QUOTE (Guest+Jan 1 2006, 06:05 AM)
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.
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/images/left_gatekeepers.gif
Someone forgot to connect the european and Asian media in that chart. Come on guys! Do I have to do all the work for you? How are you going to explain the fact that the BBC doesn't take this seriously either if you don't give them a box in the chart?
For aesthetic purposes place it above MacArthur and to the right of the Carlyle group.
Amazingly the mass murder cover up of 3000 people grows exponentially with every page. Now we include the CIA. Hell, that should have been a given.
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 1 2006, 06:05 AM)
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.
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/images/left_gatekeepers.gif
Looks impressive, UNTIL you look at the numbers.
While SOME of them are enough to imply control, most are CHUMP CHANGE.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 1 2006, 07:00 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 1 2006, 06:05 AM)
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.
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/images/left_gatekeepers.gif
Someone forgot to connect the european and Asian media in that chart. Come on guys! Do I have to do all the work for you? How are you going to explain the fact that the BBC doesn't take this seriously either if you don't give them a box in the chart?
For aesthetic purposes place it above MacArthur and to the right of the Carlyle group.
Amazingly the mass murder cover up of 3000 people grows exponentially with every page. Now we include the CIA. Hell, that should have been a given.
If nobody takes it seriously, why are all the shills still here acting like they have proved something?
One last link to a video I copied from MSNBC news.
THERE IS NO WAY ARTHUR, COMMON SENSE, ETC. CAN WIGGLE OUTTA THIS ONE!
http://www.iwilltryit.com/bayer1.htm
THERE IS NO WAY ARTHUR, COMMON SENSE, ETC. CAN WIGGLE OUTTA THIS ONE!
http://www.iwilltryit.com/bayer1.htm
QUOTE
"Nobody knows the insides of a high-rise like an elevator mechanic. They act as guides for firefighters, in addition to working on elevators," says Robert Caporale, editor of Elevator World, a trade magazine.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey give the maintenance contract to a small company, ACE Elevator. Then in 1999, ACE Elevator undertook what was perhaps, one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history reported in March of 2001.
www.elevator-world.com/magazine/pdf/0103-002.pdf
On 9/11 instead of trying to save people as emergency plans called for Ace supervisors ordered the employees away from the area and made them look like cowards.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Nobody knows the insides of a high-rise like an elevator mechanic. They act as guides for firefighters, in addition to working on elevators," says Robert Caporale, editor of Elevator World, a trade magazine. |
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey give the maintenance contract to a small company, ACE Elevator. Then in 1999, ACE Elevator undertook what was perhaps, one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history reported in March of 2001.
www.elevator-world.com/magazine/pdf/0103-002.pdf
On 9/11 instead of trying to save people as emergency plans called for Ace supervisors ordered the employees away from the area and made them look like cowards.
So right after that explosion, we were ordered to leave the building.
There was a story that came out in USA Today that said we all ran out like cowards. The reporter, Dennis Couchin, has been advised as to what had happened and he’s going to rewrite his story. I’m just putting this in right now because I feel it’s necessary, because the men that were there in ’93, most of them, a lot of them were still there.
http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm
QUOTE
USA TODAY found:
Elevator mechanics left the buildings.
“Eighty elevator mechanics were on duty in the towers that morning, many just a few steps from people who needed rescue. However, the mechanics, fearing for their safety, evacuated on their own initiative when the south tower was struck at 9:03 a.m. A supervisor from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the World Trade Center, radioed the mechanics about 45 minutes later to say firefighters needed their help. The south tower collapsed as two supervisors were on their way back. “
“But the Port Authority says the emergency plan called for mechanics to stay and help with rescues. "The manuals consider many emergency scenarios and describe the role of the mechanics in detail in responding to them," Port Authority spokesman Allen Morrison says. "There was no situation in which the mechanics were advised or instructed to leave on their own. They were, depending on the situation, to be dispatched to various emergency posts or to respond to various passenger entrapments and to assist police, fire and other rescue personnel."
Elevator mechanics left the buildings.
“Eighty elevator mechanics were on duty in the towers that morning, many just a few steps from people who needed rescue. However, the mechanics, fearing for their safety, evacuated on their own initiative when the south tower was struck at 9:03 a.m. A supervisor from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the World Trade Center, radioed the mechanics about 45 minutes later to say firefighters needed their help. The south tower collapsed as two supervisors were on their way back. “
“But the Port Authority says the emergency plan called for mechanics to stay and help with rescues. "The manuals consider many emergency scenarios and describe the role of the mechanics in detail in responding to them," Port Authority spokesman Allen Morrison says. "There was no situation in which the mechanics were advised or instructed to leave on their own. They were, depending on the situation, to be dispatched to various emergency posts or to respond to various passenger entrapments and to assist police, fire and other rescue personnel."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-0...ator-usat_x.htm
[
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| USA TODAY found: Elevator mechanics left the buildings. “Eighty elevator mechanics were on duty in the towers that morning, many just a few steps from people who needed rescue. However, the mechanics, fearing for their safety, evacuated on their own initiative when the south tower was struck at 9:03 a.m. A supervisor from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the World Trade Center, radioed the mechanics about 45 minutes later to say firefighters needed their help. The south tower collapsed as two supervisors were on their way back. “ “But the Port Authority says the emergency plan called for mechanics to stay and help with rescues. "The manuals consider many emergency scenarios and describe the role of the mechanics in detail in responding to them," Port Authority spokesman Allen Morrison says. "There was no situation in which the mechanics were advised or instructed to leave on their own. They were, depending on the situation, to be dispatched to various emergency posts or to respond to various passenger entrapments and to assist police, fire and other rescue personnel." |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-0...ator-usat_x.htm
[When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, Otis Elevator's mechanics led the rescue of 500 people trapped in elevators. Some mechanics were dropped onto the roofs of the twin towers by helicopter. Others, carrying 50-pound oxygen tanks on their backs, climbed through smoke to machine rooms high in the towers. On Sept. 11, the elevator mechanics — many of the same men involved in the rescues in 1993 — left the buildings after the second jet struck, nearly an hour before the first building collapsed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/1...t-mechanics.htm
The same heroes working for Otis that saved people in 1993 leave people to die in 2001.That just does not add up.
QUOTE
• Newly installed safety devices condemned many people to death.
“To comply with building codes, the World Trade Center since 1996 had been adding locks that made it impossible for passengers to force open the doors of stalled elevators. These locks, called "door restrictors," had been added to about half of the 198 elevators in the twin towers. Nobody is known to have escaped from an elevator locked by a door restrictor. The World Trade Center followed a long-established approach to elevator rescues: Leave people inside stalled elevators until professionals can perform rescues. The elevators had three mechanisms, including the restrictors, designed to prevent people from accidentally falling down elevator shafts. An untold number were still trapped when the buildings collapsed.”
“To comply with building codes, the World Trade Center since 1996 had been adding locks that made it impossible for passengers to force open the doors of stalled elevators. These locks, called "door restrictors," had been added to about half of the 198 elevators in the twin towers. Nobody is known to have escaped from an elevator locked by a door restrictor. The World Trade Center followed a long-established approach to elevator rescues: Leave people inside stalled elevators until professionals can perform rescues. The elevators had three mechanisms, including the restrictors, designed to prevent people from accidentally falling down elevator shafts. An untold number were still trapped when the buildings collapsed.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-0...ator-usat_x.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| • Newly installed safety devices condemned many people to death. “To comply with building codes, the World Trade Center since 1996 had been adding locks that made it impossible for passengers to force open the doors of stalled elevators. These locks, called "door restrictors," had been added to about half of the 198 elevators in the twin towers. Nobody is known to have escaped from an elevator locked by a door restrictor. The World Trade Center followed a long-established approach to elevator rescues: Leave people inside stalled elevators until professionals can perform rescues. The elevators had three mechanisms, including the restrictors, designed to prevent people from accidentally falling down elevator shafts. An untold number were still trapped when the buildings collapsed.” |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-0...ator-usat_x.htm
USA TODAY based its estimate of at least 200 dying in elevators on interviews with survivors, victims' families and emergency personnel, as well as photographs, videos and architectural plans. The information was analyzed in a database. The death toll could have been as high as 400, although the exact number of deaths cannot be known with certainty.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-0...ator-usat_x.htm
Why were the elevator mechanics ordered to leave the building when they were the only ones able to open the doors and left 200-400 people to die?
Is this a fake picture?
from my earlier post:
http://65.217.248.202/bow.jpg
This picture must be two photos of the same building taken at different times, then stuck together.*
This photo clearly shows curvature, but the interesting thing is that it shows it most significantly beneath the horizontal line, before the fires had progressed to the point seen above the horizontal line. (I rotated the picture in Paint Shop Pro until the obvious sight lines on the bottom of the bottom portion were horizontal.) The deviation from straightness on the top part of the picture is neglible compared to what must have been there in the top of the picture taken which yielded the bottom of the composite picture.
Thus, I conclude that initial curvature was mostly due to load shifting due to some of the column destruction at impact.
Apparently, NIST wants us to believe the bowing occured after fires had done lots of 'steel softening'.
Oh, those dastardly trusses! That WTC 'silly putty' steel! What will NIST have us believe the WTC trusses and columns did next, and when?
Some more details would shed light on this. In particular, video such that we can determine time lapses between frames.
* Even this is a bit uncertain. Column 29 on the top is mysteriously brighter above the horizontal line. But the rule is that columns as a whole are darker above the
horizontal line, as seen clearly from columns 20 - 26.
The lower part of the picture doesn't show even a hint of fire. And yet, as I noted above, the curvature is much more pronounced there.
Furthermore, I haven't been able to find any other pictures, aside from NIST ones, that show curvature, even when I looked at a portfolio by Allen Murabayashi ( http://analogue.net/allen3/wtc/ ) . The closest I came was this:
There's no curvature in this photo, in spite of the presence of smoke (which indicates fire, which indicates heat), and it's about the only close-up.
So, my question is: is this faked? If not, there should be tons of other pictures that clearly show curvature. Indeed, if the bottom of the NIST photo is legitimate, we can be sure that not only are there photos, somewhere, of curved exterior columns, but also that the curvature is not obstructed by smoke.
Where are these pictures? Does anybody know?
Is this yet another attempt by NIST to bamboozle the public?
from my earlier post:
QUOTE
http://65.217.248.202/bow.jpg
This picture must be two photos of the same building taken at different times, then stuck together.*
This photo clearly shows curvature, but the interesting thing is that it shows it most significantly beneath the horizontal line, before the fires had progressed to the point seen above the horizontal line. (I rotated the picture in Paint Shop Pro until the obvious sight lines on the bottom of the bottom portion were horizontal.) The deviation from straightness on the top part of the picture is neglible compared to what must have been there in the top of the picture taken which yielded the bottom of the composite picture.
Thus, I conclude that initial curvature was mostly due to load shifting due to some of the column destruction at impact.
Apparently, NIST wants us to believe the bowing occured after fires had done lots of 'steel softening'.
