would bring up and a-line yourself with a convicted con artist to make your case. One of Steve's old cellmates no doubt.
You just pass on everything you hear without checking on any facts. You're making your side look foolish.
QUOTE (Common Sense+)
You just pass on everything you hear without checking on any facts. You're making your side look foolish.
Correction: MORE foolish.
(Though I admit that is actually hard to believe is possible)
Oh, wait, I see they are quoting Saddam's Defence Council, Ramsey Clark
I stand corrected.
Arthur
Correction: MORE foolish.
(Though I admit that is actually hard to believe is possible)
Oh, wait, I see they are quoting Saddam's Defence Council, Ramsey Clark
I stand corrected.
Arthur
QUOTE
Cynthia McKinney first, Howard Dean later
I'm tempted to ask you "Do you really believe your arguments are at all convincing?", but I already know the answer, now don't I? Honestly, you not only come off as a pope, but a desperate pope. There seems to be no straw so insignificant that you won't grasp at it, and no theory so implausible that you won't present it, if you somehow think it'll help convince anybody that the government Fairy Tales are true.
Has it occurred to you that you might be hurting your own side of the debate?
Your theory as to why Cynthia McKinney lost her first re-election bid shows real ignorance. Why don't you look into it?
Just to amuse us further, please tell us your guesses as to the poll results of the following questions:
Q1 (to Democrats): Do you consider Cynthia McKinney a "leading Democrat"?
Q2 (to Democrats): Since some people claim that Democrats responded to poll questions in a manner reflecting Cynthia McKinney's implied doubts as to Bush Administration culpability, why did the Democrats in Georgia, lemmings that they are, not guarantee her re-election?
Q3 (to registered Republicans who previously indicated a belief in LIHOP or MIHOP) Would it have made a damn bit of difference ito your answer to our previous question if we rephrased the question like so:
Do you feel either of the following is true:
"Did the Govt KNOW that planes were going to be flown into the WTC towers beforehand and do nothing to prevent it?"
OR
"Was the Govt (or members of ) aid or assist the crashing of planes into the WTC towers?"
Common Sense, which part of Larouche,s statements upset you most?
"Stockwell: Lyndon, is there any reason to assume that this would be something other than Osama bin Laden?
LaRouche: Sure. There are many. Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity. Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--
--LaRouche: I don't think this is an Islamic national operation. I think this was on the other side. I would say the capability, and the motivation, for the intention, does not come from the Arab world. And the isolated Arab groups, which might intend to do something like that, don't have that capability.
Stockwell: Done by—
LaRouche: Well, by people you want the United States to go to war against the Arab world, along the line of what Brzezinski and his man Huntington talk about as the "Clash of Civilizations"! It's a geopolitical provocation! It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States.
Stockwell: The use of agents provocateur has been used very many times in the past.
LaRouche: Ah, this is standard operating procedure. It's standard geopolitical tricks. Nothing esoteric about it. It's what's done all the time. This is just done on a grander scale." ---
Transcript -
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/010911stockwell.
Whatever the propoganda about Larouche says he was bang on the morning of September 11 eh.
I align myself with no one in particular and anyone truthful. Being a proven liar that rules yourself out.
"Stockwell: Lyndon, is there any reason to assume that this would be something other than Osama bin Laden?
LaRouche: Sure. There are many. Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity. Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--
--LaRouche: I don't think this is an Islamic national operation. I think this was on the other side. I would say the capability, and the motivation, for the intention, does not come from the Arab world. And the isolated Arab groups, which might intend to do something like that, don't have that capability.
Stockwell: Done by—
LaRouche: Well, by people you want the United States to go to war against the Arab world, along the line of what Brzezinski and his man Huntington talk about as the "Clash of Civilizations"! It's a geopolitical provocation! It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States.
Stockwell: The use of agents provocateur has been used very many times in the past.
LaRouche: Ah, this is standard operating procedure. It's standard geopolitical tricks. Nothing esoteric about it. It's what's done all the time. This is just done on a grander scale." ---
Transcript -
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/010911stockwell.
Whatever the propoganda about Larouche says he was bang on the morning of September 11 eh.
I align myself with no one in particular and anyone truthful. Being a proven liar that rules yourself out.
QUOTE
We aren't talking about the obviously unbalanced news media. I KNOW they lean right. You aren't telling me jack.
I'm trying to tell you, but you're not listening. Did you look into any of the references I gave you?
Just to make it crystal clear: the near total absence of serious 911 investigation and reporting from within MSM, "liberal alternative media", and "conservative alternative media" speaks to a gatekeeper phenomenon which clearly transcends politics (including of both left and right).
I've gone into this in much more detail at the Randi Rhodes forum. Since you listen to AAR, you should have no trouble finding that. I'm not going to expound on length on the subject here, as this forum is supposed to be physics oriented.
Our friend Gordon has apparently put the final nail in the FEMA Fairy Tale coffin (short of definitive computer modeling) - over 4 years after 911. Where was the investigative reporter from the NY Times that knocked on the doors of engineering professors to produce this relatively simple calculation, say 3.5 years ago, when it could have made a much bigger difference? AAR* or Democracy Now**? Rush Limbaugh or American Conservative Magazine?
So much for the middle, the left, and the right.
* AAR wasn't around then, but they've had more than enough time to have interviewed Jim Hoffman or David Ray Griffin, who have researched this on their own nickel.
** Democracy Now did have Griffin on all too briefly. Their "coverage" of 911 is shameful.
adoucette
Your ignorance about Saddam is about as ignorant as your grasp of 9/11, probably due to the fact that you put all your trust in Hollywood movies.
In reality Saddam is just your basic middle eastern dictator who represented the Sunni's. And the Sunni's loved the guy. But because the Shi-its were at war with them of course they hate em.
Take a look at General Paton. The allies loved em, but the axis hated him.
In fact the US government loved Saddam. If you were older than the immature teenager that you are, you would have remembered Saddam was a friend of the United States. There are pictures of Donald Rumsfield shaking his hand and Bush senior openly announced what a great friend and allie Saddam was to the United States.
It's in the public achieves that Reagan and Bush senior authorized the sale of various chemical weapons to be given to Saddam as well as service techs from the US who knew how to operate them.
So in truth Saddam was an allie of the United States and it was the US who provided and aided in the implementation of whatever chemical weapons were used.
The Shi-its were and still are sick, religious fanatics who believe you have to go through a man to get to God, whereas the Sunni's understand that we can all commune with God direct in our hearts without the necessity of a middle man.
So yes, Saddam screwed up big time. In his zeal to win the battles against the Shi-its and the Iranians he made a deal with the devil, the US.
In reality Saddam is very much like Abraham Lincoln in the eyes of the Sunni's, not in the eyes of immature little punks like yourself who stayed on your mommies breasts too long, but in the eyes of the Sunni's Saddam was the leader of a civil war, just like Lincoln.
In the 1860's many people down south hated Lincoln and made all kinds of political cartoons about him, much like the way people do about Saddam. The southerners said the same thing about Lincoln in that he was a viscous warrior, who was responsible for the deaths of more American soldiers than any other war in American history.
So go back to watching your teletubbies and grow up before you continue posting your ignorant posts about people like Saddam, of whom you know nothing about.
And if you keep posting these crazy, loony messages I may have to come back and put you in your place.
Your ignorance about Saddam is about as ignorant as your grasp of 9/11, probably due to the fact that you put all your trust in Hollywood movies.
In reality Saddam is just your basic middle eastern dictator who represented the Sunni's. And the Sunni's loved the guy. But because the Shi-its were at war with them of course they hate em.
Take a look at General Paton. The allies loved em, but the axis hated him.
In fact the US government loved Saddam. If you were older than the immature teenager that you are, you would have remembered Saddam was a friend of the United States. There are pictures of Donald Rumsfield shaking his hand and Bush senior openly announced what a great friend and allie Saddam was to the United States.
It's in the public achieves that Reagan and Bush senior authorized the sale of various chemical weapons to be given to Saddam as well as service techs from the US who knew how to operate them.
So in truth Saddam was an allie of the United States and it was the US who provided and aided in the implementation of whatever chemical weapons were used.
The Shi-its were and still are sick, religious fanatics who believe you have to go through a man to get to God, whereas the Sunni's understand that we can all commune with God direct in our hearts without the necessity of a middle man.
So yes, Saddam screwed up big time. In his zeal to win the battles against the Shi-its and the Iranians he made a deal with the devil, the US.
In reality Saddam is very much like Abraham Lincoln in the eyes of the Sunni's, not in the eyes of immature little punks like yourself who stayed on your mommies breasts too long, but in the eyes of the Sunni's Saddam was the leader of a civil war, just like Lincoln.
In the 1860's many people down south hated Lincoln and made all kinds of political cartoons about him, much like the way people do about Saddam. The southerners said the same thing about Lincoln in that he was a viscous warrior, who was responsible for the deaths of more American soldiers than any other war in American history.
So go back to watching your teletubbies and grow up before you continue posting your ignorant posts about people like Saddam, of whom you know nothing about.
And if you keep posting these crazy, loony messages I may have to come back and put you in your place.
QUOTE (brian+Dec 31 2005, 07:14 PM)
Common Sense, which part of Larouche,s statements upset you most?
"Stockwell: Lyndon, is there any reason to assume that this would be something other than Osama bin Laden?
LaRouche: Sure. There are many. Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity. Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--
--LaRouche: I don't think this is an Islamic national operation. I think this was on the other side. I would say the capability, and the motivation, for the intention, does not come from the Arab world. And the isolated Arab groups, which might intend to do something like that, don't have that capability.
Stockwell: Done by—
LaRouche: Well, by people you want the United States to go to war against the Arab world, along the line of what Brzezinski and his man Huntington talk about as the "Clash of Civilizations"! It's a geopolitical provocation! It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States.
Stockwell: The use of agents provocateur has been used very many times in the past.
LaRouche: Ah, this is standard operating procedure. It's standard geopolitical tricks. Nothing esoteric about it. It's what's done all the time. This is just done on a grander scale." ---
Transcript -
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/010911stockwell.
Whatever the propoganda about Larouche says he was bang on the morning of September 11 eh.
I align myself with no one in particular and anyone truthful. Being a proven liar that rules yourself out.
Upset me? HEHEHE
Look, if you want to follow criminals and drink their koolaid be my guest. Why should I care? I didn't care when Rev Jim Jones took all his followers out of the gene pool and I don't care who you follow either. Please continue. Coastal needs more laughs.
But I'll tell you the logic that make me laugh...
"Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--"
If you believe this then YOU aren't an independent person because (And I may be presuming to much here) your parents are how you came into existence. Who someone is "Created" doesn't mean they aren't running things now.
"I don't think this is an Islamic national operation. I think this was on the other side."
Because a convicted criminal/Con-Artist "THINKS" it's an inside job doesn't mean it's an inside job.
"It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States."
So now it's not Bush, It's the Israeli's... Make up your mind dude!
"I align myself with no one in particular and anyone truthful. Being a proven liar that rules yourself out."
You associate yourself with a convicted con artist and quote from another. That tells me more about you than your empty statement does about me.
"Stockwell: Lyndon, is there any reason to assume that this would be something other than Osama bin Laden?
LaRouche: Sure. There are many. Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity. Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--
--LaRouche: I don't think this is an Islamic national operation. I think this was on the other side. I would say the capability, and the motivation, for the intention, does not come from the Arab world. And the isolated Arab groups, which might intend to do something like that, don't have that capability.
Stockwell: Done by—
LaRouche: Well, by people you want the United States to go to war against the Arab world, along the line of what Brzezinski and his man Huntington talk about as the "Clash of Civilizations"! It's a geopolitical provocation! It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States.
Stockwell: The use of agents provocateur has been used very many times in the past.
LaRouche: Ah, this is standard operating procedure. It's standard geopolitical tricks. Nothing esoteric about it. It's what's done all the time. This is just done on a grander scale." ---
Transcript -
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/010911stockwell.
Whatever the propoganda about Larouche says he was bang on the morning of September 11 eh.
I align myself with no one in particular and anyone truthful. Being a proven liar that rules yourself out.
Upset me? HEHEHE
Look, if you want to follow criminals and drink their koolaid be my guest. Why should I care? I didn't care when Rev Jim Jones took all his followers out of the gene pool and I don't care who you follow either. Please continue. Coastal needs more laughs.
But I'll tell you the logic that make me laugh...
"Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--"
If you believe this then YOU aren't an independent person because (And I may be presuming to much here) your parents are how you came into existence. Who someone is "Created" doesn't mean they aren't running things now.
"I don't think this is an Islamic national operation. I think this was on the other side."
Because a convicted criminal/Con-Artist "THINKS" it's an inside job doesn't mean it's an inside job.
"It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States."
So now it's not Bush, It's the Israeli's... Make up your mind dude!
"I align myself with no one in particular and anyone truthful. Being a proven liar that rules yourself out."
You associate yourself with a convicted con artist and quote from another. That tells me more about you than your empty statement does about me.
Common you may be - Sense you are lacking, let me help.
You quote
"Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--"
If you believe this then YOU aren't an independent person because (And I may be presuming to much here) your parents are how you came into existence. Who someone is "Created" doesn't mean they aren't running things now."
Think the part you left out may be important?
"Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity."
You then quote -
"It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States."
So now it's not Bush, It's the Israeli's... Make up your mind dude!"
No need for any mind to be made up -
"people whose intentions coincide"
Larouche does NOT say the IDF were responsible, its yourself saying that DUDE.
I offer your own silly remark -
"But I'll tell you the logic that make me laugh..."
Over here we have an apt saying - Common as muck.
You quote
"Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence.--"
If you believe this then YOU aren't an independent person because (And I may be presuming to much here) your parents are how you came into existence. Who someone is "Created" doesn't mean they aren't running things now."
Think the part you left out may be important?
"Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity."
You then quote -
"It's run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States."
So now it's not Bush, It's the Israeli's... Make up your mind dude!"
No need for any mind to be made up -
"people whose intentions coincide"
Larouche does NOT say the IDF were responsible, its yourself saying that DUDE.
I offer your own silly remark -
"But I'll tell you the logic that make me laugh..."
Over here we have an apt saying - Common as muck.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 31 2005, 07:18 PM)
QUOTE
We aren't talking about the obviously unbalanced news media. I KNOW they lean right. You aren't telling me jack.
I'm trying to tell you, but you're not listening. Did you look into any of the references I gave you?
Just to make it crystal clear: the near total absence of serious 911 investigation and reporting from within MSM, "liberal alternative media", and "conservative alternative media" speaks to a gatekeeper phenomenon which clearly transcends politics (including of both left and right).
I've gone into this in much more detail at the Randi Rhodes forum. Since you listen to AAR, you should have no trouble finding that. I'm not going to expound on length on the subject here, as this forum is supposed to be physics oriented.
Our friend Gordon has apparently put the final nail in the FEMA Fairy Tale coffin (short of definitive computer modeling) - over 4 years after 911. Where was the investigative reporter from the NY Times that knocked on the doors of engineering professors to produce this relatively simple calculation, say 3.5 years ago, when it could have made a much bigger difference? AAR* or Democracy Now**? Rush Limbaugh or American Conservative Magazine?
So much for the middle, the left, and the right.
* AAR wasn't around then, but they've had more than enough time to have interviewed Jim Hoffman or David Ray Griffin, who have researched this on their own nickel.
** Democracy Now did have Griffin on all too briefly. Their "coverage" of 911 is shameful.
I said I listen to them. I didn't say I believe everything I hear. Malloy also spews non-sense from time to time but someone has to attract the mindless vote for liberals. If not Rush, Hannity and O'lielly guide them to the republicans as they did in the 90's. You are now in the same league as the republicans who thought Clinton sold secrets to China. Someone has to be the voice of reason on the left.
Now, AMASINGLY you involve the liberal left in this cover-up! Only Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy are true liberals right... They're the only ones who know the truth and are willing to say it. It can't be that Randi (And I love what shes doing) is the Anne Coulter of the left.... No. Dude, they are political radio host from the left. Nothing more.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason the coverage might me weak is the because of the evidence?
Don't even TRY to say Gordon proved something here. If he did all he has to do is have a paper pass peer review at a structual engineering journal. It's that simple. If he does then I'm there. Until then save me the skin on my fingers.
QUOTE (steve1957+Dec 31 2005, 07:25 PM)
adoucette
Your ignorance about Saddam is about as ignorant as your grasp of 9/11, probably due to the fact that you put all your trust in Hollywood movies.
In reality Saddam is just your basic middle eastern dictator who represented the Sunni's. And the Sunni's loved the guy. But because the Shi-its were at war with them of course they hate em.
Take a look at General Paton. The allies loved em, but the axis hated him.
In fact the US government loved Saddam. If you were older than the immature teenager that you are, you would have remembered Saddam was a friend of the United States. There are pictures of Donald Rumsfield shaking his hand and Bush senior openly announced what a great friend and allie Saddam was to the United States.
It's in the public achieves that Reagan and Bush senior authorized the sale of various chemical weapons to be given to Saddam as well as service techs from the US who knew how to operate them.
So in truth Saddam was an allie of the United States and it was the US who provided and aided in the implementation of whatever chemical weapons were used.
The Shi-its were and still are sick, religious fanatics who believe you have to go through a man to get to God, whereas the Sunni's understand that we can all commune with God direct in our hearts without the necessity of a middle man.
So yes, Saddam screwed up big time. In his zeal to win the battles against the Shi-its and the Iranians he made a deal with the devil, the US.
In reality Saddam is very much like Abraham Lincoln in the eyes of the Sunni's, not in the eyes of immature little punks like yourself who stayed on your mommies breasts too long, but in the eyes of the Sunni's Saddam was the leader of a civil war, just like Lincoln.
In the 1860's many people down south hated Lincoln and made all kinds of political cartoons about him, much like the way people do about Saddam. The southerners said the same thing about Lincoln in that he was a viscous warrior, who was responsible for the deaths of more American soldiers than any other war in American history.
So go back to watching your teletubbies and grow up before you continue posting your ignorant posts about people like Saddam, of whom you know nothing about.
And if you keep posting these crazy, loony messages I may have to come back and put you in your place.
Iraqi Shiites were at war with Saddam????
Gosh, I wonder who were in all those MASS GRAVES?????
Were the Kurds at war with Saddam?
Gosh, I wonder who were in all those MASS GRAVES????
Providing a large financial gift to the widows of Palestinian Suicide bombers, I guess you call that "humanitarian aid"????
Invading Kuwait, no biggy right?
All the US support of Saddam was when Saddam was fighting the Iranians. Under the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine. At the time he was useful, didn't mean we actually supported him or his policies. Check it out, at the time Saddam was being well supported by Germany and France as well.
Who CARES what the Sunnis thought about Saddam? Of course they "loved" him, they were RAPING AND PILLAGING the country. The majority Shiites were not much better off than slaves. But who cares right? Because you don't agree with their RELIGIOUS views this makes it OK????
I'm curious, what makes you such an authority on Saddam????
I mean your Wife Debbie does look like she is of Middle Eastern descent. Is that it?
Is she a Sunni????
What a PUTZ.
Arthur
Your ignorance about Saddam is about as ignorant as your grasp of 9/11, probably due to the fact that you put all your trust in Hollywood movies.
In reality Saddam is just your basic middle eastern dictator who represented the Sunni's. And the Sunni's loved the guy. But because the Shi-its were at war with them of course they hate em.
Take a look at General Paton. The allies loved em, but the axis hated him.
In fact the US government loved Saddam. If you were older than the immature teenager that you are, you would have remembered Saddam was a friend of the United States. There are pictures of Donald Rumsfield shaking his hand and Bush senior openly announced what a great friend and allie Saddam was to the United States.
It's in the public achieves that Reagan and Bush senior authorized the sale of various chemical weapons to be given to Saddam as well as service techs from the US who knew how to operate them.
So in truth Saddam was an allie of the United States and it was the US who provided and aided in the implementation of whatever chemical weapons were used.
The Shi-its were and still are sick, religious fanatics who believe you have to go through a man to get to God, whereas the Sunni's understand that we can all commune with God direct in our hearts without the necessity of a middle man.
So yes, Saddam screwed up big time. In his zeal to win the battles against the Shi-its and the Iranians he made a deal with the devil, the US.
In reality Saddam is very much like Abraham Lincoln in the eyes of the Sunni's, not in the eyes of immature little punks like yourself who stayed on your mommies breasts too long, but in the eyes of the Sunni's Saddam was the leader of a civil war, just like Lincoln.
In the 1860's many people down south hated Lincoln and made all kinds of political cartoons about him, much like the way people do about Saddam. The southerners said the same thing about Lincoln in that he was a viscous warrior, who was responsible for the deaths of more American soldiers than any other war in American history.
So go back to watching your teletubbies and grow up before you continue posting your ignorant posts about people like Saddam, of whom you know nothing about.
And if you keep posting these crazy, loony messages I may have to come back and put you in your place.
Iraqi Shiites were at war with Saddam????
Gosh, I wonder who were in all those MASS GRAVES?????
Were the Kurds at war with Saddam?
Gosh, I wonder who were in all those MASS GRAVES????
Providing a large financial gift to the widows of Palestinian Suicide bombers, I guess you call that "humanitarian aid"????
Invading Kuwait, no biggy right?
All the US support of Saddam was when Saddam was fighting the Iranians. Under the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine. At the time he was useful, didn't mean we actually supported him or his policies. Check it out, at the time Saddam was being well supported by Germany and France as well.
Who CARES what the Sunnis thought about Saddam? Of course they "loved" him, they were RAPING AND PILLAGING the country. The majority Shiites were not much better off than slaves. But who cares right? Because you don't agree with their RELIGIOUS views this makes it OK????
I'm curious, what makes you such an authority on Saddam????
I mean your Wife Debbie does look like she is of Middle Eastern descent. Is that it?
Is she a Sunni????
QUOTE
And if you keep posting these crazy, loony messages I may have to come back and put you in your place.
What a PUTZ.
Arthur
"Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity."
1) you haven't proven he still is
2) you haven't proven by who if he still is
"people whose intentions coincide"
So it's Bush, the media, all of the structural engineers in the world, the NYC fire department, the NYC police department, The "Jersey girls" AND the Israeli's who are covering for Bush?
One of the tactics of deception is telling weak minded people enough so they draw the desired conclusion. Why didn't the BRAVE LAROUSHE just come out and say it? "The Israeli's and Bush murdered 3000 people!" You know why? Because he knows you feel more intelligent if YOU come to that conclusion and are more likely to believe it if you do.
"Over here we have an apt saying - Common as muck."
Sounds like you live in muck. Muck isn't so common where I live.
1) you haven't proven he still is
2) you haven't proven by who if he still is
"people whose intentions coincide"
So it's Bush, the media, all of the structural engineers in the world, the NYC fire department, the NYC police department, The "Jersey girls" AND the Israeli's who are covering for Bush?
One of the tactics of deception is telling weak minded people enough so they draw the desired conclusion. Why didn't the BRAVE LAROUSHE just come out and say it? "The Israeli's and Bush murdered 3000 people!" You know why? Because he knows you feel more intelligent if YOU come to that conclusion and are more likely to believe it if you do.
"Over here we have an apt saying - Common as muck."
Sounds like you live in muck. Muck isn't so common where I live.
QUOTE
Did it ever occur to you that the reason the coverage might me weak is the because of the evidence?
Yes, but in light of all the evidence and analysis discussed on this this voluminous thread, why on earth would I accept that as a plausible explanation? Your argument isn't lame on it's face, but becomes lame as you look into the gatekeeper phenomenon on the one hand, and the extensive evidence for 911 government conspiracy on the other. (I include the obvious habit of suppression and destruction of evidence in this last.)
Also, it's not like gatekeeping is limited to 911.
The pattern of censorship of selected news items is quite obvious. The most important commonality between the topics so censored involve the murdering of innocent Americans, or large scale crime (such as drug peddling) or large scale "non-crime" (that should be criminal) such as the government slush funds, described in CAFR's - Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.
The bigger the crime, and the more useful the enterprise (whether technically criminial or not) in transferring money and power from low, middle, and even upper class to certain groups and corporations, the more likely it is to be censored.
To call this a phenomenon to be blamed on liberals or conservatives is an insult to both. Furthermore, I don't doubt at all that many people who do so do it deliberately to deflect attention from the issues themselves. After all, if it's just "damn liberals" or "damn conservatives" squaking about something, why pay them any heed?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Did it ever occur to you that the reason the coverage might me weak is the because of the evidence? |
Yes, but in light of all the evidence and analysis discussed on this this voluminous thread, why on earth would I accept that as a plausible explanation? Your argument isn't lame on it's face, but becomes lame as you look into the gatekeeper phenomenon on the one hand, and the extensive evidence for 911 government conspiracy on the other. (I include the obvious habit of suppression and destruction of evidence in this last.)
Also, it's not like gatekeeping is limited to 911.