Oh, those dastardly trusses! That WTC 'silly putty' steel! What will NIST have us believe the WTC trusses and columns did next, and when?
Some more details would shed light on this. In particular, video such that we can determine time lapses between frames.
* Even this is a bit uncertain. Column 29 on the top is mysteriously brighter above the horizontal line. But the rule is that columns as a whole are darker above the
horizontal line, as seen clearly from columns 20 - 26.
The lower part of the picture doesn't show even a hint of fire. And yet, as I noted above, the curvature is much more pronounced there.
Furthermore, I haven't been able to find any other pictures, aside from NIST ones, that show curvature, even when I looked at a portfolio by Allen Murabayashi ( http://analogue.net/allen3/wtc/ ) . The closest I came was this:
There's no curvature in this photo, in spite of the presence of smoke (which indicates fire, which indicates heat), and it's about the only close-up.
So, my question is: is this faked? If not, there should be tons of other pictures that clearly show curvature. Indeed, if the bottom of the NIST photo is legitimate, we can be sure that not only are there photos, somewhere, of curved exterior columns, but also that the curvature is not obstructed by smoke.
Where are these pictures? Does anybody know?
Is this yet another attempt by NIST to bamboozle the public?
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 1 2006, 08:12 AM)
One last link to a video I copied from MSNBC news.
THERE IS NO WAY ARTHUR, COMMON SENSE, ETC. CAN WIGGLE OUTTA THIS ONE!
http://www.iwilltryit.com/bayer1.htm
I don't know if it's true or not and it doesn't matter to this debate. But if this is true there is a small enough amount of people involved that it doesn't sound impossible. Your 9/11 theory is something completely different and you know it. It's part of the con-mans job to say "Look! If A is true then B must be true to right!".
The only thing it proves to me is jail hasn't taught you anything.
THERE IS NO WAY ARTHUR, COMMON SENSE, ETC. CAN WIGGLE OUTTA THIS ONE!
http://www.iwilltryit.com/bayer1.htm
I don't know if it's true or not and it doesn't matter to this debate. But if this is true there is a small enough amount of people involved that it doesn't sound impossible. Your 9/11 theory is something completely different and you know it. It's part of the con-mans job to say "Look! If A is true then B must be true to right!".
The only thing it proves to me is jail hasn't taught you anything.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 1 2006, 08:12 AM)
One last link to a video I copied from MSNBC news.
THERE IS NO WAY ARTHUR, COMMON SENSE, ETC. CAN WIGGLE OUTTA THIS ONE!
http://www.iwilltryit.com/bayer1.htm
What does this have to do with 9/11 and the Towers?
This story contains the allegation.
I would assume that if the story was true, then SOMETHING would have happened.
Did it?
Arthur
EDIT: I found this in the latest Bayer Annual Report:
"A class action is pending in the United States against Bayer Corporation, seeking damages for plaintiffs resident outside of the United States who claim to have been become infected with HIV through blood plasma products. This class action has been widened to include U.S. residents who claim to have become infected with HCV (hepatitis C virus) through such products. "
Unfortunately the linked show gives very little specifics, like dates, times, numbers etc. when this occurred.
The statement from Bayer indicates that the issue occurred "Two Decades Ago".
This might be significant in that testing blood for AIDS did not begin until 1985, but by then AIDs had been around almost a decade. In fact, during that period, 6 out of 10 US Hemophiliacs became infected with AIDs. Contrast this with 45,000 patients who received blood transfusions at one hospital during this period, only 15 contracted AIDS. The reason for the difference is you have to use a LOT of blood from a LOT of donors to extract sufficient Factor 8 and worse, since most hemophiliacs have the Severe form (Type A) they have to inject Factor 8 five or more times a month as a maint. dose and then with any surgery or after any injury.
After routine blood testing for the AIDs virus, drug companies came out with a safer form of factor 8, (Testing isn't 100% for plasma though, so the drug companies had to come up with a way to kill the AIDs virus but not harm the plasma). Apparently there are two ways to do this, one is much less expensive, but not quite 100% safe, but apparently you can still get either type based on your willingness to pay. Still there appears to have been a market for the previous supply because SO MANY hemophiliacs ALREADY had AIDS and since Factor 8 is not MANUFACTURED, only collected, there is a finite supply of Factor 8. Like it or not, COST is still a factor in health care choices.
Now, if someone who DIDN'T have AIDS was given the old Factor 8 and not told of the risks, then that would have been unethical and potentially criminal. On the otherhand, selling it to countries where it was still legal for use would not appear, in and of itself to be unethical, as it was still valuable to already AIDS infected patients, of which by that time there were many thousands. If it was sold under false pretenses, then yes, the plaintiffs would have a case. If it was sold OPENLY and with FULL Disclosure, then the issue is likely to be at the distribution end.
Again, the show linked to gives too little info to determine what was sold and to whom, how it was labeled and if it was sold/given without disclosure, who exactly was being unethical.
My guess is until this comes to trial we may not be able to find answers to the latter questions.
Stevie, don't take this as supporting Bayer, its not. At this point I'm nuetral on Bayer and its policies, since I don't know enough yet to say if they were unethical. They may have been, but the key point of this post is the issue probably has more to it than that blurb alluded to. It made it seem like a cut and dried case of corporate malfeasence. Maybe it is, but just a quick look into the issues behind Factor 8 shows that the issue is quite a bit more complicated than the show alluded to.
The one thing that DOES stick out is how CERTAIN the "guest" was of the crime and how few FACTS were actually presented to support his claim. For instance he says people in France were jailed for selling it, why weren't people in Japan likewise jailed? Might it have to do with lack of disclosure and not the use of the product?
Additionally, what your web site shows is there are apparently some people (like you) who still hold Bayer in contempt for actions during WW2 in Nazi Germany. Being that it is a German company I'm not sure I find their actions AT THE TIME out of character. Should we not buy Mercedes autos now because their engines powered German tanks and planes then? When does responsibility for the previous generation's actions end?
Arthur
THERE IS NO WAY ARTHUR, COMMON SENSE, ETC. CAN WIGGLE OUTTA THIS ONE!
http://www.iwilltryit.com/bayer1.htm
What does this have to do with 9/11 and the Towers?
This story contains the allegation.
I would assume that if the story was true, then SOMETHING would have happened.
Did it?
Arthur
EDIT: I found this in the latest Bayer Annual Report:
"A class action is pending in the United States against Bayer Corporation, seeking damages for plaintiffs resident outside of the United States who claim to have been become infected with HIV through blood plasma products. This class action has been widened to include U.S. residents who claim to have become infected with HCV (hepatitis C virus) through such products. "
Unfortunately the linked show gives very little specifics, like dates, times, numbers etc. when this occurred.
The statement from Bayer indicates that the issue occurred "Two Decades Ago".
This might be significant in that testing blood for AIDS did not begin until 1985, but by then AIDs had been around almost a decade. In fact, during that period, 6 out of 10 US Hemophiliacs became infected with AIDs. Contrast this with 45,000 patients who received blood transfusions at one hospital during this period, only 15 contracted AIDS. The reason for the difference is you have to use a LOT of blood from a LOT of donors to extract sufficient Factor 8 and worse, since most hemophiliacs have the Severe form (Type A) they have to inject Factor 8 five or more times a month as a maint. dose and then with any surgery or after any injury.
After routine blood testing for the AIDs virus, drug companies came out with a safer form of factor 8, (Testing isn't 100% for plasma though, so the drug companies had to come up with a way to kill the AIDs virus but not harm the plasma). Apparently there are two ways to do this, one is much less expensive, but not quite 100% safe, but apparently you can still get either type based on your willingness to pay. Still there appears to have been a market for the previous supply because SO MANY hemophiliacs ALREADY had AIDS and since Factor 8 is not MANUFACTURED, only collected, there is a finite supply of Factor 8. Like it or not, COST is still a factor in health care choices.
Now, if someone who DIDN'T have AIDS was given the old Factor 8 and not told of the risks, then that would have been unethical and potentially criminal. On the otherhand, selling it to countries where it was still legal for use would not appear, in and of itself to be unethical, as it was still valuable to already AIDS infected patients, of which by that time there were many thousands. If it was sold under false pretenses, then yes, the plaintiffs would have a case. If it was sold OPENLY and with FULL Disclosure, then the issue is likely to be at the distribution end.
Again, the show linked to gives too little info to determine what was sold and to whom, how it was labeled and if it was sold/given without disclosure, who exactly was being unethical.
My guess is until this comes to trial we may not be able to find answers to the latter questions.
Stevie, don't take this as supporting Bayer, its not. At this point I'm nuetral on Bayer and its policies, since I don't know enough yet to say if they were unethical. They may have been, but the key point of this post is the issue probably has more to it than that blurb alluded to. It made it seem like a cut and dried case of corporate malfeasence. Maybe it is, but just a quick look into the issues behind Factor 8 shows that the issue is quite a bit more complicated than the show alluded to.
The one thing that DOES stick out is how CERTAIN the "guest" was of the crime and how few FACTS were actually presented to support his claim. For instance he says people in France were jailed for selling it, why weren't people in Japan likewise jailed? Might it have to do with lack of disclosure and not the use of the product?
Additionally, what your web site shows is there are apparently some people (like you) who still hold Bayer in contempt for actions during WW2 in Nazi Germany. Being that it is a German company I'm not sure I find their actions AT THE TIME out of character. Should we not buy Mercedes autos now because their engines powered German tanks and planes then? When does responsibility for the previous generation's actions end?
Arthur
First of all I see a photoshop like layer behind the photo you posted. If it's fake I don't know but it doesn't matter. WHY? Because...
THE PHOTO COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN JUST AFTER THE PLANE HIT. THIS MEANS THE TRUSSES MAY NOT HAVE SAGGED YET.
Note the fire in the picture I linked to is more intense.
This is the easiest way to tell if the NIST is involved in a cover-up. Because you would need every AP photographer there in on it in order to keep it quite. Because it's easy for the AP photographers to get together and hand in their original photos to a judge.
So what your telling me is the NIST choose to lie about the easiest of hypothesis to disprove for there leading hypothesis...
I have to update my WTC conspirators to include the AP photographers and anyone who has the videos of that day from AROUND THE WORLD! Because the event was shown LIVE AROUND THE WORLD so they also are sitting on video evidence which shows the cover-up of the murder of 3000 people...
"Cognitive Dissonance" Look it up...
common sense commented,
BTW, gordon, you forgot the beginning of that quote
I'm going to assume you weren't deliberately leaving that out…
What underhand motive are you suggesting?
There was no point in including quotations on any other subject other than those regarding the point which I was making If you examine my post you will see that this point was that NIST have assumed a force which other commentators have said would not exist. They have relied upon this force in their collapse initiation mechanism, and thus flawed that mechanism.
Again here is the relevant quotation from fire chief Vincent Dunn, “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 yes it may have been his intention to “debunk a myth” regarding the “molten steel”, but in so doing he has shown his position to be in opposition to the NIST Final Report on this extremely important and fundamental issue.