The pattern of censorship of selected news items is quite obvious. The most important commonality between the topics so censored involve the murdering of innocent Americans, or large scale crime (such as drug peddling) or large scale "non-crime" (that should be criminal) such as the government slush funds, described in CAFR's - Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.
The bigger the crime, and the more useful the enterprise (whether technically criminial or not) in transferring money and power from low, middle, and even upper class to certain groups and corporations, the more likely it is to be censored.
To call this a phenomenon to be blamed on liberals or conservatives is an insult to both. Furthermore, I don't doubt at all that many people who do so do it deliberately to deflect attention from the issues themselves. After all, if it's just "damn liberals" or "damn conservatives" squaking about something, why pay them any heed?
I said I listen to them. I didn't say I believe everything I hear. Malloy also spews non-sense from time to time but someone has to attract the mindless vote for liberals. If not Rush, Hannity and O'lielly guide them to the republicans as they did in the 90's. You are now in the same league as the republicans who thought Clinton sold secrets to China. Someone has to be the voice of reason on the left.
Now, AMASINGLY you involve the liberal left in this cover-up! Only Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy are true liberals right... They're the only ones who know the truth and are willing to say it. It can't be that Randi (And I love what shes doing) is the Anne Coulter of the left.... No. Dude, they are political radio host from the left. Nothing more.
I invite the interested reader to peruse the articles at leftgatekeepers.com, so they can decide for themselves how reasonable this insulting argument is. IMO, anybody who reads leftgatekeepers.com and "Into the Buzzsaw", and then makes a comment like this, cannot be taken seriously.
I actually anticipated part of this response, in that I figured that the NY Times would be called "too conservative" and/or AAR and Democracy Now only a small part of the left.
It is the cumulative effect of censorship across the board that is so striking, and so damning. The statistical improbability of a single flagship media vehicle (left, right, or mainstream) to not have a single editor or reporter (that we know of) who vigorously disputes the governement 911 Fairy Tales is not indicative of anything.
The across the board silence or lack of serious investigation of 'gatekeeper' topics, such as 911, is extraordinarily significant.
Apparently, "Common Sense" finds it common sensical to stick his head in the sand regarding these processes, but I beg to differ. I note that he has not addressed any serious point of those pointing to gatekeeping and censoring.
Really, this forum is not the place for that, anyway, but since "Common Sense" chooses to remark on the issue by dismissing it - he claims exceptions to the gatekeeping rule are for the politcally expedient purpose of catering to the "mindless" - I feel compelled to point out the obvious.
QUOTE
Don't even TRY to say Gordon proved something here. If he did all he has to do is have a paper pass peer review at a structual engineering journal. It's that simple.
I agree we need a serious and thorough investigation, complete with computer modeling, with all inputs and methodologies placed in the public domain so that peer review can occur.
If and when such a thing is done, I believe it will simply confirm one of the most important (THE most imortant, in my view) points that Gordon's posting's* clearly imply - and that is, not even a local collapse can get going (beyond a few inches), because the potential energy gets dissipated in the non-elastic deformation of the steel so rapidly.
If you can't get a local collapse, you sure aren't going to get a global one, never mind one that's symmetrical and takes only 4-8 more seconds than free fall.
If you care to refute Gordon's calculation of strain energy, have at it.
In fact, this is as good a time and place as any to amplify my request to other members of this board regarding the dissemination of Hoffman's, Trumpman's, and Jones' papers to university physicists, engineers, and applied mathematicians. Please also print out Gordon's strain energy calculations (and other postings) and present these also.
After all, we could certainly do with more opinions than merely my own and "Common Sense's".
==================
* I still haven't had the opportunity to verify, which I plan to do by going to a local university. Unfortunately, I am "car challenged", and have been for a while.
QUOTE (Metamars+)
Yes, but in light of all the evidence and analysis discussed on this this voluminous thread, why on earth would I accept that as a plausible explanation?
What FRIGGIN evidence????
The CTers have yet to produce ANY evidence of ANYTHING.
At best you have TRIED to show how a Gravitational Collapse isn't possible, and haven't succeeded even with that.
You have ALL pointedly ignored the NIST Final document, which goes into detail about the crash, the damage from the crash, the fires, the intensity of the fires, the impact of missing insulation, the deformations of the building and their conclusion as to how the local collapse progressed.
You have ALL pointedly ignored the issue of HOW the towers could have been blown by explosives, how they could have been planted and set off.
You tell tales of 'mini-nukes' and 'powderizing spires'.
You believe in PYROCLASTIC clouds of over 1000 degrees, even though the landscape is littered with unburnt paper.
You go on and on about supposed pools of liquefied metal, but can't come up with any pictures of the solidified mass, nor actually equate that to anything sinister.
You take quotes about peoples perceptions and turn them into quotes of FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
Your belief that Larry Silverstein "admitted it" by his use of the phrase "pull it" is beyond credulity.
Your conspiracy grows by the day, the Admin is in on it. Larry Silverstein is in on it. The NYFD is in on it. The FBI and CIA are in on it. The politicos of NY and NYC are in on it. FEMA is in on it. NIST is in on it. MSM is in on it.
Who the HELL isn't in on it?
Your paranoia has gone well PAST the point of absurdity.
At this point, my only regret is I've wasted so much time on people who obviously have an agenda, and that agenda has NOTHING to do with the TRUTH.
Arthur
What FRIGGIN evidence????
The CTers have yet to produce ANY evidence of ANYTHING.
At best you have TRIED to show how a Gravitational Collapse isn't possible, and haven't succeeded even with that.
You have ALL pointedly ignored the NIST Final document, which goes into detail about the crash, the damage from the crash, the fires, the intensity of the fires, the impact of missing insulation, the deformations of the building and their conclusion as to how the local collapse progressed.
You have ALL pointedly ignored the issue of HOW the towers could have been blown by explosives, how they could have been planted and set off.
You tell tales of 'mini-nukes' and 'powderizing spires'.
You believe in PYROCLASTIC clouds of over 1000 degrees, even though the landscape is littered with unburnt paper.
You go on and on about supposed pools of liquefied metal, but can't come up with any pictures of the solidified mass, nor actually equate that to anything sinister.
You take quotes about peoples perceptions and turn them into quotes of FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
Your belief that Larry Silverstein "admitted it" by his use of the phrase "pull it" is beyond credulity.
Your conspiracy grows by the day, the Admin is in on it. Larry Silverstein is in on it. The NYFD is in on it. The FBI and CIA are in on it. The politicos of NY and NYC are in on it. FEMA is in on it. NIST is in on it. MSM is in on it.
Who the HELL isn't in on it?
Your paranoia has gone well PAST the point of absurdity.
At this point, my only regret is I've wasted so much time on people who obviously have an agenda, and that agenda has NOTHING to do with the TRUTH.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Dec 31 2005, 07:45 AM)
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side'
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns'
So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points.
RealityCheck.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the upper section rotated, say anti-clockwise, about a horizontal axis which passes through or about the weakest point of the core columns. This was possible because of the failure of the perimeter columns on one wall and at least some failure of the columns on adjacent walls. The result was to move the columns on the opposite wall from compression to tension.
However at this point we must diverge. How was it possible for these columns in tension due to the anti-clockwise rotating mass, then have the ability to arrest the angular momentum and reverse it to force a clockwise rotation?
Where did the force come from that pulled the upper section back? The extension of these columns and thus the force set up within them is a reaction to and directly related to the angular momentum. It may have been possible for these columns to arrest the angular momentum by strain, but from where do we get the additional force required to reverse the momentum. Are you stating that it was the springiness of the perimeter columns which caused this? And if this was the case how then was that new clockwise angular momentum arrested?
I also note our agreement on the breakup of the upper section. While we may disagree on the mechanism at least we are in agreement that a significant result would be the breakup of the upper section, thus consuming some of the available energy through strain energy and dissipating the directed energy available to progress collapse, thus arresting the collapse earlier than would have been the case otherwise.
G
Hi gordon.
What 'reversal'....the force was only 'REDIRECTED' in and down by the thus-tensioned opposite columns; it WASN'T 'REVERSED'. The top rotation 'continued' as the whole thing fell and impacted the lower portions and broke up as it went... And any seeming 'reversal' would be when the wall edges of the 'top' impacted (note, IMPACTED, and not 'rested peacefully') on the lower wall edges; which would cause [a] REBOUND and/or [b] BREAKAGE of the upper and lower segments at each level of contact until the 'top' broke apart completely after the requisite number of such level-impacts happened further at succeeding lower levels.
Another thing you must note is the shape of the hat truss structure and its SLANTING BASE support beams (see graphics supplied by foxx in earlier posts of his). In both towers, this was HEAVY and well above the plane impact levels; and when the supporting core FAILED below it, this HEAVY hat truss structure would basically fall like a 'firewood-splitter' wedge down the centre of the building, its impulse/impact pushing DOWN like a relentlessly accelerating wedge into the lower stories so that they would fail there; and so create as it went a sort of 'bowl-shaped' funnel of the floors/ceilings trusses/pans for the accumulating debris to slide' or FOCUS towards the core structure below...thus concentrating the weight/impact/chaotic-vibrations into the central structure and overloading/overwhelming it further as things progressed from bad to worse...and the rest could ONLY get worse, not better, since the 'geometry' of the building arrangement LOCALLY at each level would be TOTALLY and SPEEDILY compromised...hence the observed successive-level GLOBAL collapse AS A CONTINUING SEQUENCE of "LOCAL COLLAPSES" at EACH SUCCEEDING LEVEL.
And when you speak of energy being dissipated, you omit to re-factor in the CUMULATIVE ACCELERATIVE EFFECTS of gravity on the CUMULATIVE DEBRIS MASS in the rush to the bottom; and the initial collapse conditions could only be AMPLIFIED by each and every smidgeon of additional weight/momentum/chaos etc which DIDN'T 'dissipate' but ACCUMULATED because of any ADDITIONAL debris from the broken outer walls, the floors/ceilings and the failed core structure at each level.
Gordon, I ask you again to take time to re-read the thread; and then consider everything AS ONE WHOLE SET OF INTER-PLAYING FACTORS rather than this bit-by-bit 'analysis' which will be out of context at each point in that 'analysis'; and so may give MISLEADING/ILLOGICAL 'results' for each 'bit' so treated in 'isolation'.
Good luck and happy new year to all!
RC.
.
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side'
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns'
So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points.
RealityCheck.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the upper section rotated, say anti-clockwise, about a horizontal axis which passes through or about the weakest point of the core columns. This was possible because of the failure of the perimeter columns on one wall and at least some failure of the columns on adjacent walls. The result was to move the columns on the opposite wall from compression to tension.
However at this point we must diverge. How was it possible for these columns in tension due to the anti-clockwise rotating mass, then have the ability to arrest the angular momentum and reverse it to force a clockwise rotation?
Where did the force come from that pulled the upper section back? The extension of these columns and thus the force set up within them is a reaction to and directly related to the angular momentum. It may have been possible for these columns to arrest the angular momentum by strain, but from where do we get the additional force required to reverse the momentum. Are you stating that it was the springiness of the perimeter columns which caused this? And if this was the case how then was that new clockwise angular momentum arrested?
I also note our agreement on the breakup of the upper section. While we may disagree on the mechanism at least we are in agreement that a significant result would be the breakup of the upper section, thus consuming some of the available energy through strain energy and dissipating the directed energy available to progress collapse, thus arresting the collapse earlier than would have been the case otherwise.
G
Hi gordon.
What 'reversal'....the force was only 'REDIRECTED' in and down by the thus-tensioned opposite columns; it WASN'T 'REVERSED'. The top rotation 'continued' as the whole thing fell and impacted the lower portions and broke up as it went... And any seeming 'reversal' would be when the wall edges of the 'top' impacted (note, IMPACTED, and not 'rested peacefully') on the lower wall edges; which would cause [a] REBOUND and/or [b] BREAKAGE of the upper and lower segments at each level of contact until the 'top' broke apart completely after the requisite number of such level-impacts happened further at succeeding lower levels.
Another thing you must note is the shape of the hat truss structure and its SLANTING BASE support beams (see graphics supplied by foxx in earlier posts of his). In both towers, this was HEAVY and well above the plane impact levels; and when the supporting core FAILED below it, this HEAVY hat truss structure would basically fall like a 'firewood-splitter' wedge down the centre of the building, its impulse/impact pushing DOWN like a relentlessly accelerating wedge into the lower stories so that they would fail there; and so create as it went a sort of 'bowl-shaped' funnel of the floors/ceilings trusses/pans for the accumulating debris to slide' or FOCUS towards the core structure below...thus concentrating the weight/impact/chaotic-vibrations into the central structure and overloading/overwhelming it further as things progressed from bad to worse...and the rest could ONLY get worse, not better, since the 'geometry' of the building arrangement LOCALLY at each level would be TOTALLY and SPEEDILY compromised...hence the observed successive-level GLOBAL collapse AS A CONTINUING SEQUENCE of "LOCAL COLLAPSES" at EACH SUCCEEDING LEVEL.