Let us quantify some dimensions here in order that we can see the magnitude of effect.
The coefficient of linear thermal expansion for steel is around 12 x 10^-6 /C. So if we heat it up by 200 C from ambient we know that a beam will expand 2.4mm for each metre of its length. If we totally constrain the beam and physically oppose and prevent this expansion we will set up a compressive strain within the beam and because
strain = deformation / original length we can see that this is 0.24% strain. This figure is higher than the typical yield for mild steel which as I have stated previously would be 0.15% or 0.2%
So we are not talking about factors which can be ignored.
Now because of the beam’s geometry and its concrete stiffening, it will not be able to relieve all of that strain, as would be the case if it were allowed to expand naturally. So any remaining strain would manifest itself as a force acting outwards on the perimeter columns and inwards on the core columns.
And since we know that at rest these are vertical, any deflection occasioned by thermal expansion will be outwards on the perimeter columns and inwards on the core.
This expansion would continue to grow as the temperature continued to rise, until such time as the steel begins to undergo a structural change from body-centered to face-centered cubic, but it is unlikely that this would be in any way widespread because of the elevated temperatures required.
How would it be possible for the “ weight of the concrete on the weakened truss. “, which weight would be no more than that which pre-existed the collision, augmented to some extent by the aircraft parts and re-distributed to some extent due to damage, to reverse all of this outward deflection and then continue this reversal to give an inward deflection of up to 55”?
What mechanism allowed that?
Where did the force come from?
Since hammocks, as far as I am aware, have no thermal expansion and no ability to take a compressive load your analogy does not apply
Gordon
BTW, gordon, you forgot the beginning of that quote
I'm going to assume you weren't deliberately leaving that out…
What underhand motive are you suggesting?
There was no point in including quotations on any other subject other than those regarding the point which I was making If you examine my post you will see that this point was that NIST have assumed a force which other commentators have said would not exist. They have relied upon this force in their collapse initiation mechanism, and thus flawed that mechanism.
Again here is the relevant quotation from fire chief Vincent Dunn, “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 yes it may have been his intention to “debunk a myth” regarding the “molten steel”, but in so doing he has shown his position to be in opposition to the NIST Final Report on this extremely important and fundamental issue.
Let us quantify some dimensions here in order that we can see the magnitude of effect.
The coefficient of linear thermal expansion for steel is around 12 x 10^-6 /C. So if we heat it up by 200 C from ambient we know that a beam will expand 2.4mm for each metre of its length. If we totally constrain the beam and physically oppose and prevent this expansion we will set up a compressive strain within the beam and because
strain = deformation / original length we can see that this is 0.24% strain. This figure is higher than the typical yield for mild steel which as I have stated previously would be 0.15% or 0.2%
So we are not talking about factors which can be ignored.
Now because of the beam’s geometry and its concrete stiffening, it will not be able to relieve all of that strain, as would be the case if it were allowed to expand naturally. So any remaining strain would manifest itself as a force acting outwards on the perimeter columns and inwards on the core columns.
And since we know that at rest these are vertical, any deflection occasioned by thermal expansion will be outwards on the perimeter columns and inwards on the core.
This expansion would continue to grow as the temperature continued to rise, until such time as the steel begins to undergo a structural change from body-centered to face-centered cubic, but it is unlikely that this would be in any way widespread because of the elevated temperatures required.
How would it be possible for the “ weight of the concrete on the weakened truss. “, which weight would be no more than that which pre-existed the collision, augmented to some extent by the aircraft parts and re-distributed to some extent due to damage, to reverse all of this outward deflection and then continue this reversal to give an inward deflection of up to 55”?
What mechanism allowed that?
Where did the force come from?
Since hammocks, as far as I am aware, have no thermal expansion and no ability to take a compressive load your analogy does not apply
Gordon
QUOTE
The coefficient of linear thermal expansion for steel is around 12 x 10^-6 /C. So if we heat it up by 200 C from ambient we know that a beam will expand 2.4mm for each metre of its length. If we totally constrain the beam and physically oppose and prevent this expansion we will set up a compressive strain within the beam and because
strain = deformation / original length we can see that this is 0.24% strain.
strain = deformation / original length we can see that this is 0.24% strain.
And had they been beams holding up the floor, this might apply, but they were Trusses. They don't heat EVENLY, they heat asymetrically, the bottom side, exposed to the fire is much hotter than the top side with 4" of concrete on top of it.
These look like floor trusses:
Simplistic analysis will not resolve these issues. The impact of the fire on the structure is complicated by not knowing EXACTLY what temps were encountered, for EXACTLY how long and of course, not knowing EXACTLY what structural damage was done. None of the columns or trusses act independently, they are interconnected and so without looking at the building as a WHOLE, and then applying the few KNOWN facts as to damage and heat load, it is hard to generalize as to what any specific piece of structure did or did not do.
The best we have is the NIST modeling efforts, but clearly the models agreement with reality is an approximation. It is most accurate immediately after the collision, but after that too many chaotic factors come into play to EXACTLY determine what was going on. The longer the time from the impact the model's accuracy has to become ever more suspect.
One has to look at the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, such as the bowing of the columns and from there try to work backward as to what would cause it.
Arthur
QUOTE
Note the fire in the picture I linked to is more intense.
Can you give link to a bunch of photographs? Including ones of this same region, same view point, but different zooms?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Note the fire in the picture I linked to is more intense. |
Can you give link to a bunch of photographs? Including ones of this same region, same view point, but different zooms?
This is the easiest way to tell if the NIST is involved in a cover-up. Because you would need every AP photographer there in on it in order to keep it quite.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and is a strong man argument, to boot. What you can reasonably claim is that a conspiracy involving NIST and every photographer on site on 911 is extraodinarily improbable, and I'd certainly agree with that statement.
If you knock down an extraordinarily improbable straw man, you prove nothing, though you do underscore the impression you make as a propagandist.
Gordon, are you being dishonest? What does "I'm going to assume you weren't deliberately leaving that out…" mean to you?
As you can see from my many posts I don't play games. If I think your dishonest I'll call you out. I'm not passive aggressive, just aggressive.
He was talking about fires in general. I originally honestly thought you left the first part out by accident. Don't give me cause to change that. I was honestly trying not to lump you with the others. Forgive me if it came across that way.
Why do you supose the quote ended on "sags and the surrounding concrete cracks"... The only concrete was on top of the truss right? So why would he end on concrete as if "cracked" concrete were the factor which caused the collapse?
Note the construction of this building...
The beams are incased in poored concrete. In the average building fire, (Most buildings in NY are not build like the WTC) Vincent Dunn says "I have never seen melted steel 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". Now how could he be talking about only the WTC if the construction was so different from all the other fires hes seen? So it's obvious he was generalizing.
This...
So yes it may have been his intention to “debunk a myth” regarding the “molten steel”, but in so doing he has shown his position to be in opposition to the NIST Final Report on this extremely important and fundamental issue.
...is based on quote taken out of context. Be it intentional or not. He was making a general comment on average fires in the fires hes seen. It's more than a leap to suggest otherwise.
For all your thought into the expansion of the truss steel you never took into account the weakening on the truss steel. YOU CAN'T tell me the steel wasn't weakened enough though fire and time that the pre-existing weight became to much for the new, lower load it could handle. You just can't because you weren't there. All we have is photographic evidence that the perimeter columns bowed in. It's not that the truss had more weight on it. It's that the truss could support less weight with time. This is not rocket science.
Or are you of the same thought that all the photos in all the world were doctored to show bowed columns were there were none. Please let me know where you stand on this in no uncertain terms.
As you can see from my many posts I don't play games. If I think your dishonest I'll call you out. I'm not passive aggressive, just aggressive.
QUOTE
"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "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."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "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."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y
He was talking about fires in general. I originally honestly thought you left the first part out by accident. Don't give me cause to change that. I was honestly trying not to lump you with the others. Forgive me if it came across that way.
Why do you supose the quote ended on "sags and the surrounding concrete cracks"... The only concrete was on top of the truss right? So why would he end on concrete as if "cracked" concrete were the factor which caused the collapse?
Note the construction of this building...
The beams are incased in poored concrete. In the average building fire, (Most buildings in NY are not build like the WTC) Vincent Dunn says "I have never seen melted steel 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". Now how could he be talking about only the WTC if the construction was so different from all the other fires hes seen? So it's obvious he was generalizing.
This...
So yes it may have been his intention to “debunk a myth” regarding the “molten steel”, but in so doing he has shown his position to be in opposition to the NIST Final Report on this extremely important and fundamental issue.
...is based on quote taken out of context. Be it intentional or not. He was making a general comment on average fires in the fires hes seen. It's more than a leap to suggest otherwise.
For all your thought into the expansion of the truss steel you never took into account the weakening on the truss steel. YOU CAN'T tell me the steel wasn't weakened enough though fire and time that the pre-existing weight became to much for the new, lower load it could handle. You just can't because you weren't there. All we have is photographic evidence that the perimeter columns bowed in. It's not that the truss had more weight on it. It's that the truss could support less weight with time. This is not rocket science.
Or are you of the same thought that all the photos in all the world were doctored to show bowed columns were there were none. Please let me know where you stand on this in no uncertain terms.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 1 2006, 04:25 PM)
QUOTE
Note the fire in the picture I linked to is more intense.
Can you give link to a bunch of photographs? Including ones of this same region, same view point, but different zooms?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Note the fire in the picture I linked to is more intense. |
Can you give link to a bunch of photographs? Including ones of this same region, same view point, but different zooms?
This is the easiest way to tell if the NIST is involved in a cover-up. Because you would need every AP photographer there in on it in order to keep it quite.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and is a strong man argument, to boot. What you can reasonably claim is that a conspiracy involving NIST and every photographer on site on 911 is extraodinarily improbable, and I'd certainly agree with that statement.
If you knock down an extraordinarily improbable straw man, you prove nothing, though you do underscore the impression you make as a propagandist.
You've got to be the dumbest idiot on the face of the earth not to understand how easy it would be to find the NIST out if they choose to point to doctored pictures. GEEZ! Don't you think people from around the world will be reading this report? Some of them journalist not even in your mind control organizational chart. Don't you think one of them will pull a photographer aside to verify this?
It's YOU who pull an excuse out of your a$$ every time someone has evidence you're wrong. It's YOU who are working for Rove whether you know it or not. Just like they painted the senator a nut for her comments they will paint liberals nuts because of people like YOU who rely on discrediting evidence instead of providing some. So don't talk to me about propaganda. Don't make me get the pimp hand out.
QUOTE
You've got to be the dumbest idiot on the face of the earth not to understand how easy it would be to find the NIST out if they choose point to doctored pictures. GEEZ! Don't you think people from around the world will be reading this report? Some of them journalist not even in your mind control organizational chart. Don't you think one of them will pull a photographer aside to verify this?