And when you speak of energy being dissipated, you omit to re-factor in the CUMULATIVE ACCELERATIVE EFFECTS of gravity on the CUMULATIVE DEBRIS MASS in the rush to the bottom; and the initial collapse conditions could only be AMPLIFIED by each and every smidgeon of additional weight/momentum/chaos etc which DIDN'T 'dissipate' but ACCUMULATED because of any ADDITIONAL debris from the broken outer walls, the floors/ceilings and the failed core structure at each level.
Gordon, I ask you again to take time to re-read the thread; and then consider everything AS ONE WHOLE SET OF INTER-PLAYING FACTORS rather than this bit-by-bit 'analysis' which will be out of context at each point in that 'analysis'; and so may give MISLEADING/ILLOGICAL 'results' for each 'bit' so treated in 'isolation'.
Good luck and happy new year to all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (frater plecticus 2+Dec 31 2005, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 31 2005, 12:08 AM)
The above post is beyond contempt.
How do the vaporized steel and carbonated bodies fit into your conceptual framework, reality check ?
.
What are you on about, frater? Oh, don't bother answering that..I just remembered that you have less than zero physics knowledge/input, and so have probably misinterpreted/misapplied anything I've had to say to METAMARS AND GORDON ONLY. Please butt out if you've not got something other than 'innuendoing' smart-*** remarks. I venture to bet that I am more genuine in my grief and respect for the victims and their families than you are...which is why I wish to get at truth, rather than, like you seem to want to do, waste time just annoying the people who are actually thinking on the physics (rather than the politics for PERSONAL GAIN, such as you and steve1957 seem self-evidently bent on doing). Lay off, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the physics discussion. Ciao.
RC.
what, are you trying to tell me that PHYSICS is going to explain the tower's collapse ?.
.
Didn't you read where I asked you to lay off, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the physics discussion? If the PHYSICS shows some REAL ANOMALLY, then it will be easier to 'point the finger', won't it?...with EVIDENCE TO BOOT, heh? Or is it only YOUR "COMMERCIAL" and/or "POLITICAL" AGENDA that's important here, and NOT the victims/truth, heh?
So who cares what you have to say about anything not helpful to the PHYSICS discussion?...for ANYONE can, if they were so inclined, get all the 'political/criminal conspiracy' stuff you post, AND MORE, just by visiting other websites specialising in such.
Happy New Year, mate!...and may all your thoughts this year be intelligent ones for a change. [Something about PHYSICS in a PHYSICS forum perhaps.....?]
RC.
See that little hyperlink in the upper left hand corner? Hit that, and see what happens.
I should have added: "The one that says 'First' "
How do the vaporized steel and carbonated bodies fit into your conceptual framework, reality check ?
.
What are you on about, frater? Oh, don't bother answering that..I just remembered that you have less than zero physics knowledge/input, and so have probably misinterpreted/misapplied anything I've had to say to METAMARS AND GORDON ONLY. Please butt out if you've not got something other than 'innuendoing' smart-*** remarks. I venture to bet that I am more genuine in my grief and respect for the victims and their families than you are...which is why I wish to get at truth, rather than, like you seem to want to do, waste time just annoying the people who are actually thinking on the physics (rather than the politics for PERSONAL GAIN, such as you and steve1957 seem self-evidently bent on doing). Lay off, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the physics discussion. Ciao.
RC.
what, are you trying to tell me that PHYSICS is going to explain the tower's collapse ?.
.
Didn't you read where I asked you to lay off, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the physics discussion? If the PHYSICS shows some REAL ANOMALLY, then it will be easier to 'point the finger', won't it?...with EVIDENCE TO BOOT, heh? Or is it only YOUR "COMMERCIAL" and/or "POLITICAL" AGENDA that's important here, and NOT the victims/truth, heh?
So who cares what you have to say about anything not helpful to the PHYSICS discussion?...for ANYONE can, if they were so inclined, get all the 'political/criminal conspiracy' stuff you post, AND MORE, just by visiting other websites specialising in such.
Happy New Year, mate!...and may all your thoughts this year be intelligent ones for a change. [Something about PHYSICS in a PHYSICS forum perhaps.....?]
RC.
Emergency worker who witnessed the demolition of Building 7:
We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cuz it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock.
Reporter who witnessed the demolition of Building 7:
People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion - looked like it had been done by a demolition crew - the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion.
WTC 7 demolition videos:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.mpg
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv
We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cuz it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock.
Reporter who witnessed the demolition of Building 7:
People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion - looked like it had been done by a demolition crew - the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion.
WTC 7 demolition videos:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.mpg
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv
Arthur,
Listen you little snot nose brat, if I wanted to hear another re-run of the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hamnity, Bill O'Reilly circus I'd turn on the fox news network.
I'd be willing to bet that most of the people come to these message boards so they can carry on conversations with live human beings, and not engage in meaningless debates with parrots, who aren't able to think for themselves, but rather repeat all the regurgitation of the neo/con news networks.
Now if you really support the Nazi view point of ILLEGALLY INVADING other countries, and slaughtering over 100,000 innocent victims in the process, well fine, that's your viewpoint and that's what turns you on, so you most certainly have a right to express how you feel.
But don't even think for a minute that you can justify your Nazi-like murderous tendencies by calling Saddam a bad man. In truth Saddam has nothing to do with it. But in order to give credence to the fairy tale that has also gotten over 2,100 American servicemen and women killed and over 17,000 miserably wounded the propaganda machine had to turn Saddam into the biggest threat to this nation since 9/11.
In truth Saddam could be a rotten old tyrant, but that is completely irrelevant as to why we are there. In the Sudan a lot more people have been murdered by real scum bags that our government sponsors.
And the biggest point of all is that the US should clean up it's own backyard before attempting to go into other countries and pretend to help them out.
Saddam isn't perfect by any means, but under his rule, before we marched in and slaughtered all those civilians things were much, much better. If you saw any of the news footage Baghdad was like LA, or Chicago, or any other major US city. People went to work, went to the store, and carried about their business.
But when the good old USA invaded them things changed. After dropping all those incendiary bombs on all those neighborhoods, and hauling tens of thousands of residents into jail for no legitimate reason, Iraq has taken a major turn for the worse.
It's not about taking sides between the Shi-its and the Sunni's, the point is countries, even like the US has civil wars at times and things get bloody, which is what happened in Iraq for a long time. And after several years of fighting and killing on both sides of the isle, Saddam's regime was able to get the Shi-its under control to a certain extent so that the violence was down to a dull roar.
But now thanks to your Nazi policies, there's a car bomb attack just about every day, way to go.
Here in America they estimate at least 20,000 homicides every year, not to mention millions of other crimes, so when you look at Saddam and say we can solve all the problems in the world by capturing him and taking over Iraq your just promoting the fairy tale.
When are you people going to wake up and understand that the US invaded another country. No matter how bad Saddam was, we did the same thing Hitler did and invaded another country that DID NOT ATTACK US.
Now when the US or any other country illegally invades another country and slaughters it's civilians, what the heck do you expect them to do???
If someone broke into your house and slaughtered your wife and one of your kids and was going down the hall to kill the rest of them, what would you do?
If you had a 45 caliber in your hand and the murderer had a knife and was about to slit your kids throat, WHAT WOULD YOU DO???
If you didn't shoot the murderer you'd be disgusting dad, because you'd let the murderer kill your other kid. Any reasonable caring dad would TAKE THE GUY OUT. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" But you would not be taking him out for vengeance sake, but to save your other children's life, and anyone who commits murder should be sent directly to God, do not pass go, do not collect $200. but go directly to God in the spirit, (meaning the death penalty)
Now with all that said, think about those Iraqi residents who have witnessed criminals breaking into their homes, killing their families. These people you call evil insurgents are in reality just a bunch of people protecting their homeland.
And if you think I hate our military, your retarded again, my nephew is over their, following orders slaughtering people for the government.
I love my nephew and I don't want him to get hurt, I hope he comes home safely, but I also know that the people who are fighting against them are doing it to protect their home.
So what's the solution, GET THE HELL OUTTA THERE! We have no business occupying a land that is not ours. Yeah, I know Haliburtons stock DOUBLED right about the time we went into Iraq, and you know they've been partying down with joy and ecstasy. 2,100 US military is NO BIG DEAL TO THEM, My God they've made billions in profits.
So don't even think for one minute that your chicken, cowardess leaders care one iota for the troops, if they did they wouldn't send them in to get slaughtered.
And if little bush really cared about protecting the US, then why did he make all those deals with Mexican president Fox to allow millions more illegal aliens to cross the boarder. It's hypocrisy at it's greatest, but people like you have their heads so far stuck up where the sun don't shine all you can see are the Fox news repetitive re-runs, garbage in and garbage out.
Your sick little lies about 9/11 are bad enough on their own, but it's those same lies that are helping support the illegal, murderous activities this government is engaged in.
Better turn off the teletubbies and do a little research.
Listen you little snot nose brat, if I wanted to hear another re-run of the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hamnity, Bill O'Reilly circus I'd turn on the fox news network.
I'd be willing to bet that most of the people come to these message boards so they can carry on conversations with live human beings, and not engage in meaningless debates with parrots, who aren't able to think for themselves, but rather repeat all the regurgitation of the neo/con news networks.
Now if you really support the Nazi view point of ILLEGALLY INVADING other countries, and slaughtering over 100,000 innocent victims in the process, well fine, that's your viewpoint and that's what turns you on, so you most certainly have a right to express how you feel.
But don't even think for a minute that you can justify your Nazi-like murderous tendencies by calling Saddam a bad man. In truth Saddam has nothing to do with it. But in order to give credence to the fairy tale that has also gotten over 2,100 American servicemen and women killed and over 17,000 miserably wounded the propaganda machine had to turn Saddam into the biggest threat to this nation since 9/11.
In truth Saddam could be a rotten old tyrant, but that is completely irrelevant as to why we are there. In the Sudan a lot more people have been murdered by real scum bags that our government sponsors.
And the biggest point of all is that the US should clean up it's own backyard before attempting to go into other countries and pretend to help them out.
Saddam isn't perfect by any means, but under his rule, before we marched in and slaughtered all those civilians things were much, much better. If you saw any of the news footage Baghdad was like LA, or Chicago, or any other major US city. People went to work, went to the store, and carried about their business.
But when the good old USA invaded them things changed. After dropping all those incendiary bombs on all those neighborhoods, and hauling tens of thousands of residents into jail for no legitimate reason, Iraq has taken a major turn for the worse.
It's not about taking sides between the Shi-its and the Sunni's, the point is countries, even like the US has civil wars at times and things get bloody, which is what happened in Iraq for a long time. And after several years of fighting and killing on both sides of the isle, Saddam's regime was able to get the Shi-its under control to a certain extent so that the violence was down to a dull roar.
But now thanks to your Nazi policies, there's a car bomb attack just about every day, way to go.
Here in America they estimate at least 20,000 homicides every year, not to mention millions of other crimes, so when you look at Saddam and say we can solve all the problems in the world by capturing him and taking over Iraq your just promoting the fairy tale.
When are you people going to wake up and understand that the US invaded another country. No matter how bad Saddam was, we did the same thing Hitler did and invaded another country that DID NOT ATTACK US.
Now when the US or any other country illegally invades another country and slaughters it's civilians, what the heck do you expect them to do???
If someone broke into your house and slaughtered your wife and one of your kids and was going down the hall to kill the rest of them, what would you do?
If you had a 45 caliber in your hand and the murderer had a knife and was about to slit your kids throat, WHAT WOULD YOU DO???
If you didn't shoot the murderer you'd be disgusting dad, because you'd let the murderer kill your other kid. Any reasonable caring dad would TAKE THE GUY OUT. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" But you would not be taking him out for vengeance sake, but to save your other children's life, and anyone who commits murder should be sent directly to God, do not pass go, do not collect $200. but go directly to God in the spirit, (meaning the death penalty)
Now with all that said, think about those Iraqi residents who have witnessed criminals breaking into their homes, killing their families. These people you call evil insurgents are in reality just a bunch of people protecting their homeland.
And if you think I hate our military, your retarded again, my nephew is over their, following orders slaughtering people for the government.
I love my nephew and I don't want him to get hurt, I hope he comes home safely, but I also know that the people who are fighting against them are doing it to protect their home.