It's YOU who pull an excuse out of your a$$ every time someone has evidence you're wrong. It's YOU who are working for Rove whether you know it or not. Just like they painted the senator a nut for her comments they will paint liberals nuts because of people like YOU who rely on discrediting evidence instead of providing some. So don't talk to me about propaganda. Don't make me get the pimp hand out.
It's YOU who pull an excuse out of your a$$ every time someone has evidence you're wrong. It's YOU who are working for Rove whether you know it or not. Just like they painted the senator a nut for her comments they will paint liberals nuts because of people like YOU who rely on discrediting evidence instead of providing some. So don't talk to me about propaganda. Don't make me get the pimp hand out.
Since I've not asserted that the NIST photographs are doctored (except for the obvious "doctoring" due to composition from 2 different photos), you have not presented evidence that I am wrong, simply a photo that points to my suspicion as being unfounded.
Your distortion of my position suits your purposes, but is reprehensible. It is also consistent with your tendency to propagandize. Then again, with such a prior array of feeble straw men, constructed out of your "talent" for distortion, what's one more?
Now, can we see some more pictures? You should be happy to bolster your position with yet more photographic evidence.
BTW, in the last one you posted, the rightmost column (the last one visible), is (apparently) straight, even though close to the area of maximum visible fire. Make of that what you will.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 1 2006, 05:41 PM)
QUOTE
You've got to be the dumbest idiot on the face of the earth not to understand how easy it would be to find the NIST out if they choose point to doctored pictures. GEEZ! Don't you think people from around the world will be reading this report? Some of them journalist not even in your mind control organizational chart. Don't you think one of them will pull a photographer aside to verify this?
It's YOU who pull an excuse out of your a$$ every time someone has evidence you're wrong. It's YOU who are working for Rove whether you know it or not. Just like they painted the senator a nut for her comments they will paint liberals nuts because of people like YOU who rely on discrediting evidence instead of providing some. So don't talk to me about propaganda. Don't make me get the pimp hand out.
It's YOU who pull an excuse out of your a$$ every time someone has evidence you're wrong. It's YOU who are working for Rove whether you know it or not. Just like they painted the senator a nut for her comments they will paint liberals nuts because of people like YOU who rely on discrediting evidence instead of providing some. So don't talk to me about propaganda. Don't make me get the pimp hand out.
Since I've not asserted that the NIST photographs are doctored (except for the obvious "doctoring" due to composition from 2 different photos), you have not presented evidence that I am wrong, simply a photo that points to my suspicion as being unfounded.
Your distortion of my position suits your purposes, but is reprehensible. It is also consistent with your tendency to propagandize. Then again, with such a prior array of feeble straw men, constructed out of your "talent" for distortion, what's one more?
Now, can we see some more pictures? You should be happy to bolster your position with yet more photographic evidence.
BTW, in the last one you posted, the rightmost column (the last one visible), is (apparently) straight, even though close to the area of maximum visible fire. Make of that what you will.
You're no different than LaRouche. You say "Is this fake?" as if you aren't implying it. Let the person reading it come to the conclusion it's fake right...
For you to even ask the question means you haven't thought it through.
Lets face it, You attacked me because I once again bitch slapped your logic. You have to call me a propagandist or someone will take my post seriously. We can't have that can we... Attacking credibility is a staple of the present administration. The Irony of your attack is lost on you isn't it.
I am in the presence of great people who have had their credibility attacked. Michael Moore, Richard Clark, Scott Ritter, Paul O'Neill, General Shinseki, Gen Clarke, Soros, Howard Dean, Do I need to go on?
Character assassination is a clear sign defeat.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 1 2006, 05:41 PM)
BTW, in the last one you posted, the rightmost column (the last one visible), is (apparently) straight, even though close to the area of maximum visible fire. Make of that what you will.
What do YOU make of that one. If it's not fake as you now say it's improbable what do you think caused it? Especially looking at the NIST report which also shows bowing from the center then tapering out on the ends. I think we can safely say it's not a BOMB.
What do YOU make of that one. If it's not fake as you now say it's improbable what do you think caused it? Especially looking at the NIST report which also shows bowing from the center then tapering out on the ends. I think we can safely say it's not a BOMB.
QUOTE
You're no different than LaRouche. You say "Is this fake?" as if you aren't implying it. Let the person reading it come to the conclusion it's fake right...
I don't understand the LaRouche comparison, but don't bother explaining. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.
What you omit with this little ditty is that I also asked for evidence, and clearly stated that, if the pictures are legitimate, there should be lots of them.
If I was a propagandist, given to distortion like yourself, why would I ask for evidence to be posted, which would decide the issue, and quite likely show my suspicions to be unfounded?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You're no different than LaRouche. You say "Is this fake?" as if you aren't implying it. Let the person reading it come to the conclusion it's fake right... |
I don't understand the LaRouche comparison, but don't bother explaining. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.
What you omit with this little ditty is that I also asked for evidence, and clearly stated that, if the pictures are legitimate, there should be lots of them.
If I was a propagandist, given to distortion like yourself, why would I ask for evidence to be posted, which would decide the issue, and quite likely show my suspicions to be unfounded?
Lets face it, You attacked me because I once again bitch slapped your logic. You have to call me a propagandist or someone will take my post seriously. We can't have that can we... Attacking credibility is a staple of the present administration. The Irony of your attack is lost on you isn't it.
My logic is that one should back up one's beliefs with evidence, when it's available. I don't think you'd be so foolish as to claim that's not a good thing, even if you really don't believe it.
Your reprehensible tendency to distort the position of your opponents, and to set up, and then knock down straw men (except for the really pathetic ones, that you can't EVEN knock down), is worth noting, even if you don't like it.
QUOTE
I am in the presence of great people who have had their credibility attacked. Michael Moore, Richard Clark, Scott Ritter, Paul O'Neill, General Shinseki, Gen Clarke, Soros, Howard Dean, Do I need to go on?
Well, you're in fine company! A legend within your own mind, it seems!
Can you please show us where any of these gents made claims like:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I am in the presence of great people who have had their credibility attacked. Michael Moore, Richard Clark, Scott Ritter, Paul O'Neill, General Shinseki, Gen Clarke, Soros, Howard Dean, Do I need to go on? |
Well, you're in fine company! A legend within your own mind, it seems!
Can you please show us where any of these gents made claims like:
People Bush control update.. Lets see...
...
-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.
The Zogby poll, which was recently pointed out to you, clearly shows that about 2/3 of New Yorkers want a re-investigation. So your strawman is clearly misleading, unless you can provide any real evidence that widows and widowers are significantly less likely than other New Yorkers* to want such a reinvestigation. You provide no statistical evidence for this, yet THIS is the straw man that you TRY to knock down.
And even if you could knock down this Fairy Tale straw man, it can't reasonably support your premise - that Bush was "controlling" whatever widows and widowers did not call for reinvestigation.
It can't reasonably support this particular aspect of this straw man Fairy Tale because it's SO absurd, no reasonable person would subscribe to it (and if you claim otherwise, lol producing a scintilla of evidence).
Yet you present this rubbish like it's some type of argument that anybody with half a brain should take seriously.***
Some of your other distortions - like confusing the official position NY Police Dept. with it's rank and file, or the official position of the Fire Department with it's rank and file, are almost as bogus.*
So much for your logic.
Like I said - you're a propagandist.
* I assume that even widows and widowers who live in NJ or CT will poll the same as those who live in NY
** you didn't say so explicitly, but, of course, if you're foolish enough to claim that the NYC Fire Dept or Police Dept rank and file aren't as suspicious as the rest of New Yorkers, once again, you haven't produced any statistical evidence to back such an extraordinary claim
*** If you want to have a career as an effective propagandist, I suggest you stick with the following:
1) pick straw men that have a chance of being true, and then
2) relate it to a premise that has a chance of plausibility
Arthur and common sense,
Well I'm glad that you at least checked out the MSNBC interview...
http://www.iwilltryit.com/bayer1.htm
So let me ask you a question...
Do you think there's nothing wrong with one of the oldest fortune 500 companies in the US distributing AIDS TAINTED BLOOD to hemophiliacs here in the US for many years is acceptable?
Remember, after they got caught they continued to sell the aids-blood here in the US for a long time. The lawyers fought them for a long time and had to dig through many documents that Bayer was trying to hide.
And it was only after they were able to bring those documents to light and expose them to the public that Bayer finally agreed to take it off the US market and then of course DUMP IT OVER SEAS.
So I guess in your minds there's nothing wrong with KNOWINGLY INFECTING CHILDREN in the US and in other countries with AIDS, as long as you can hire enough public relations mouth pieces to make it sound good, there's nothing wrong with the act itself.
And you don't think there's any problems with 10's of thousands of children getting aids, not from sex, but from our trusted community? Remember aids spreads, it's contagious and it was reported that many of the parents and other family members also got infected as well, because THEY DIDN'T SUSPECT ANYTHING, until it was too late.
Yeah, NO PROBLEMO.
But since I accepted some money 29 years ago, for the purpose of giving my testimony about what I observed in a car accident, (which is illegal, I confess, I'm guilty) that totally exonerates the distribution of aids tainted blood to 10's of thousands of children in America and in many other countries around the world.
I admit, I'm not perfect, I'm a sinner, I've made mistakes in my life, but how in the heck does that EXONERATE giving aids tainted blood to all those people?
And so you might say, "What does that got to do with 9/11"?
First of all keep in mind this Bayer episode is only a small tip of the iceberg. This is just one of (who knows how many things our government allows), they just happened to have been caught and exposed, and even when that happened the government didn't prosecute one individual from the Bayer corporation, but instead gave them a free pass to market the aids-blood over seas.
9/11 was a very small, DROP IN THE BUCKET, compared to some of the real crimes committed in the US. 3,000 lives are a lot, yeah, one life is too much too waste, but in comparison to some of the other sick dirty things our beloved government is doing 3,000 lives are a drop in the bucket.
How many people do you think those 10's of thousands of AIDS INFECTED patience will they infect, and how many will they infect, and so on and so on?
When people corn-hole each other and use dirty needles on their drug habits and contract aids in that manner, they're probably doing it at their own risk, but 10's of thousands of innocent children, who trusted their hospitals, and their government were given AIDS.
So before you talk about the evils of Saddam and profess how good the United States is, think again.
I might say there are humane, compassionate, half way decent people in all walks of life, maybe even in the government, but it's FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.
OK, I'm done, it's time to bury your head in the sand and PRETEND these things don't exist and that America is all good, like teletubbies land.
Well I'm glad that you at least checked out the MSNBC interview...
http://www.iwilltryit.com/bayer1.htm
So let me ask you a question...
Do you think there's nothing wrong with one of the oldest fortune 500 companies in the US distributing AIDS TAINTED BLOOD to hemophiliacs here in the US for many years is acceptable?
Remember, after they got caught they continued to sell the aids-blood here in the US for a long time. The lawyers fought them for a long time and had to dig through many documents that Bayer was trying to hide.
And it was only after they were able to bring those documents to light and expose them to the public that Bayer finally agreed to take it off the US market and then of course DUMP IT OVER SEAS.
So I guess in your minds there's nothing wrong with KNOWINGLY INFECTING CHILDREN in the US and in other countries with AIDS, as long as you can hire enough public relations mouth pieces to make it sound good, there's nothing wrong with the act itself.
And you don't think there's any problems with 10's of thousands of children getting aids, not from sex, but from our trusted community? Remember aids spreads, it's contagious and it was reported that many of the parents and other family members also got infected as well, because THEY DIDN'T SUSPECT ANYTHING, until it was too late.
Yeah, NO PROBLEMO.
But since I accepted some money 29 years ago, for the purpose of giving my testimony about what I observed in a car accident, (which is illegal, I confess, I'm guilty) that totally exonerates the distribution of aids tainted blood to 10's of thousands of children in America and in many other countries around the world.
I admit, I'm not perfect, I'm a sinner, I've made mistakes in my life, but how in the heck does that EXONERATE giving aids tainted blood to all those people?
And so you might say, "What does that got to do with 9/11"?
First of all keep in mind this Bayer episode is only a small tip of the iceberg. This is just one of (who knows how many things our government allows), they just happened to have been caught and exposed, and even when that happened the government didn't prosecute one individual from the Bayer corporation, but instead gave them a free pass to market the aids-blood over seas.
9/11 was a very small, DROP IN THE BUCKET, compared to some of the real crimes committed in the US. 3,000 lives are a lot, yeah, one life is too much too waste, but in comparison to some of the other sick dirty things our beloved government is doing 3,000 lives are a drop in the bucket.
How many people do you think those 10's of thousands of AIDS INFECTED patience will they infect, and how many will they infect, and so on and so on?
When people corn-hole each other and use dirty needles on their drug habits and contract aids in that manner, they're probably doing it at their own risk, but 10's of thousands of innocent children, who trusted their hospitals, and their government were given AIDS.
So before you talk about the evils of Saddam and profess how good the United States is, think again.
I might say there are humane, compassionate, half way decent people in all walks of life, maybe even in the government, but it's FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.
OK, I'm done, it's time to bury your head in the sand and PRETEND these things don't exist and that America is all good, like teletubbies land.
Bayer Documents: AIDS Tainted Blood Killed Thousands of Hemophiliacs
Thu, 22 May 2003
An examination of internal Bayer company documents by The New York Times reveals that the company was engaged in unsavory, probably criminal marketing practices. The documents reveal that Bayer continued to sell contaminated blood plasma causing thousands of hemophiliac patients to be infected with AIDS. The company continued to sell the contaminated blood in Asia for over a year when it had already introduced a safer, heated blood plasma version in the US and Europe in February 1984.
The documents examined by the Times provide evidence of unrestrained corrupt practices by a pharmaceutical industry giant. According to The Times, records suggest that the reason for continuing to sell an AIDS infected blood product, was to get rid of inventory and "the company hoped to preserve the profit margin from 'several large fixed-price contracts.'"
This previously uninvestigated case demonstrates how this industry's lies and crimes are shielded by officials at the Food and Drug Administration. The Times reports that in 1985 FDA's Dr. Harry Meyer willingly helped Bayer cover up "one of the worst drug-related medical disasters in history." Meyer suggested that the issue should be "quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public." This culture of accommodation continues to prevail at the FDA.
The case also demonstrates Bayer's racial elitism. Its lethal marketing policies disregard human lives. The mother of a 22 year old hemophiliac who was killed by Bayer's tainted product in Hong Kong put it this way: "they did not care about the lives in Asia. It was racial discrimination."
The Times reports that three other American pharmaceutical companies were involved in selling tainted blood plasma after a safer version existed: Armour Pharmaceutical, Baxter International and Alpha Therapeutic.
American taxpayers have awarded unprecedented, generous financial subsidies to this industry--no other has extended patent rights as does this industry. In return they have been deceived, believing that drug company officials care about alleviating suffering and improving people's health, and that the FDA protects them from tainted products. In fact, this industry has repeatedly shown that profits matter more than human livesóeven less valued are the lives in underdeveloped countries.
Currently, Bayer--through its subsidiary, Bayer CropScience--is applying pressure on the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to lower the standards for pesticide contamination. Bayer has conducted unethical human pesticide experiments and wants the EPA to accept the data from those trials. The nature and purpose of such wholly nontherapeutic experiments violate The Nuremberg Code which was adopted in 1947 to protect human beings from potentially lethal, non-medical experiments.
Thu, 22 May 2003
An examination of internal Bayer company documents by The New York Times reveals that the company was engaged in unsavory, probably criminal marketing practices. The documents reveal that Bayer continued to sell contaminated blood plasma causing thousands of hemophiliac patients to be infected with AIDS. The company continued to sell the contaminated blood in Asia for over a year when it had already introduced a safer, heated blood plasma version in the US and Europe in February 1984.
The documents examined by the Times provide evidence of unrestrained corrupt practices by a pharmaceutical industry giant. According to The Times, records suggest that the reason for continuing to sell an AIDS infected blood product, was to get rid of inventory and "the company hoped to preserve the profit margin from 'several large fixed-price contracts.'"
This previously uninvestigated case demonstrates how this industry's lies and crimes are shielded by officials at the Food and Drug Administration. The Times reports that in 1985 FDA's Dr. Harry Meyer willingly helped Bayer cover up "one of the worst drug-related medical disasters in history." Meyer suggested that the issue should be "quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public." This culture of accommodation continues to prevail at the FDA.
The case also demonstrates Bayer's racial elitism. Its lethal marketing policies disregard human lives. The mother of a 22 year old hemophiliac who was killed by Bayer's tainted product in Hong Kong put it this way: "they did not care about the lives in Asia. It was racial discrimination."
The Times reports that three other American pharmaceutical companies were involved in selling tainted blood plasma after a safer version existed: Armour Pharmaceutical, Baxter International and Alpha Therapeutic.
American taxpayers have awarded unprecedented, generous financial subsidies to this industry--no other has extended patent rights as does this industry. In return they have been deceived, believing that drug company officials care about alleviating suffering and improving people's health, and that the FDA protects them from tainted products. In fact, this industry has repeatedly shown that profits matter more than human livesóeven less valued are the lives in underdeveloped countries.
Currently, Bayer--through its subsidiary, Bayer CropScience--is applying pressure on the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to lower the standards for pesticide contamination. Bayer has conducted unethical human pesticide experiments and wants the EPA to accept the data from those trials. The nature and purpose of such wholly nontherapeutic experiments violate The Nuremberg Code which was adopted in 1947 to protect human beings from potentially lethal, non-medical experiments.
It's pretty obvious that most everybody on this board have no real interest in the actual physics invoved with the collapse of the towers, if they were honest there would be very little discussion as the truth of the matter is, it's so obvious it's not even funny.
The fact that explosives were used are about as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4, so the people trying to sound intelligent with their analysis of metal and gravity are only succeeding at proving how ignorant they really are.
It's like watching someone use complicated mathematical formulas to either prove or disprove that 2 + 2 = 4. The physics involved with 9/11 are of the most basic, elementary facts of reality on the planet.
It's called gravity and mass, and the whole thing can be summed up in a simple formula or 2, but all a person really needs to do is look at the way the towers fell down, and if they are honest with themselves they will conclude it was control demolition.
It's simple and easy for the honest person willing to face up to the truth of what happened, but it's the dishonest deceivers who are trying to overly complicate the issue with smoke and mirrors, much like the OJ Simpson case, it was cut and dry.
His gloves, his DNA and Ron, Nicole & OJ's blood all mixed together, and several other simple, cut and dry facts, but it's the liars and tricksters who try to baffle you with their BS and confuse you with smoke and mirrors and irrelevant bits of information such as Furman is a racist.
All those bits of information brought up in the OJ case, by the defense were introduced to LEAD PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE TRUTH, because in truth OJ did it.
And the same with 9/11. It's CUT AND DRY, plaine and simple, top officials in our government SPONOSRED, endorced, approved and conspired to protect the actual culprits of 9/11.
And like the OJ case, since the truth is the last thing the government wants people to know, a multitude of smoke, mirrors, misinformation and irrelevant information is bombarded onto the public for the purpose of hiding, distorting and covering up the truth.
That's why the real issue is whether one has a desire and appreciation of the truth, or if they prefer to believe in the lie, and as we have seen with most of the people on this board the lie is preferable, and that's why you'll see all this irrelvant and ignorant hogwash about how metal reacts to heat, pancake theories and the like, which have no basis in fact and reality, nor have they ever happened in the real world, as no steel building has ever collapsed do to fires.
But what else can these people do in order to bury the truth? They have to promote the lie. What else could the OJ dream team do, but present their dog and pony show of lies and perveted statements?
What else can the criminals do who orchestrated 9/11? Are they going to admit it?
The fact that explosives were used are about as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4, so the people trying to sound intelligent with their analysis of metal and gravity are only succeeding at proving how ignorant they really are.
It's like watching someone use complicated mathematical formulas to either prove or disprove that 2 + 2 = 4. The physics involved with 9/11 are of the most basic, elementary facts of reality on the planet.
It's called gravity and mass, and the whole thing can be summed up in a simple formula or 2, but all a person really needs to do is look at the way the towers fell down, and if they are honest with themselves they will conclude it was control demolition.
It's simple and easy for the honest person willing to face up to the truth of what happened, but it's the dishonest deceivers who are trying to overly complicate the issue with smoke and mirrors, much like the OJ Simpson case, it was cut and dry.
His gloves, his DNA and Ron, Nicole & OJ's blood all mixed together, and several other simple, cut and dry facts, but it's the liars and tricksters who try to baffle you with their BS and confuse you with smoke and mirrors and irrelevant bits of information such as Furman is a racist.
All those bits of information brought up in the OJ case, by the defense were introduced to LEAD PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE TRUTH, because in truth OJ did it.
And the same with 9/11. It's CUT AND DRY, plaine and simple, top officials in our government SPONOSRED, endorced, approved and conspired to protect the actual culprits of 9/11.
And like the OJ case, since the truth is the last thing the government wants people to know, a multitude of smoke, mirrors, misinformation and irrelevant information is bombarded onto the public for the purpose of hiding, distorting and covering up the truth.
That's why the real issue is whether one has a desire and appreciation of the truth, or if they prefer to believe in the lie, and as we have seen with most of the people on this board the lie is preferable, and that's why you'll see all this irrelvant and ignorant hogwash about how metal reacts to heat, pancake theories and the like, which have no basis in fact and reality, nor have they ever happened in the real world, as no steel building has ever collapsed do to fires.
But what else can these people do in order to bury the truth? They have to promote the lie. What else could the OJ dream team do, but present their dog and pony show of lies and perveted statements?
What else can the criminals do who orchestrated 9/11? Are they going to admit it?