So what's the solution, GET THE HELL OUTTA THERE! We have no business occupying a land that is not ours. Yeah, I know Haliburtons stock DOUBLED right about the time we went into Iraq, and you know they've been partying down with joy and ecstasy. 2,100 US military is NO BIG DEAL TO THEM, My God they've made billions in profits.
So don't even think for one minute that your chicken, cowardess leaders care one iota for the troops, if they did they wouldn't send them in to get slaughtered.
And if little bush really cared about protecting the US, then why did he make all those deals with Mexican president Fox to allow millions more illegal aliens to cross the boarder. It's hypocrisy at it's greatest, but people like you have their heads so far stuck up where the sun don't shine all you can see are the Fox news repetitive re-runs, garbage in and garbage out.
Your sick little lies about 9/11 are bad enough on their own, but it's those same lies that are helping support the illegal, murderous activities this government is engaged in.
Better turn off the teletubbies and do a little research.
QUOTE (gordon+Dec 31 2005, 06:53 AM)
Common Sense,
I found this quote in the article from PM which you recommended, entitled, Debunking the myths
“retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
So it would appear that thermal expansion will cause the beam ends to act outwards against the perimeter columns. Only when constrained from free travel by beam geometry or other stiffening such as the concrete floors does it sag, but still while pushing outwards on the perimeter columns.
Was this one of the “myths” which they have “debunked“, or is he wrong?
I have been analysing your collapse scenario but I am having some difficulty. For instance, in your first sentence you say, “If the upper floor bows it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor.
“If” --- Does it or doesn’t it?
“the upper floor” ---- I am sure you do not mean the 110th floor.
“Bows” ----- The terminology which we usually use is to sag or to hog, but I am sure that this is just a case of us being used to different terminologies.
“It pulls on the outer beams and and inner beams” -- Again I would say perimeter or core columns and would ask from where and by what mechanism did this force arise. Please do not think that I am being pedantic for no reason other than to score points. This is not my intention and these misunderstandings arise mainly through our different terminologies ------ Divided by a common language as they say.
I will work my way through your ideas and get back to you shortly.
G
BTW, gordon, you forgot the begining of that quote...
Hes talking in general about steel in building fires. He is responding to the claim that there is a lack of "Melted Steel" in the WTC debris.
"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y
I'm going to assume you weren't deliberately leaving that out. I'm sure you may have seen the second half which sounded like he was talking about the WTC debris. The "Myth" he debunked was what the section it was in was titled. "Melted Steel"
Also the FEMA report was preliminary and I suspect the NIST final will be at odds with much of it. This is a normal part of fact finding. I've seen this a lot with evidence for evolution. You have evidence which leads you to a hypothesis. As you test your hypothesis you find more evidence which leads you to tweak or abandon your original hypothesis. You should not be jumping to conclusions based on preliminary observations.
It's obvious from the photo and anyone whos put a hammock on two small trees that the sagging pulls both ends to the center.
“If” --- Does it or doesn’t it?"
Obviously it's "IF" because if it doesn't sag how is it going to pull the beams to the center?
“It pulls on the outer beams and and inner beams” -- Again I would say perimeter or core columns and would ask from where and by what mechanism did this force arise."
From the wieght of the concrete on the weakened truss. The photos in the NIST document I produced show about 5 stories on fire. Thats 5 places which pulled columns in.
Correction, walls bowed and floors sagged. .
I found this quote in the article from PM which you recommended, entitled, Debunking the myths
“retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
So it would appear that thermal expansion will cause the beam ends to act outwards against the perimeter columns. Only when constrained from free travel by beam geometry or other stiffening such as the concrete floors does it sag, but still while pushing outwards on the perimeter columns.
Was this one of the “myths” which they have “debunked“, or is he wrong?
I have been analysing your collapse scenario but I am having some difficulty. For instance, in your first sentence you say, “If the upper floor bows it pulls both the outer beams and inner beams toward the floor.
“If” --- Does it or doesn’t it?
“the upper floor” ---- I am sure you do not mean the 110th floor.
“Bows” ----- The terminology which we usually use is to sag or to hog, but I am sure that this is just a case of us being used to different terminologies.
“It pulls on the outer beams and and inner beams” -- Again I would say perimeter or core columns and would ask from where and by what mechanism did this force arise. Please do not think that I am being pedantic for no reason other than to score points. This is not my intention and these misunderstandings arise mainly through our different terminologies ------ Divided by a common language as they say.
I will work my way through your ideas and get back to you shortly.
G
BTW, gordon, you forgot the begining of that quote...
Hes talking in general about steel in building fires. He is responding to the claim that there is a lack of "Melted Steel" in the WTC debris.
"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y
I'm going to assume you weren't deliberately leaving that out. I'm sure you may have seen the second half which sounded like he was talking about the WTC debris. The "Myth" he debunked was what the section it was in was titled. "Melted Steel"
Also the FEMA report was preliminary and I suspect the NIST final will be at odds with much of it. This is a normal part of fact finding. I've seen this a lot with evidence for evolution. You have evidence which leads you to a hypothesis. As you test your hypothesis you find more evidence which leads you to tweak or abandon your original hypothesis. You should not be jumping to conclusions based on preliminary observations.
It's obvious from the photo and anyone whos put a hammock on two small trees that the sagging pulls both ends to the center.
“If” --- Does it or doesn’t it?"
Obviously it's "IF" because if it doesn't sag how is it going to pull the beams to the center?
“It pulls on the outer beams and and inner beams” -- Again I would say perimeter or core columns and would ask from where and by what mechanism did this force arise."
From the wieght of the concrete on the weakened truss. The photos in the NIST document I produced show about 5 stories on fire. Thats 5 places which pulled columns in.
Correction, walls bowed and floors sagged. .
I'm starting to get a fix on who some of people are on this board. A few people seem to have a good grasp on the truth and knowledge and physics to the point where they can see the total obviousness in the governments fairy tale, and the fact that explosives were most definitely used.
And then you have arthur, which seems to be in the teletubbies stage of life, very young and immature, probably on the mommies breast too long.
And there's "Common Sense", who believes in fairy tales, UFO's OJ's innocence and magicians in a cave. Hypocrisy seems to be the best way to describe him.
and then there's this joker RealityCheck. I still haven't quite figured him out as yet, other than the fact he's a fairy tale believer, has a common hatred of the truth and loves to repeat the Main Stream Media Malarkey.
Could these people be your typical brainwashed, mentally deficient zombies? Or should I be more sympathetic to the fact that they're "One brick shy of a load", "Not firing on all cylinders" "Not playing with a full deck" and/or just downright stupid?
It's not so much them personally that I'm speaking out against, it's just their ignorant, mindless, brain dead posts.
If you guys want to remain mentally disabled, that's your prerogative, but at least try to come up with something more entertaining, otherwise you run the risk of making this board drab and boring.
I mean it would be nice if some people could get into legitimate discussions about the physics involved with the 9/11 tragedy, but that requires a desire for the truth, some wisdom, honesty and real common sense, and not the phony baloney handle that's being used.
I'm getting pretty busy so I may not have much time to monitor you half wits. I have businesses to run and things to do, so I may have to leave you on your own for a while, so if you don't hear anything from me, don't think your getting away with anything or escaped correction, because the Lord has His eyes on you, and He knows what your thinking.
And then you have arthur, which seems to be in the teletubbies stage of life, very young and immature, probably on the mommies breast too long.
And there's "Common Sense", who believes in fairy tales, UFO's OJ's innocence and magicians in a cave. Hypocrisy seems to be the best way to describe him.
and then there's this joker RealityCheck. I still haven't quite figured him out as yet, other than the fact he's a fairy tale believer, has a common hatred of the truth and loves to repeat the Main Stream Media Malarkey.
Could these people be your typical brainwashed, mentally deficient zombies? Or should I be more sympathetic to the fact that they're "One brick shy of a load", "Not firing on all cylinders" "Not playing with a full deck" and/or just downright stupid?
It's not so much them personally that I'm speaking out against, it's just their ignorant, mindless, brain dead posts.
If you guys want to remain mentally disabled, that's your prerogative, but at least try to come up with something more entertaining, otherwise you run the risk of making this board drab and boring.
I mean it would be nice if some people could get into legitimate discussions about the physics involved with the 9/11 tragedy, but that requires a desire for the truth, some wisdom, honesty and real common sense, and not the phony baloney handle that's being used.
I'm getting pretty busy so I may not have much time to monitor you half wits. I have businesses to run and things to do, so I may have to leave you on your own for a while, so if you don't hear anything from me, don't think your getting away with anything or escaped correction, because the Lord has His eyes on you, and He knows what your thinking.
QUOTE
What FRIGGIN evidence????
The CTers have yet to produce ANY evidence of ANYTHING.
The CTers have yet to produce ANY evidence of ANYTHING.
See that little hyperlink in the upper left hand corner? Hit that, and see what happens.
QUOTE
See that little hyperlink in the upper left hand corner?
I should have added: "The one that says 'First' "
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 31 2005, 11:20 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Dec 31 2005, 07:45 AM)
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side'
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns'
So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points.
RealityCheck.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the upper section rotated, say anti-clockwise, about a horizontal axis which passes through or about the weakest point of the core columns. This was possible because of the failure of the perimeter columns on one wall and at least some failure of the columns on adjacent walls. The result was to move the columns on the opposite wall from compression to tension.
However at this point we must diverge. How was it possible for these columns in tension due to the anti-clockwise rotating mass, then have the ability to arrest the angular momentum and reverse it to force a clockwise rotation?
Where did the force come from that pulled the upper section back? The extension of these columns and thus the force set up within them is a reaction to and directly related to the angular momentum. It may have been possible for these columns to arrest the angular momentum by strain, but from where do we get the additional force required to reverse the momentum. Are you stating that it was the springiness of the perimeter columns which caused this? And if this was the case how then was that new clockwise angular momentum arrested?
I also note our agreement on the breakup of the upper section. While we may disagree on the mechanism at least we are in agreement that a significant result would be the breakup of the upper section, thus consuming some of the available energy through strain energy and dissipating the directed energy available to progress collapse, thus arresting the collapse earlier than would have been the case otherwise.
G
Hi gordon.
What 'reversal'....the force was only 'REDIRECTED' in and down by the thus-tensioned opposite columns; it WASN'T 'REVERSED'. The top rotation 'continued' as the whole thing fell and impacted the lower portions and broke up as it went... And any seeming 'reversal' would be when the wall edges of the 'top' impacted (note, IMPACTED, and not 'rested peacefully') on the lower wall edges; which would cause [a] REBOUND and/or [b] BREAKAGE of the upper and lower segments at each level of contact until the 'top' broke apart completely after the requisite number of such level-impacts happened further at succeeding lower levels.
Another thing you must note is the shape of the hat truss structure and its SLANTING BASE support beams (see graphics supplied by foxx in earlier posts of his). In both towers, this was HEAVY and well above the plane impact levels; and when the supporting core FAILED below it, this HEAVY hat truss structure would basically fall like a 'firewood-splitter' wedge down the centre of the building, its impulse/impact pushing DOWN like a relentlessly accelerating wedge into the lower stories so that they would fail there; and so create as it went a sort of 'bowl-shaped' funnel of the floors/ceilings trusses/pans for the accumulating debris to slide' or FOCUS towards the core structure below...thus concentrating the weight/impact/chaotic-vibrations into the central structure and overloading/overwhelming it further as things progressed from bad to worse...and the rest could ONLY get worse, not better, since the 'geometry' of the building arrangement LOCALLY at each level would be TOTALLY and SPEEDILY compromised...hence the observed successive-level GLOBAL collapse AS A CONTINUING SEQUENCE of "LOCAL COLLAPSES" at EACH SUCCEEDING LEVEL.
And when you speak of energy being dissipated, you omit to re-factor in the CUMULATIVE ACCELERATIVE EFFECTS of gravity on the CUMULATIVE DEBRIS MASS in the rush to the bottom; and the initial collapse conditions could only be AMPLIFIED by each and every smidgeon of additional weight/momentum/chaos etc which DIDN'T 'dissipate' but ACCUMULATED because of any ADDITIONAL debris from the broken outer walls, the floors/ceilings and the failed core structure at each level.
Gordon, I ask you again to take time to re-read the thread; and then consider everything AS ONE WHOLE SET OF INTER-PLAYING FACTORS rather than this bit-by-bit 'analysis' which will be out of context at each point in that 'analysis'; and so may give MISLEADING/ILLOGICAL 'results' for each 'bit' so treated in 'isolation'.
Good luck and happy new year to all!