Don't talk to me about not providing evidence. I've been asking everyone including YOU for direct evidence for a connection to Bush which you ALL refuse to get. You say I believe the government account blindly or work for the government but you haven't even put the government at the seen! F**king tools.
I'm not going to waste my time going through Google for you. I do a simple Google search for my photos. I have no "Stash" of photos. If you check the links on all the evidence I produce they are from different sources on the net. All easy to get. So your straw man/ character assassination argument that I must be a propagandist because I don't have a stash of photos is moronic. It shows a level of disconnect with reality and a tortured attemp last gasp to discredit my posts. Your arguments are more twisted than the WTC rubble. Unfourtunately for you my posts are there for everyone to judge.
Hears some physics for you. When you and your jail bitch/Steve finally pull your heads out your a$$ you should here a distinctive *POP*.
Be carefull with your ears...
I'm not going to waste my time going through Google for you. I do a simple Google search for my photos. I have no "Stash" of photos. If you check the links on all the evidence I produce they are from different sources on the net. All easy to get. So your straw man/ character assassination argument that I must be a propagandist because I don't have a stash of photos is moronic. It shows a level of disconnect with reality and a tortured attemp last gasp to discredit my posts. Your arguments are more twisted than the WTC rubble. Unfourtunately for you my posts are there for everyone to judge.
Hears some physics for you. When you and your jail bitch/Steve finally pull your heads out your a$$ you should here a distinctive *POP*.
Be carefull with your ears...
Stupid, the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes. If that investigation leads to evidence Bush mastermin... wait a minute... HAHAHAHAH... Bush Mastermi.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I can't even type it... If bush did it, then they'll find out.
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 1 2006, 09:09 PM)
Stupid, the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes. If that investigation leads to evidence Bush mastermin... wait a minute... HAHAHAHAH... Bush Mastermi.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I can't even type it... If bush did it, then they'll find out.
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
That is using logic. Bush and company are not able to pull it off with the resources of the CIA and other governments benefiting from 9/11 however an Arab hiding in a cave leading 19 strip club loving, alcohol drinking and pork eating Muslim fanatics are?
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
That is using logic. Bush and company are not able to pull it off with the resources of the CIA and other governments benefiting from 9/11 however an Arab hiding in a cave leading 19 strip club loving, alcohol drinking and pork eating Muslim fanatics are?
reasonwhy,
One of the things that liars are notorious for is reverse statements, such as the one "Common Sense" tries to make about "Not being a plant for the government". We already know he lies his fanny off on just about all his posts, starting with his handle "Common Sense" That's a lie from hell in the first place, when he throws all common sense out the window and proceeds to sell his theory that a magician in a cave suspended the laws of physics in order to defy the US trillion dollar defense system and make steel frame towers collapse via fire from jet fuel.
So when you bring up the government plant possibility it looks like a good possibility, however I was willing to accept the possibility that he was just your typical ignoramus child murderer who gets off in supporting the murder of all those innocent kids in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But because he so adamantly denies being a government plant it makes that possibility even more plausible, and of course highly suspicious.
One thing you can say about this moron is that he is consistent in being wrong and in blatantly lying about things that are so obvious, you have to be a moron to believe the guys for real.
I'd rather hear someone admit they've made a mistake, than to waste countless messages in feebly trying to prove he didn't do anything wrong.
Just the fact that the idiot supports the Bush lie, while hypocritically pretending to not like Bush, should be enough to let people know where the guy is coming from.
"cOmMoN sEnSe" try to get your lies a little more organized as people are starting to see right through you, and if you are really a government plant, (which is a reasonable possibility) your facade isn't working.
One of the things that liars are notorious for is reverse statements, such as the one "Common Sense" tries to make about "Not being a plant for the government". We already know he lies his fanny off on just about all his posts, starting with his handle "Common Sense" That's a lie from hell in the first place, when he throws all common sense out the window and proceeds to sell his theory that a magician in a cave suspended the laws of physics in order to defy the US trillion dollar defense system and make steel frame towers collapse via fire from jet fuel.
So when you bring up the government plant possibility it looks like a good possibility, however I was willing to accept the possibility that he was just your typical ignoramus child murderer who gets off in supporting the murder of all those innocent kids in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But because he so adamantly denies being a government plant it makes that possibility even more plausible, and of course highly suspicious.
One thing you can say about this moron is that he is consistent in being wrong and in blatantly lying about things that are so obvious, you have to be a moron to believe the guys for real.
I'd rather hear someone admit they've made a mistake, than to waste countless messages in feebly trying to prove he didn't do anything wrong.
Just the fact that the idiot supports the Bush lie, while hypocritically pretending to not like Bush, should be enough to let people know where the guy is coming from.
"cOmMoN sEnSe" try to get your lies a little more organized as people are starting to see right through you, and if you are really a government plant, (which is a reasonable possibility) your facade isn't working.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 1 2006, 09:39 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 1 2006, 09:09 PM)
Stupid, the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes. If that investigation leads to evidence Bush mastermin... wait a minute... HAHAHAHAH... Bush Mastermi.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I can't even type it... If bush did it, then they'll find out.
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
That is using logic. Bush and company are not able to pull it off with the resources of the CIA and other governments benefiting from 9/11 however an Arab hiding in a cave leading 19 strip club, alcohol drinking and pork eating Muslim fanatics are?
Are you equating the mindless religious love for a leader like Osama, whos father BUILDS BUILDINGS FOR A LIVING with a MORON whos had his whole life handed to him? Are you saying the CIA loves Bush as much as the 19 a$$wholes who flew the planes mindlessly loved their religious leader? Are you saying Osama and co didn't fight the whole russian army? A six foot arab who no one can find?
He "earned a degree in civil engineering from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah in 1979
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
I guess a civil engineer whos father is one of the biggest construction contractors in the middle east would know nothing about how to bring down the towers right...
It's that kind if underestimation by republicans which allowed 9/11 to happen.
But as I keep pointing out, it's not JUST the CIA and Bush your accusing of mass murder. Sure Bush's father headed the CIA but that was a long time ago. Maybe hes been planing this for years? You still can't explain why every structual engineer in the world hasn't written a paper saying what those web sites say is so eay to see.
And you have yet to connect a single memo or anything to Bush. So even if he wasn't the moron he is, you haven't connected him to the crime.
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 rule imposed on all fire fighters. 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. This is not imposing a gag rule on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim.
-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 who 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.
The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
-Everyone in the NIST who covers up 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 nation’s history.
-The CIA who is in controlling the left wing media.
-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.
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.
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
That is using logic. Bush and company are not able to pull it off with the resources of the CIA and other governments benefiting from 9/11 however an Arab hiding in a cave leading 19 strip club, alcohol drinking and pork eating Muslim fanatics are?
Are you equating the mindless religious love for a leader like Osama, whos father BUILDS BUILDINGS FOR A LIVING with a MORON whos had his whole life handed to him? Are you saying the CIA loves Bush as much as the 19 a$$wholes who flew the planes mindlessly loved their religious leader? Are you saying Osama and co didn't fight the whole russian army? A six foot arab who no one can find?
He "earned a degree in civil engineering from King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah in 1979
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
I guess a civil engineer whos father is one of the biggest construction contractors in the middle east would know nothing about how to bring down the towers right...
It's that kind if underestimation by republicans which allowed 9/11 to happen.
But as I keep pointing out, it's not JUST the CIA and Bush your accusing of mass murder. Sure Bush's father headed the CIA but that was a long time ago. Maybe hes been planing this for years? You still can't explain why every structual engineer in the world hasn't written a paper saying what those web sites say is so eay to see.
And you have yet to connect a single memo or anything to Bush. So even if he wasn't the moron he is, you haven't connected him to the crime.
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 rule imposed on all fire fighters. 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. This is not imposing a gag rule on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim.
-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 who 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.
The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
-Everyone in the NIST who covers up 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 nation’s history.
-The CIA who is in controlling the left wing media.
-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.
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.
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
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!
Con-artist and shisters.
Steve's credibility in real time ->
Did I call it or what... Heh!
Con-artist and shisters.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 1 2006, 04:57 PM)
YOU CAN'T tell me the steel wasn't weakened enough though fire and time that the pre-existing weight became to much for the new, lower load it could handle.
.
Hi.
During my researches/experiments into metallurgy/alloys a couple of decades ago, I had occasion to employ a technique called 'ANNEALING'.
If I wanted a metal to absorb impacts without 'shattering', I usually annealed the piece by heating it and then letting it cool SLOWLY in the air. The resulting larger crystal structure would better absorb impacts by 'deforming' rather than 'shattering'....since SLOW COOLING allows time for the growth of LARGER crystal structure in the affected metal, thus making it more SOFT/MALLEABLE and less brittle.
If I instead QUENCHED the hot metal in water for RAPID COOLING, there was LITTLE time for crystal growth, so only SMALLER crystal structure resulted...and while the piece would be more 'rigid/strong' against 'deformation' under static loads, it would be more 'brittle' and liable to shatter in dynamic/impact situations.
Looking at the 9/11 situation:
- The steel columns/beams would have been mainly designed to be rigid/strong against static-vertical & gentle-lateral loads...hence their crystal structure was SMALL, and hence would be relatively 'brittle' under EXTREME DYNAMIC IMPACT SITUATIONS.
- The plane impact was such an impact situation; hence the 'breaking' of many columns/beams in the outer wall, floor and central core structures.
- The heat from the fires would have brought the nearby/in-contact steel components to ANNEALING (not melting) TEMPERATURES; and once the heat source subsided, these components COOLED SLOWLY IN AIR...thus allowing time for the crystals to RE-GROW to such a size that the steel crystal structure was NOW SOFTER and more suited to impact/load absorption through MALLEABLE DEFORMATION than by RIGID RESISTANCE.
Hence the affected steel components CHANGED THEIR SPECIFICATIONS IN SITU as a result of the thermodynamic/metallurgical processes INEVITABLY occurring during the hours of heating and cooling involved. No surprise to me that things were bowing and failing like they did...especially given all the OTHER processes involved...like differential expansion/distortions due to uneven heating/cooling...leading to FURTHER loss of loadbearing capacity owing to loss of geometric/topological design specifications which had lent strength to many of the box, L, I-beam etc. 'shapes' upon which some of the components 'strength/integrity' ALSO depended.
Add to all these things the WEIGHT of the plane/office/upper-floor DEBRIS at PLANE impact which would have accumulated on the lowermost intact floor trusses, and you can see where these would be laterally-tensioning the affected SLOWLY SOFTENING OUTER COLUMNS so that any 'buckling/bowing' or other deformation would be 'guided' INWARDS rather than outwards.
That's all the time I have for these obvious physical observation, folks. Good luck and good thinking for the New Year to all! Ciao.
RC.
.
.
Hi.
During my researches/experiments into metallurgy/alloys a couple of decades ago, I had occasion to employ a technique called 'ANNEALING'.
If I wanted a metal to absorb impacts without 'shattering', I usually annealed the piece by heating it and then letting it cool SLOWLY in the air. The resulting larger crystal structure would better absorb impacts by 'deforming' rather than 'shattering'....since SLOW COOLING allows time for the growth of LARGER crystal structure in the affected metal, thus making it more SOFT/MALLEABLE and less brittle.
If I instead QUENCHED the hot metal in water for RAPID COOLING, there was LITTLE time for crystal growth, so only SMALLER crystal structure resulted...and while the piece would be more 'rigid/strong' against 'deformation' under static loads, it would be more 'brittle' and liable to shatter in dynamic/impact situations.
Looking at the 9/11 situation:
- The steel columns/beams would have been mainly designed to be rigid/strong against static-vertical & gentle-lateral loads...hence their crystal structure was SMALL, and hence would be relatively 'brittle' under EXTREME DYNAMIC IMPACT SITUATIONS.
- The plane impact was such an impact situation; hence the 'breaking' of many columns/beams in the outer wall, floor and central core structures.
- The heat from the fires would have brought the nearby/in-contact steel components to ANNEALING (not melting) TEMPERATURES; and once the heat source subsided, these components COOLED SLOWLY IN AIR...thus allowing time for the crystals to RE-GROW to such a size that the steel crystal structure was NOW SOFTER and more suited to impact/load absorption through MALLEABLE DEFORMATION than by RIGID RESISTANCE.
Hence the affected steel components CHANGED THEIR SPECIFICATIONS IN SITU as a result of the thermodynamic/metallurgical processes INEVITABLY occurring during the hours of heating and cooling involved. No surprise to me that things were bowing and failing like they did...especially given all the OTHER processes involved...like differential expansion/distortions due to uneven heating/cooling...leading to FURTHER loss of loadbearing capacity owing to loss of geometric/topological design specifications which had lent strength to many of the box, L, I-beam etc. 'shapes' upon which some of the components 'strength/integrity' ALSO depended.
Add to all these things the WEIGHT of the plane/office/upper-floor DEBRIS at PLANE impact which would have accumulated on the lowermost intact floor trusses, and you can see where these would be laterally-tensioning the affected SLOWLY SOFTENING OUTER COLUMNS so that any 'buckling/bowing' or other deformation would be 'guided' INWARDS rather than outwards.
That's all the time I have for these obvious physical observation, folks. Good luck and good thinking for the New Year to all! Ciao.
RC.
.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 1 2006, 09:55 PM)
reasonwhy,
One of the things that liars are notorious for is reverse statements, such as the one "Common Sense" tries to make about "Not being a plant for the government". We already know he lies his fanny off on just about all his posts, starting with his handle "Common Sense" That's a lie from hell in the first place, when he throws all common sense out the window and proceeds to sell his theory that a magician in a cave suspended the laws of physics in order to defy the US trillion dollar defense system and make steel frame towers collapse via fire from jet fuel.
So when you bring up the government plant possibility it looks like a good possibility, however I was willing to accept the possibility that he was just your typical ignoramus child murderer who gets off in supporting the murder of all those innocent kids in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But because he so adamantly denies being a government plant it makes that possibility even more plausible, and of course highly suspicious.
One thing you can say about this moron is that he is consistent in being wrong and in blatantly lying about things that are so obvious, you have to be a moron to believe the guys for real.
I'd rather hear someone admit they've made a mistake, than to waste countless messages in feebly trying to prove he didn't do anything wrong.
Just the fact that the idiot supports the Bush lie, while hypocritically pretending to not like Bush, should be enough to let people know where the guy is coming from.
"cOmMoN sEnSe" try to get your lies a little more organized as people are starting to see right through you, and if you are really a government plant, (which is a reasonable possibility) your facade isn't working.
Hears the thing, If I'm lying all you have to do is post the quote! If not it make YOU the lair right! Heh!
Don't you notice no one even pays attention to you anymore? All you do is make empty statements and try to sell crap off your web site. Sad really...
Don't you con men have more fun wrtting bounced checks or something? Heh!
One of the things that liars are notorious for is reverse statements, such as the one "Common Sense" tries to make about "Not being a plant for the government". We already know he lies his fanny off on just about all his posts, starting with his handle "Common Sense" That's a lie from hell in the first place, when he throws all common sense out the window and proceeds to sell his theory that a magician in a cave suspended the laws of physics in order to defy the US trillion dollar defense system and make steel frame towers collapse via fire from jet fuel.
So when you bring up the government plant possibility it looks like a good possibility, however I was willing to accept the possibility that he was just your typical ignoramus child murderer who gets off in supporting the murder of all those innocent kids in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But because he so adamantly denies being a government plant it makes that possibility even more plausible, and of course highly suspicious.
One thing you can say about this moron is that he is consistent in being wrong and in blatantly lying about things that are so obvious, you have to be a moron to believe the guys for real.
I'd rather hear someone admit they've made a mistake, than to waste countless messages in feebly trying to prove he didn't do anything wrong.
Just the fact that the idiot supports the Bush lie, while hypocritically pretending to not like Bush, should be enough to let people know where the guy is coming from.
"cOmMoN sEnSe" try to get your lies a little more organized as people are starting to see right through you, and if you are really a government plant, (which is a reasonable possibility) your facade isn't working.
Hears the thing, If I'm lying all you have to do is post the quote! If not it make YOU the lair right! Heh!
Don't you notice no one even pays attention to you anymore? All you do is make empty statements and try to sell crap off your web site. Sad really...
Don't you con men have more fun wrtting bounced checks or something? Heh!
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 31 2005, 11:46 PM)
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
Here are the correct links to view the Building 7 controlled 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
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv
Here's some WTC 7 background info:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC/7WTC.html
http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
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
Here are the correct links to view the Building 7 controlled 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
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv
Here's some WTC 7 background info:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC/7WTC.html
http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 1 2006, 09:39 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 1 2006, 09:09 PM)
Stupid, the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes. If that investigation leads to evidence Bush mastermin... wait a minute... HAHAHAHAH... Bush Mastermi.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I can't even type it... If bush did it, then they'll find out.
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
That is using logic. Bush and company are not able to pull it off with the resources of the CIA and other governments benefiting from 9/11 however an Arab hiding in a cave leading 19 strip club loving, alcohol drinking and pork eating Muslim fanatics are?
.
Hi reasonwhy.
I don't like to involve myself in anything other than the physics aspects, but I just couldn't help commenting on your use of the logic you yourself are criticising in others.
You will note from recent events around the world that it doesn't require much to arrange a 'suicide' mission at any level...and that the people carrying out their mission aren't interested in making a 'conspiracy' out of it, because they wish everyone to KNOW who did it and why. So ANYONE and his little idiot cousin can do a suicide mission without much resources, really.
Whereas a GOVERNMENT on the other hand, WOULD wish to hide the who, what and why...THAT is where the motivation, resources and control would be PARAMOUNT in keeping a 'conspiracy' to keep people from finding out.
So you see, it is not logical to compare 'operations' which can be carried out by anyone with the will to do it AND NOT HAVING TO HIDE THEIR INVOLVEMENT after the event, with 'operations' which MUST be carried out by anyone who MUST have the resources AND control world-wide of ALL individuals so that THEY CAN HIDE THEIR INVOLVEMENT after the event.
They are not logically comparable perpetrators/scenarios/operations. Good luck and good thinking, reasonwhy!
RC.
.
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
That is using logic. Bush and company are not able to pull it off with the resources of the CIA and other governments benefiting from 9/11 however an Arab hiding in a cave leading 19 strip club loving, alcohol drinking and pork eating Muslim fanatics are?
.
Hi reasonwhy.
I don't like to involve myself in anything other than the physics aspects, but I just couldn't help commenting on your use of the logic you yourself are criticising in others.
You will note from recent events around the world that it doesn't require much to arrange a 'suicide' mission at any level...and that the people carrying out their mission aren't interested in making a 'conspiracy' out of it, because they wish everyone to KNOW who did it and why. So ANYONE and his little idiot cousin can do a suicide mission without much resources, really.
Whereas a GOVERNMENT on the other hand, WOULD wish to hide the who, what and why...THAT is where the motivation, resources and control would be PARAMOUNT in keeping a 'conspiracy' to keep people from finding out.
So you see, it is not logical to compare 'operations' which can be carried out by anyone with the will to do it AND NOT HAVING TO HIDE THEIR INVOLVEMENT after the event, with 'operations' which MUST be carried out by anyone who MUST have the resources AND control world-wide of ALL individuals so that THEY CAN HIDE THEIR INVOLVEMENT after the event.
They are not logically comparable perpetrators/scenarios/operations. Good luck and good thinking, reasonwhy!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 1 2006, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 31 2005, 11:46 PM)
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
Here are the correct links to view the Building 7 controlled 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
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv
Here's some WTC 7 background info:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC/7WTC.html
http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
I've never accused Bush of being "directly" connected, though I believe that's the case. If I made such a claim, I would want to have some kind of evidence. *
Of course, lopping all disbelievers in the FEMA Fairy Tale together and implying they all believe the same thing is one of your fortes, isn't it? And the more ridiculous the belief you assign to us corporately, the happier you are.
You, on the other hand, also make claims, which you ascribe to non-FEMA FT believers, about "everybody" being in on the ever growing conspiracy, and some of the specifics you give are obviously false, and have been pointed out to you as such
Your peddling of pseudo logic, based on false premises at that, goes on, unabated.
I've never accused Bush of being "directly" connected, though I believe that's the case. If I made such a claim, I would want to have some kind of evidence. *
Of course, lopping all disbelievers in the FEMA Fairy Tale together and implying they all believe the same thing is one of your fortes, isn't it? And the more ridiculous the belief you assign to us corporately, the happier you are.
You, on the other hand, also make claims, which you ascribe to non-FEMA FT believers, about "everybody" being in on the ever growing conspiracy, and some of the specifics you give are obviously false, and have been pointed out to you as such
Your peddling of pseudo logic, based on false premises at that, goes on, unabated.
So your straw man/ character assassination argument that I must be a propagandist because I don't have a stash of photos is moronic.
Once again, you mischaracterized some of my writing. I guess you can't help yourself.
This is a huge red flag for me, wrt to anybody who posts on a bulletin board at all, on any subject. Political, sophistic, manipulative, or "naked ape" type arguments never impress me, and on a physics board they're particularly inappropriate.
I note, in fairness, that many posters on my side of the debate also can't help from refraining to use "naked ape" type of "arguments".
Shame on all of you.
Stupid, the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes. If that investigation leads to evidence Bush mastermin... wait a minute... HAHAHAHAH... Bush Mastermi.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I can't even type it... If bush did it, then they'll find out.
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
If anybody understands this gibberish, feel free to post an interpretation into English.
* Bush's signing of the NSM that resulted in Cheney being allowed to direct fighter aircraft is the closest thing I can think of to a "direct connection", however I doubt that makes him even legally culpable, since one can't prove motive.
When it comes to resisting a real investigation, though, Bush is guilty up to his eyeballs. He is thus an accessory after the fact, at least morally. Whether legally, I don't know, you have to ask a lawyer.