RC.
.
Reality check,
Try drawing out what you are talking about and use this for reference. Pay attention to number 4, I think this is were you are having problems.
The solution of mechanics problems is facilitated by using a logical and orderly approach.
1. Carefully consider the problem determining the known data and results desired. Model the physical problem using a sketch(s) of the object that isolates the object from it's surrounding environment, showing its interaction with its environment (free body diagram(s)).
2. Use the free body diagram(s) and the governing physical laws to mathematically model the problem. In statics this involves writing the equations of equilibrium and relevant constraint conditions.
3. Using consistent units throughout the calculations, solve the system of equations.
4. Review the solution using common sense and technical judgement to ascertain the reasonableness of answers. This step is crucial and may reveal errors made in mathematical modeling or solution of governing equations
The development of the ability to model a problem both physically and mathematically is essential to the successful solution of mechanics problems.
http://web.umr.edu/~oci/Topic1/T1-5/frame.html
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Especially if they believe that throwing one the size of a pebble will cause their glass house to collapse into it's footprint, except for what is explosively ejected, or falls off to the side, sublimating or "powderizing" all the way down.
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side'
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns'
So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points.
RealityCheck.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the upper section rotated, say anti-clockwise, about a horizontal axis which passes through or about the weakest point of the core columns. This was possible because of the failure of the perimeter columns on one wall and at least some failure of the columns on adjacent walls. The result was to move the columns on the opposite wall from compression to tension.
However at this point we must diverge. How was it possible for these columns in tension due to the anti-clockwise rotating mass, then have the ability to arrest the angular momentum and reverse it to force a clockwise rotation?
Where did the force come from that pulled the upper section back? The extension of these columns and thus the force set up within them is a reaction to and directly related to the angular momentum. It may have been possible for these columns to arrest the angular momentum by strain, but from where do we get the additional force required to reverse the momentum. Are you stating that it was the springiness of the perimeter columns which caused this? And if this was the case how then was that new clockwise angular momentum arrested?
I also note our agreement on the breakup of the upper section. While we may disagree on the mechanism at least we are in agreement that a significant result would be the breakup of the upper section, thus consuming some of the available energy through strain energy and dissipating the directed energy available to progress collapse, thus arresting the collapse earlier than would have been the case otherwise.
G
Hi gordon.
What 'reversal'....the force was only 'REDIRECTED' in and down by the thus-tensioned opposite columns; it WASN'T 'REVERSED'. The top rotation 'continued' as the whole thing fell and impacted the lower portions and broke up as it went... And any seeming 'reversal' would be when the wall edges of the 'top' impacted (note, IMPACTED, and not 'rested peacefully') on the lower wall edges; which would cause [a] REBOUND and/or [b] BREAKAGE of the upper and lower segments at each level of contact until the 'top' broke apart completely after the requisite number of such level-impacts happened further at succeeding lower levels.
Another thing you must note is the shape of the hat truss structure and its SLANTING BASE support beams (see graphics supplied by foxx in earlier posts of his). In both towers, this was HEAVY and well above the plane impact levels; and when the supporting core FAILED below it, this HEAVY hat truss structure would basically fall like a 'firewood-splitter' wedge down the centre of the building, its impulse/impact pushing DOWN like a relentlessly accelerating wedge into the lower stories so that they would fail there; and so create as it went a sort of 'bowl-shaped' funnel of the floors/ceilings trusses/pans for the accumulating debris to slide' or FOCUS towards the core structure below...thus concentrating the weight/impact/chaotic-vibrations into the central structure and overloading/overwhelming it further as things progressed from bad to worse...and the rest could ONLY get worse, not better, since the 'geometry' of the building arrangement LOCALLY at each level would be TOTALLY and SPEEDILY compromised...hence the observed successive-level GLOBAL collapse AS A CONTINUING SEQUENCE of "LOCAL COLLAPSES" at EACH SUCCEEDING LEVEL.
And when you speak of energy being dissipated, you omit to re-factor in the CUMULATIVE ACCELERATIVE EFFECTS of gravity on the CUMULATIVE DEBRIS MASS in the rush to the bottom; and the initial collapse conditions could only be AMPLIFIED by each and every smidgeon of additional weight/momentum/chaos etc which DIDN'T 'dissipate' but ACCUMULATED because of any ADDITIONAL debris from the broken outer walls, the floors/ceilings and the failed core structure at each level.
Gordon, I ask you again to take time to re-read the thread; and then consider everything AS ONE WHOLE SET OF INTER-PLAYING FACTORS rather than this bit-by-bit 'analysis' which will be out of context at each point in that 'analysis'; and so may give MISLEADING/ILLOGICAL 'results' for each 'bit' so treated in 'isolation'.
Good luck and happy new year to all!
RC.
.
Reality check,
Try drawing out what you are talking about and use this for reference. Pay attention to number 4, I think this is were you are having problems.
The solution of mechanics problems is facilitated by using a logical and orderly approach.
1. Carefully consider the problem determining the known data and results desired. Model the physical problem using a sketch(s) of the object that isolates the object from it's surrounding environment, showing its interaction with its environment (free body diagram(s)).
2. Use the free body diagram(s) and the governing physical laws to mathematically model the problem. In statics this involves writing the equations of equilibrium and relevant constraint conditions.
3. Using consistent units throughout the calculations, solve the system of equations.
4. Review the solution using common sense and technical judgement to ascertain the reasonableness of answers. This step is crucial and may reveal errors made in mathematical modeling or solution of governing equations
The development of the ability to model a problem both physically and mathematically is essential to the successful solution of mechanics problems.
http://web.umr.edu/~oci/Topic1/T1-5/frame.html
And see all your shite again?
No thanks, it was dumb enough the first time.
Arthur
No thanks, it was dumb enough the first time.
Arthur
QUOTE
And see all your shite again?
No thanks, it was dumb enough the first time.
Arthur
No thanks, it was dumb enough the first time.
Arthur
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Especially if they believe that throwing one the size of a pebble will cause their glass house to collapse into it's footprint, except for what is explosively ejected, or falls off to the side, sublimating or "powderizing" all the way down.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 30 2005, 02:57 AM)
Steve:
Is this you as well? (ps don't lie, you KNOW I have my sources)
People v. Gliksman (1978) 78 CA3d 343
[Crim. 9303 Fourth Dist, Div Two Mar., 7, 1978]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN JOSEPH GLIKSMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Opinion by Morris, J., with Gardner, P. J., and McDaniel, J., concurring.
OPINION
MORRIS, J.
Defendant, Stephen Gliksman, appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of receiving or offering to receive a bribe by a witness (Pen. Code, § 138).
In February of 1974, defendant and his girl friend, Deborah Rayner, were involved in an accident. Deborah, who was injured in the accident, and her mother, Mrs. Rayner, brought a personal injury action against persons allegedly responsible for the accident.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment, it shows that in July 1976, defendant telephoned Mrs. Rayner and later her attorney, Mr. Thomason, several times to talk about being paid a sum of money (initially $10,000, later $20,000 and finally $25,000) for his testimony, which, if favorable, could increase recovery in the personal injury suit by half a million dollars. Thomason contacted the district attorney's office, which arranged to have some of the conversations recorded. As a result of his communications with Mrs. Rayner and Thomason, defendant came to Thomason's office where he signed a written statement and was given $25,000. He was arrested as he was putting the money in his jacket.
I mean, since we are being OPEN.
Arthur
LOOK! I have an admirer!
At least I'm not a convicted con artist Steve.
________________________
Steve:
Is this you as well? (ps don't lie, you KNOW I have my sources)
People v. Gliksman (1978) 78 CA3d 343
[Crim. 9303 Fourth Dist, Div Two Mar., 7, 1978]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN JOSEPH GLIKSMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Opinion by Morris, J., with Gardner, P. J., and McDaniel, J., concurring.
OPINION
MORRIS, J.
Defendant, Stephen Gliksman, appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of receiving or offering to receive a bribe by a witness (Pen. Code, § 138).
In February of 1974, defendant and his girl friend, Deborah Rayner, were involved in an accident. Deborah, who was injured in the accident, and her mother, Mrs. Rayner, brought a personal injury action against persons allegedly responsible for the accident.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment, it shows that in July 1976, defendant telephoned Mrs. Rayner and later her attorney, Mr. Thomason, several times to talk about being paid a sum of money (initially $10,000, later $20,000 and finally $25,000) for his testimony, which, if favorable, could increase recovery in the personal injury suit by half a million dollars. Thomason contacted the district attorney's office, which arranged to have some of the conversations recorded. As a result of his communications with Mrs. Rayner and Thomason, defendant came to Thomason's office where he signed a written statement and was given $25,000. He was arrested as he was putting the money in his jacket.
I mean, since we are being OPEN.
Arthur
Is this you as well? (ps don't lie, you KNOW I have my sources)
People v. Gliksman (1978) 78 CA3d 343
[Crim. 9303 Fourth Dist, Div Two Mar., 7, 1978]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN JOSEPH GLIKSMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Opinion by Morris, J., with Gardner, P. J., and McDaniel, J., concurring.
OPINION
MORRIS, J.
Defendant, Stephen Gliksman, appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of receiving or offering to receive a bribe by a witness (Pen. Code, § 138).
In February of 1974, defendant and his girl friend, Deborah Rayner, were involved in an accident. Deborah, who was injured in the accident, and her mother, Mrs. Rayner, brought a personal injury action against persons allegedly responsible for the accident.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment, it shows that in July 1976, defendant telephoned Mrs. Rayner and later her attorney, Mr. Thomason, several times to talk about being paid a sum of money (initially $10,000, later $20,000 and finally $25,000) for his testimony, which, if favorable, could increase recovery in the personal injury suit by half a million dollars. Thomason contacted the district attorney's office, which arranged to have some of the conversations recorded. As a result of his communications with Mrs. Rayner and Thomason, defendant came to Thomason's office where he signed a written statement and was given $25,000. He was arrested as he was putting the money in his jacket.
I mean, since we are being OPEN.
Arthur
LOOK! I have an admirer!
At least I'm not a convicted con artist Steve.
________________________
Steve:
Is this you as well? (ps don't lie, you KNOW I have my sources)
People v. Gliksman (1978) 78 CA3d 343
[Crim. 9303 Fourth Dist, Div Two Mar., 7, 1978]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN JOSEPH GLIKSMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Opinion by Morris, J., with Gardner, P. J., and McDaniel, J., concurring.
OPINION
MORRIS, J.
Defendant, Stephen Gliksman, appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of receiving or offering to receive a bribe by a witness (Pen. Code, § 138).
In February of 1974, defendant and his girl friend, Deborah Rayner, were involved in an accident. Deborah, who was injured in the accident, and her mother, Mrs. Rayner, brought a personal injury action against persons allegedly responsible for the accident.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment, it shows that in July 1976, defendant telephoned Mrs. Rayner and later her attorney, Mr. Thomason, several times to talk about being paid a sum of money (initially $10,000, later $20,000 and finally $25,000) for his testimony, which, if favorable, could increase recovery in the personal injury suit by half a million dollars. Thomason contacted the district attorney's office, which arranged to have some of the conversations recorded. As a result of his communications with Mrs. Rayner and Thomason, defendant came to Thomason's office where he signed a written statement and was given $25,000. He was arrested as he was putting the money in his jacket.
I mean, since we are being OPEN.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Dec 28 2005, 07:09 PM)
Your credibility has now fallen faster than the towers themselves. Heh!
Steve's credibility in real time ->
Did I call it or what... Heh!
I was going to respond to metamars but I think adoucette gets the coveted
"Give me my money bitch!" award.
Nice pimp slap adoucette. Are you giving lessons?
Steve's credibility in real time ->
Did I call it or what... Heh!
I was going to respond to metamars but I think adoucette gets the coveted
"Give me my money bitch!" award.
Nice pimp slap adoucette. Are you giving lessons?
CS, I've seen you in action, you don't need lessons from me.
On the other hand, these guys make it so easy, its hardly fun.
May you have a Happy and Prosperous New Year
Arthur
On the other hand, these guys make it so easy, its hardly fun.
May you have a Happy and Prosperous New Year
Arthur
QUOTE (Uncommon sense+Jan 1 2006, 12:40 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 31 2005, 11:20 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Dec 31 2005, 07:45 AM)
Re the 'tilting top'. Note:
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side'
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns'
So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points.
RealityCheck.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the upper section rotated, say anti-clockwise, about a horizontal axis which passes through or about the weakest point of the core columns. This was possible because of the failure of the perimeter columns on one wall and at least some failure of the columns on adjacent walls. The result was to move the columns on the opposite wall from compression to tension.
However at this point we must diverge. How was it possible for these columns in tension due to the anti-clockwise rotating mass, then have the ability to arrest the angular momentum and reverse it to force a clockwise rotation?
Where did the force come from that pulled the upper section back? The extension of these columns and thus the force set up within them is a reaction to and directly related to the angular momentum. It may have been possible for these columns to arrest the angular momentum by strain, but from where do we get the additional force required to reverse the momentum. Are you stating that it was the springiness of the perimeter columns which caused this? And if this was the case how then was that new clockwise angular momentum arrested?
I also note our agreement on the breakup of the upper section. While we may disagree on the mechanism at least we are in agreement that a significant result would be the breakup of the upper section, thus consuming some of the available energy through strain energy and dissipating the directed energy available to progress collapse, thus arresting the collapse earlier than would have been the case otherwise.
G
Hi gordon.
What 'reversal'....the force was only 'REDIRECTED' in and down by the thus-tensioned opposite columns; it WASN'T 'REVERSED'. The top rotation 'continued' as the whole thing fell and impacted the lower portions and broke up as it went... And any seeming 'reversal' would be when the wall edges of the 'top' impacted (note, IMPACTED, and not 'rested peacefully') on the lower wall edges; which would cause [a] REBOUND and/or [b] BREAKAGE of the upper and lower segments at each level of contact until the 'top' broke apart completely after the requisite number of such level-impacts happened further at succeeding lower levels.
Another thing you must note is the shape of the hat truss structure and its SLANTING BASE support beams (see graphics supplied by foxx in earlier posts of his). In both towers, this was HEAVY and well above the plane impact levels; and when the supporting core FAILED below it, this HEAVY hat truss structure would basically fall like a 'firewood-splitter' wedge down the centre of the building, its impulse/impact pushing DOWN like a relentlessly accelerating wedge into the lower stories so that they would fail there; and so create as it went a sort of 'bowl-shaped' funnel of the floors/ceilings trusses/pans for the accumulating debris to slide' or FOCUS towards the core structure below...thus concentrating the weight/impact/chaotic-vibrations into the central structure and overloading/overwhelming it further as things progressed from bad to worse...and the rest could ONLY get worse, not better, since the 'geometry' of the building arrangement LOCALLY at each level would be TOTALLY and SPEEDILY compromised...hence the observed successive-level GLOBAL collapse AS A CONTINUING SEQUENCE of "LOCAL COLLAPSES" at EACH SUCCEEDING LEVEL.
And when you speak of energy being dissipated, you omit to re-factor in the CUMULATIVE ACCELERATIVE EFFECTS of gravity on the CUMULATIVE DEBRIS MASS in the rush to the bottom; and the initial collapse conditions could only be AMPLIFIED by each and every smidgeon of additional weight/momentum/chaos etc which DIDN'T 'dissipate' but ACCUMULATED because of any ADDITIONAL debris from the broken outer walls, the floors/ceilings and the failed core structure at each level.
Gordon, I ask you again to take time to re-read the thread; and then consider everything AS ONE WHOLE SET OF INTER-PLAYING FACTORS rather than this bit-by-bit 'analysis' which will be out of context at each point in that 'analysis'; and so may give MISLEADING/ILLOGICAL 'results' for each 'bit' so treated in 'isolation'.
Good luck and happy new year to all!
RC.
.
Reality check,
Try drawing out what you are talking about and use this for reference. Pay attention to number 4, I think this is were you are having problems.
The solution of mechanics problems is facilitated by using a logical and orderly approach.
1. Carefully consider the problem determining the known data and results desired. Model the physical problem using a sketch(s) of the object that isolates the object from it's surrounding environment, showing its interaction with its environment (free body diagram(s)).
2. Use the free body diagram(s) and the governing physical laws to mathematically model the problem. In statics this involves writing the equations of equilibrium and relevant constraint conditions.
3. Using consistent units throughout the calculations, solve the system of equations.
4. Review the solution using common sense and technical judgement to ascertain the reasonableness of answers. This step is crucial and may reveal errors made in mathematical modeling or solution of governing equations
The development of the ability to model a problem both physically and mathematically is essential to the successful solution of mechanics problems.
http://web.umr.edu/~oci/Topic1/T1-5/frame.html
.
Hi Uncommon sense!
I have neither the time, resources/facilities nor inclination to pursue this at anything other than making straightforward observations on obvious physical matters based on my own experience/knowledge. Everyone is welcome to present their own 'analysis' based on their preferred 'analysis steps'; then everyone can compare conclusions with their own and others'. Good luck all!
RC.
.
I have neither the time, resources/facilities nor inclination to pursue this at anything other than making straightforward observations on obvious physical matters based on my own experience/knowledge. Everyone is welcome to present their own 'analysis' based on their preferred 'analysis steps'; then everyone can compare conclusions with their own and others'. Good luck all!
RC.
.
Good on ya, Mate.
Have a Bonzer New Year
Arthur
Metamars,
I used to live in Dunwoody, GA.
Cynthia McKinney was the REP from MY district.
I HEARD HER SAY IT.
It was on a RADIO INTERVIEW.
----The more likely text : As I was monitoring the radio communications, of the Georgia representative through my recording device, I transcribed the following conversation which I submitted to the appropriate agency responsible for discrediting her re-election intentions.
What she said was:
"What did this administration know, and when did it know it about the events of Sept. 11? "Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
Now the first statement, no problem, classic Washington.
BUT, the SECOND STATEMENT IMPLIES the President is complict in the deaths
----Explain to me, arthur, how and where you derive executive complicity from the second sentence.
That's because he is. We have evidence for that as I said many times before. Richard Clark, The PDB, Ashcroft telling the FBI he didn't want to hear about the terrorist anymore, on and on...
He is complicit because he ignored the warnings like a driver is complicit in an accident for ignoring a stop sign because he doesn't think he has to heed warnings. I see nothing in her statement which falls outside that scope. She also is asking for accountability from people under him who may have sat on intel because they thought it was nothing.
It wasn't just her..
"Was there a failure of intelligence? Did the right officials not act on the intelligence in the proper way? These are things we need to find out," said House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said there are important questions that have yet to be answered, and he too called for a "comprehensive" investigation.
"Why did it take eight months for us to receive this information?" Daschle asked, adding later, "I'm concerned about whether or not the public was adequately protected."
Daschle called on the White House to turn over "the entire briefing" Bush received in August to congressional intelligence panels.
He also said an FBI memo questioning whether al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was behind Arab students taking aviation lessons in the United States should be released.
"On Thursday, McKinney explained what it was like to be ridiculed.
"She was widely criticized for her comments in which she also suggested that some people in the administration stood to profit from the war on terror.
McKinney -- an outspoken liberal -- charged Thursday that the administration had engaged in a "conspiracy of silence" and lashed out at her critics.
"I was derided by the White House, right-wing talk radio and spokespersons for the military industrial complex as a conspiracy theorist," she said in a written statement.
"Even my patriotism was questioned because I dared to suggest that Congress should conduct a full and complete investigation into the most disastrous intelligence failure in American history.
"Well, I won't sit down and I won't shut up until the full and unvarnished truth is placed before the American people," she said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/0...tors/index.html
Just more snipits taken out of context. Unfortunately it was taken out of context by both sides.
Suit yourself. But for anybody else who is interested in media censorship (especially as relates to 911), you've reminded me of another gatekeeper facet that I took note of quite a while ago. Another leitmotiv that not even leftgatekeepers.com has written about (maybe because they view it as too obvious) is the gatekeeper phenomenon, itself.
Suit yourself. But for anybody else who is interested in media censorship (especially as relates to 911), you've reminded me of another gatekeeper facet that I took note of quite a while ago. Another leitmotiv that not even leftgatekeepers.com has written about (maybe because they view it as too obvious) is the gatekeeper phenomenon, itself.
(1) The side OPPOSITE from the 'caved in' side is still HELD by many outer columns
(2) Such rotation would put great LATERAL stress on what remained of the central core structure AND at the same time, as reaction, PULLING UPWARDS and straining the outer-wall columns on the 'holding side'
It is this latter that REDIRECTS much of the rotating weight back into the building as the top section SWINGS DOWN AND BACK in the direction of the 'holding columns'
So when one asks "how could the top fit into the bottom", the answer is, what wouldn't go in would break off; and either fall INSIDE or OUTSIDE as the TOP DISINTEGRATED into sections at their weakest points.
RealityCheck.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are postulating that the upper section rotated, say anti-clockwise, about a horizontal axis which passes through or about the weakest point of the core columns. This was possible because of the failure of the perimeter columns on one wall and at least some failure of the columns on adjacent walls. The result was to move the columns on the opposite wall from compression to tension.
However at this point we must diverge. How was it possible for these columns in tension due to the anti-clockwise rotating mass, then have the ability to arrest the angular momentum and reverse it to force a clockwise rotation?
Where did the force come from that pulled the upper section back? The extension of these columns and thus the force set up within them is a reaction to and directly related to the angular momentum. It may have been possible for these columns to arrest the angular momentum by strain, but from where do we get the additional force required to reverse the momentum. Are you stating that it was the springiness of the perimeter columns which caused this? And if this was the case how then was that new clockwise angular momentum arrested?
I also note our agreement on the breakup of the upper section. While we may disagree on the mechanism at least we are in agreement that a significant result would be the breakup of the upper section, thus consuming some of the available energy through strain energy and dissipating the directed energy available to progress collapse, thus arresting the collapse earlier than would have been the case otherwise.
G
Hi gordon.
What 'reversal'....the force was only 'REDIRECTED' in and down by the thus-tensioned opposite columns; it WASN'T 'REVERSED'. The top rotation 'continued' as the whole thing fell and impacted the lower portions and broke up as it went... And any seeming 'reversal' would be when the wall edges of the 'top' impacted (note, IMPACTED, and not 'rested peacefully') on the lower wall edges; which would cause [a] REBOUND and/or [b] BREAKAGE of the upper and lower segments at each level of contact until the 'top' broke apart completely after the requisite number of such level-impacts happened further at succeeding lower levels.
Another thing you must note is the shape of the hat truss structure and its SLANTING BASE support beams (see graphics supplied by foxx in earlier posts of his). In both towers, this was HEAVY and well above the plane impact levels; and when the supporting core FAILED below it, this HEAVY hat truss structure would basically fall like a 'firewood-splitter' wedge down the centre of the building, its impulse/impact pushing DOWN like a relentlessly accelerating wedge into the lower stories so that they would fail there; and so create as it went a sort of 'bowl-shaped' funnel of the floors/ceilings trusses/pans for the accumulating debris to slide' or FOCUS towards the core structure below...thus concentrating the weight/impact/chaotic-vibrations into the central structure and overloading/overwhelming it further as things progressed from bad to worse...and the rest could ONLY get worse, not better, since the 'geometry' of the building arrangement LOCALLY at each level would be TOTALLY and SPEEDILY compromised...hence the observed successive-level GLOBAL collapse AS A CONTINUING SEQUENCE of "LOCAL COLLAPSES" at EACH SUCCEEDING LEVEL.
And when you speak of energy being dissipated, you omit to re-factor in the CUMULATIVE ACCELERATIVE EFFECTS of gravity on the CUMULATIVE DEBRIS MASS in the rush to the bottom; and the initial collapse conditions could only be AMPLIFIED by each and every smidgeon of additional weight/momentum/chaos etc which DIDN'T 'dissipate' but ACCUMULATED because of any ADDITIONAL debris from the broken outer walls, the floors/ceilings and the failed core structure at each level.
Gordon, I ask you again to take time to re-read the thread; and then consider everything AS ONE WHOLE SET OF INTER-PLAYING FACTORS rather than this bit-by-bit 'analysis' which will be out of context at each point in that 'analysis'; and so may give MISLEADING/ILLOGICAL 'results' for each 'bit' so treated in 'isolation'.
Good luck and happy new year to all!
RC.
.
Reality check,
Try drawing out what you are talking about and use this for reference. Pay attention to number 4, I think this is were you are having problems.
The solution of mechanics problems is facilitated by using a logical and orderly approach.
1. Carefully consider the problem determining the known data and results desired. Model the physical problem using a sketch(s) of the object that isolates the object from it's surrounding environment, showing its interaction with its environment (free body diagram(s)).
2. Use the free body diagram(s) and the governing physical laws to mathematically model the problem. In statics this involves writing the equations of equilibrium and relevant constraint conditions.
3. Using consistent units throughout the calculations, solve the system of equations.
4. Review the solution using common sense and technical judgement to ascertain the reasonableness of answers. This step is crucial and may reveal errors made in mathematical modeling or solution of governing equations
The development of the ability to model a problem both physically and mathematically is essential to the successful solution of mechanics problems.
http://web.umr.edu/~oci/Topic1/T1-5/frame.html
.
Hi Uncommon sense!
I have neither the time, resources/facilities nor inclination to pursue this at anything other than making straightforward observations on obvious physical matters based on my own experience/knowledge. Everyone is welcome to present their own 'analysis' based on their preferred 'analysis steps'; then everyone can compare conclusions with their own and others'. Good luck all!
RC.
.
You gotta love these guys who come here with their chest all puffed out as if they were structual engineers or controlled demolition experts. Heh!
People Bush control update.. Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of you. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about gag a rules. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case.
-The courts for imposing a gag rule [SEE above]
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation.
-All the people in the pentagon don't want an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime.
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: whenever killing someone pay off the relative. They wont say anything.]
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like like the BBC.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites is also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
-Everyone in the NIST who cover up something this huge for him. Like the largest mass murder in US history.
-EVERY STRUCTUAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right?
-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nations history.
-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.
People Bush control update.. Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most if not all of you. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about gag a rules. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case.
-The courts for imposing a gag rule [SEE above]
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation.
-All the people in the pentagon don't want an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime.
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: whenever killing someone pay off the relative. They wont say anything.]
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like like the BBC.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites is also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
-Everyone in the NIST who cover up something this huge for him. Like the largest mass murder in US history.
-EVERY STRUCTUAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right?
-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nations history.
-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 1 2006, 01:14 AM)
I have neither the time, resources/facilities nor inclination to pursue this at anything other than making straightforward observations on obvious physical matters based on my own experience/knowledge. Everyone is welcome to present their own 'analysis' based on their preferred 'analysis steps'; then everyone can compare conclusions with their own and others'. Good luck all!
RC.
.
Good on ya, Mate.
Have a Bonzer New Year
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 1 2006, 01:11 AM)
CS, I've seen you in action, you don't need lessons from me.
On the other hand, these guys make it so easy, its hardly fun.
May you have a Happy and Prosperous New Year
Arthur
You to my friend.
And that goes to everyone else. This is just a virtual community. Don't take it so seriously.
Happy New Year!
On the other hand, these guys make it so easy, its hardly fun.
May you have a Happy and Prosperous New Year
Arthur
You to my friend.
And that goes to everyone else. This is just a virtual community. Don't take it so seriously.
Happy New Year!
Methinks that "Common Sense" and adoucette doth protesteth too much. Their shrillness/absurdity/implausibility hath increaseth, while their addressing of rebuttals hath decreaseth - indeed, unto the point of avoidance.
Could this be related to the physics/engineering posts of Gordon, which make belief in the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales a real act of faith? After all, if you can't get a collapse of more than .55 meters, you sure can't get one of 415 meters. Or can it be related to my bringing up the gatekeepers phenomenon (regarding which I again direct readers to leftgatekeepers.com, for more info)?
Methinks it is both!
Could this be related to the physics/engineering posts of Gordon, which make belief in the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales a real act of faith? After all, if you can't get a collapse of more than .55 meters, you sure can't get one of 415 meters. Or can it be related to my bringing up the gatekeepers phenomenon (regarding which I again direct readers to leftgatekeepers.com, for more info)?
Methinks it is both!
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 1 2006, 02:15 AM)
Methinks that "Common Sense" and adoucette doth protesteth too much. Their shrillness/absurdity/implausibility hath increaseth, while their addressing of rebuttals hath decreaseth - indeed, unto the point of avoidance.
Could this be related to the physics/engineering posts of Gordon, which make belief in the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales a real act of faith? After all, if you can't get a collapse of more than .55 meters, you sure can't get one of 415 meters. Or can it be related to my bringing up the gatekeepers phenomenon (regarding which I again direct readers to leftgatekeepers.com, for more info)?
Methinks it is both!
Could this be related to the physics/engineering posts of Gordon, which make belief in the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales a real act of faith? After all, if you can't get a collapse of more than .55 meters, you sure can't get one of 415 meters. Or can it be related to my bringing up the gatekeepers phenomenon (regarding which I again direct readers to leftgatekeepers.com, for more info)?
Methinks it is both!
methinks metamars is fantasizing again.
[QUOTE=adoucette,Dec 31 2005, 05:59 PM]
Metamars,
I used to live in Dunwoody, GA.
Cynthia McKinney was the REP from MY district.
I HEARD HER SAY IT.
It was on a RADIO INTERVIEW.
----The more likely text : As I was monitoring the radio communications, of the Georgia representative through my recording device, I transcribed the following conversation which I submitted to the appropriate agency responsible for discrediting her re-election intentions.
What she said was:
"What did this administration know, and when did it know it about the events of Sept. 11? "Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
Now the first statement, no problem, classic Washington.
BUT, the SECOND STATEMENT IMPLIES the President is complict in the deaths
----Explain to me, arthur, how and where you derive executive complicity from the second sentence.
Metamars,
I used to live in Dunwoody, GA.
Cynthia McKinney was the REP from MY district.
I HEARD HER SAY IT.
It was on a RADIO INTERVIEW.
----The more likely text : As I was monitoring the radio communications, of the Georgia representative through my recording device, I transcribed the following conversation which I submitted to the appropriate agency responsible for discrediting her re-election intentions.
What she said was:
"What did this administration know, and when did it know it about the events of Sept. 11? "Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
Now the first statement, no problem, classic Washington.
BUT, the SECOND STATEMENT IMPLIES the President is complict in the deaths
----Explain to me, arthur, how and where you derive executive complicity from the second sentence.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 1 2006, 02:15 AM)
Methinks that "Common Sense" and adoucette doth protesteth too much. Their shrillness/absurdity/implausibility hath increaseth, while their addressing of rebuttals hath decreaseth - indeed, unto the point of avoidance.
Could this be related to the physics/engineering posts of Gordon, which make belief in the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales a real act of faith? After all, if you can't get a collapse of more than .55 meters, you sure can't get one of 415 meters. Or can it be related to my bringing up the gatekeepers phenomenon (regarding which I again direct readers to leftgatekeepers.com, for more info)?
Methinks it is both!
I told you I don't read conspiracy sites. Not even conspiracy sites about why conspiracy sites don't get aired on left wing media.
It's still a "Texas sized" conspiracy. No "Leftgatekeeper" will change that. Which only raises my suspicion that it's invented by texans.
Go out more, meet people, mingle. I'm starting to think you live in a compound and sleep with an AK.
Could this be related to the physics/engineering posts of Gordon, which make belief in the FEMA/NIST Fairy Tales a real act of faith? After all, if you can't get a collapse of more than .55 meters, you sure can't get one of 415 meters. Or can it be related to my bringing up the gatekeepers phenomenon (regarding which I again direct readers to leftgatekeepers.com, for more info)?
Methinks it is both!
I told you I don't read conspiracy sites. Not even conspiracy sites about why conspiracy sites don't get aired on left wing media.
It's still a "Texas sized" conspiracy. No "Leftgatekeeper" will change that. Which only raises my suspicion that it's invented by texans.
Go out more, meet people, mingle. I'm starting to think you live in a compound and sleep with an AK.
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 1 2006, 02:33 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 31 2005, 05:59 PM)
Metamars,
I used to live in Dunwoody, GA.
Cynthia McKinney was the REP from MY district.
I HEARD HER SAY IT.
It was on a RADIO INTERVIEW.
----The more likely text : As I was monitoring the radio communications, of the Georgia representative through my recording device, I transcribed the following conversation which I submitted to the appropriate agency responsible for discrediting her re-election intentions.
What she said was:
"What did this administration know, and when did it know it about the events of Sept. 11? "Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
Now the first statement, no problem, classic Washington.
BUT, the SECOND STATEMENT IMPLIES the President is complict in the deaths
----Explain to me, arthur, how and where you derive executive complicity from the second sentence.
That's because he is. We have evidence for that as I said many times before. Richard Clark, The PDB, Ashcroft telling the FBI he didn't want to hear about the terrorist anymore, on and on...
He is complicit because he ignored the warnings like a driver is complicit in an accident for ignoring a stop sign because he doesn't think he has to heed warnings. I see nothing in her statement which falls outside that scope. She also is asking for accountability from people under him who may have sat on intel because they thought it was nothing.
It wasn't just her..
"Was there a failure of intelligence? Did the right officials not act on the intelligence in the proper way? These are things we need to find out," said House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said there are important questions that have yet to be answered, and he too called for a "comprehensive" investigation.
"Why did it take eight months for us to receive this information?" Daschle asked, adding later, "I'm concerned about whether or not the public was adequately protected."
Daschle called on the White House to turn over "the entire briefing" Bush received in August to congressional intelligence panels.
He also said an FBI memo questioning whether al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was behind Arab students taking aviation lessons in the United States should be released.
"On Thursday, McKinney explained what it was like to be ridiculed.
"She was widely criticized for her comments in which she also suggested that some people in the administration stood to profit from the war on terror.
McKinney -- an outspoken liberal -- charged Thursday that the administration had engaged in a "conspiracy of silence" and lashed out at her critics.
"I was derided by the White House, right-wing talk radio and spokespersons for the military industrial complex as a conspiracy theorist," she said in a written statement.
"Even my patriotism was questioned because I dared to suggest that Congress should conduct a full and complete investigation into the most disastrous intelligence failure in American history.
"Well, I won't sit down and I won't shut up until the full and unvarnished truth is placed before the American people," she said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/0...tors/index.html
Just more snipits taken out of context. Unfortunately it was taken out of context by both sides.
Explosives necessary for demolition;
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
CDI crews worked on a fast-track basis to prepare the structure for subsequent explosives placement. Less than 150 pounds of explosives placed in 420 locations was used to fell the structure.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030317124730
Time necessary;
S Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations. The "arm’s-length" nature of Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s operations, combined with our in-house engineering, rapid response capabilities and international network of resources make Controlled Demolition Incorporated the natural choice in dealing with structural emergencies, worldwide heikh A. Alakl Residential & C
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030226180053
2000 Commonwealth Avenue
Controlled Demolition Incorporated worked for three days to prepare the structure for implosion. Site constraints on three sides of the structure meant that the rigid elevator core had to be dealt with independently of the flat slab construction which had been temporarily shored by the Boston Fire Department. Preparation of the structure included a combination of explosives demolition applications on reinforced shear walls in the core, concrete columns in the portion of the building remaining and timber shoring placed under those slabs after the initial failure. Controlled Demolition Incorporated orchestrated a carefully planned progressive collapse that first stripped the floors off of the central core and then felled the rigid central core into an open area to the rear of the site.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030226180703
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
CDI crews worked on a fast-track basis to prepare the structure for subsequent explosives placement. Less than 150 pounds of explosives placed in 420 locations was used to fell the structure.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030317124730
Time necessary;
S Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations. The "arm’s-length" nature of Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s operations, combined with our in-house engineering, rapid response capabilities and international network of resources make Controlled Demolition Incorporated the natural choice in dealing with structural emergencies, worldwide heikh A. Alakl Residential & C
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030226180053
2000 Commonwealth Avenue
Controlled Demolition Incorporated worked for three days to prepare the structure for implosion. Site constraints on three sides of the structure meant that the rigid elevator core had to be dealt with independently of the flat slab construction which had been temporarily shored by the Boston Fire Department. Preparation of the structure included a combination of explosives demolition applications on reinforced shear walls in the core, concrete columns in the portion of the building remaining and timber shoring placed under those slabs after the initial failure. Controlled Demolition Incorporated orchestrated a carefully planned progressive collapse that first stripped the floors off of the central core and then felled the rigid central core into an open area to the rear of the site.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030226180703
QUOTE
I told you I don't read conspiracy sites. Not even conspiracy sites about why conspiracy sites don't get aired on left wing media.
Suit yourself. But for anybody else who is interested in media censorship (especially as relates to 911), you've reminded me of another gatekeeper facet that I took note of quite a while ago. Another leitmotiv that not even leftgatekeepers.com has written about (maybe because they view it as too obvious) is the gatekeeper phenomenon, itself.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 1 2006, 05:22 AM)
QUOTE
I told you I don't read conspiracy sites. Not even conspiracy sites about why conspiracy sites don't get aired on left wing media.
Suit yourself. But for anybody else who is interested in media censorship (especially as relates to 911), you've reminded me of another gatekeeper facet that I took note of quite a while ago. Another leitmotiv that not even leftgatekeepers.com has written about (maybe because they view it as too obvious) is the gatekeeper phenomenon, itself.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.