(See Crossing the Rubicon for documentation)
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
Here are the correct links to view the Building 7 controlled 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
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv
Here's some WTC 7 background info:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC/7WTC.html
http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Now here's a link for mature audiences only
http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm
But remember the government and government plants don't want you to see these things, so it's doubtful if you'll be able to watch them on Fox news.
Now if you are a fox news fan, and don't believe anything else other than what the official bush fairy tale happens to be, IE; Sean Hamnity and Bill O'Reilly then you'll have a problem with the information I provided on my website, and in that case you'll be happy to hear the same, repetitive, immature, brain washed lies and regurgitated gobeldy-goo posted from cOmMoN SeNsE and his parrot buddies.
Although on this message board, you get to hear about some people's belief in UFOs, OJ's innocence, magicians in a cave and more detailed BS stories, same BS, but more details.
So don't even waste your time on this site http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm
if your a fox news fan, because it totally contradicts what they've been telling you.
One of things I'll openly state about the insanity of these people is how they openly tell you there is no God. Of course we know that "A fool says in his heart there is no God" So we pretty much know what these guys are made of.
Now as ironic as it seems, the fact of the matter is that God created the laws of physics, gravity and reality, so when these people deny the existence of God, they also deny the consistency of the laws of physics.
In their little world the laws of physics created themselves out of nothing. There was complete nothingness, zilch, zero and then all of the sudden, out of nowhere "BIG BANG". And people actually believe it, even though it defies all forms of logic, reason and the most elementary mathematics.
Let me help out some of you rocket scientists for a moment, who have lost touch with reality.
2 + 2 = 4. OK, do you understand???
Alright we're gonna get heavy now with this next one.
0 + 0 = 0
and
0 X 0 = 0
OK this might get complex for some of you
0 divided by 0 = 0
Pretty advanced mathematics wouldn't you say? But evidently they are so advanced that idiots like "common sense" don't understand it, it goes way beyond their comprehension level, yet they have some of you other morons convinced they can handle more complex physics equations when it comes to the towers.
They should try to pass the first grade, then maybe they can move on to bigger and more complex equations.
You see in accordance with their other fairy tale, IE; absolute nothingness "0" and then big bang, they forgot that 0 cannot produce anything, IE; something cannot derive from nothing.
Now when you call em on this, they do their normal song and dance and try to introduce more smoke and mirrors to cover up their obvious INCORRECT and totally ridiculous statement.
They even come up with advanced concepts like, Most of the scientists believe it, therefore it's true. Never mind the simple mathematical facts that 0 cannot produce anything, but divert your thinking to all the brilliant scientists who promote this ridiculous fairy tale.
So they're already trained to believe in utter nonsense and total lies, and worse than that, they're already trained to NOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES, but rather put your trust in other people.
This is a typical Nazi like, coltish like religion. In truth God is not a religion, but reality, it's them who have formed a cultish religion of myths and fairy tales, that are so obvious, even small children no that 0 x 0 = 0
http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm
But remember the government and government plants don't want you to see these things, so it's doubtful if you'll be able to watch them on Fox news.
Now if you are a fox news fan, and don't believe anything else other than what the official bush fairy tale happens to be, IE; Sean Hamnity and Bill O'Reilly then you'll have a problem with the information I provided on my website, and in that case you'll be happy to hear the same, repetitive, immature, brain washed lies and regurgitated gobeldy-goo posted from cOmMoN SeNsE and his parrot buddies.
Although on this message board, you get to hear about some people's belief in UFOs, OJ's innocence, magicians in a cave and more detailed BS stories, same BS, but more details.
So don't even waste your time on this site http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm
if your a fox news fan, because it totally contradicts what they've been telling you.
One of things I'll openly state about the insanity of these people is how they openly tell you there is no God. Of course we know that "A fool says in his heart there is no God" So we pretty much know what these guys are made of.
Now as ironic as it seems, the fact of the matter is that God created the laws of physics, gravity and reality, so when these people deny the existence of God, they also deny the consistency of the laws of physics.
In their little world the laws of physics created themselves out of nothing. There was complete nothingness, zilch, zero and then all of the sudden, out of nowhere "BIG BANG". And people actually believe it, even though it defies all forms of logic, reason and the most elementary mathematics.
Let me help out some of you rocket scientists for a moment, who have lost touch with reality.
2 + 2 = 4. OK, do you understand???
Alright we're gonna get heavy now with this next one.
0 + 0 = 0
and
0 X 0 = 0
OK this might get complex for some of you
0 divided by 0 = 0
Pretty advanced mathematics wouldn't you say? But evidently they are so advanced that idiots like "common sense" don't understand it, it goes way beyond their comprehension level, yet they have some of you other morons convinced they can handle more complex physics equations when it comes to the towers.
They should try to pass the first grade, then maybe they can move on to bigger and more complex equations.
You see in accordance with their other fairy tale, IE; absolute nothingness "0" and then big bang, they forgot that 0 cannot produce anything, IE; something cannot derive from nothing.
Now when you call em on this, they do their normal song and dance and try to introduce more smoke and mirrors to cover up their obvious INCORRECT and totally ridiculous statement.
They even come up with advanced concepts like, Most of the scientists believe it, therefore it's true. Never mind the simple mathematical facts that 0 cannot produce anything, but divert your thinking to all the brilliant scientists who promote this ridiculous fairy tale.
So they're already trained to believe in utter nonsense and total lies, and worse than that, they're already trained to NOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES, but rather put your trust in other people.
This is a typical Nazi like, coltish like religion. In truth God is not a religion, but reality, it's them who have formed a cultish religion of myths and fairy tales, that are so obvious, even small children no that 0 x 0 = 0
QUOTE
I've been asking everyone including YOU for direct evidence for a connection to Bush which you ALL refuse to get.
I've never accused Bush of being "directly" connected, though I believe that's the case. If I made such a claim, I would want to have some kind of evidence. *
Of course, lopping all disbelievers in the FEMA Fairy Tale together and implying they all believe the same thing is one of your fortes, isn't it? And the more ridiculous the belief you assign to us corporately, the happier you are.
You, on the other hand, also make claims, which you ascribe to non-FEMA FT believers, about "everybody" being in on the ever growing conspiracy, and some of the specifics you give are obviously false, and have been pointed out to you as such
Your peddling of pseudo logic, based on false premises at that, goes on, unabated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've been asking everyone including YOU for direct evidence for a connection to Bush which you ALL refuse to get. |
I've never accused Bush of being "directly" connected, though I believe that's the case. If I made such a claim, I would want to have some kind of evidence. *
Of course, lopping all disbelievers in the FEMA Fairy Tale together and implying they all believe the same thing is one of your fortes, isn't it? And the more ridiculous the belief you assign to us corporately, the happier you are.
You, on the other hand, also make claims, which you ascribe to non-FEMA FT believers, about "everybody" being in on the ever growing conspiracy, and some of the specifics you give are obviously false, and have been pointed out to you as such
Your peddling of pseudo logic, based on false premises at that, goes on, unabated.
So your straw man/ character assassination argument that I must be a propagandist because I don't have a stash of photos is moronic.
Once again, you mischaracterized some of my writing. I guess you can't help yourself.
This is a huge red flag for me, wrt to anybody who posts on a bulletin board at all, on any subject. Political, sophistic, manipulative, or "naked ape" type arguments never impress me, and on a physics board they're particularly inappropriate.
I note, in fairness, that many posters on my side of the debate also can't help from refraining to use "naked ape" type of "arguments".
Shame on all of you.
QUOTE
Stupid, the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes. If that investigation leads to evidence Bush mastermin... wait a minute... HAHAHAHAH... Bush Mastermi.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I can't even type it... If bush did it, then they'll find out.
But since everyone and their mother is in on this you'll only say the investigation was a hack.
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
If anybody understands this gibberish, feel free to post an interpretation into English.
* Bush's signing of the NSM that resulted in Cheney being allowed to direct fighter aircraft is the closest thing I can think of to a "direct connection", however I doubt that makes him even legally culpable, since one can't prove motive.
When it comes to resisting a real investigation, though, Bush is guilty up to his eyeballs. He is thus an accessory after the fact, at least morally. Whether legally, I don't know, you have to ask a lawyer.
(See Crossing the Rubicon for documentation)
Hi steve 1957.
It may interest you and others to know that the "big bang" (cosmic egg) scenario is ACTUALLY a RELIGIOUS CREATIONIST hypothesis/model promulgated last century by a PRIEST called Georges Lemaitre. It has always been challenged by many scientists both then and now.
It may also interest you to know that science has MANY hypotheses to explore, from eternal, to recycling, to constant-creation, to many-tiered etc physical universal system(s) of LOCAL (finite/observable) and/or GLOBAL (infinite/unobservable). No-one but RELIGIOUS CREATIONISTS really believe that 'big bang' scenario is anything but a LOCAL 'observable universe' phenomena set occurring with the larger GLOBAL 'unbounded UNIVERSAL' phenomena set.
All else is still speculation supported/unsupported in patches....an ongoing scientific investigation of the reality around us. Science/mathematics as a SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH TOOL has been in existence only a relatively short time...before that there was nothing but religion/superstition and ignorance of the physical/mathematical laws that operate in reality. So, be fair, and give it a coupla thousand years before making any comparisons/pronouncements with/on it, heh? Good luck, mate.
RC.
.
It may interest you and others to know that the "big bang" (cosmic egg) scenario is ACTUALLY a RELIGIOUS CREATIONIST hypothesis/model promulgated last century by a PRIEST called Georges Lemaitre. It has always been challenged by many scientists both then and now.
It may also interest you to know that science has MANY hypotheses to explore, from eternal, to recycling, to constant-creation, to many-tiered etc physical universal system(s) of LOCAL (finite/observable) and/or GLOBAL (infinite/unobservable). No-one but RELIGIOUS CREATIONISTS really believe that 'big bang' scenario is anything but a LOCAL 'observable universe' phenomena set occurring with the larger GLOBAL 'unbounded UNIVERSAL' phenomena set.
All else is still speculation supported/unsupported in patches....an ongoing scientific investigation of the reality around us. Science/mathematics as a SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH TOOL has been in existence only a relatively short time...before that there was nothing but religion/superstition and ignorance of the physical/mathematical laws that operate in reality. So, be fair, and give it a coupla thousand years before making any comparisons/pronouncements with/on it, heh? Good luck, mate.
RC.
.
Common Sense lies repeatedly.
His lies do great disservice to the victims, their families, the firemen, the police, and all the rescue workers involved.
He has been shown evidence that "The Jersey Girls" and other victims family members are not satisfied and want answers to questions they provided prior to the inquiry, most of which were never even addressed.
He has been shown evidence that the investigation was called a "half baked farce" from the outset by fire dept people.
Further evidence has been provided showing police members and firemen suspect/know explosives were involved.
His attitude to the Zogby poll shows the contempt he holds for the people of New York.
Common Sense - stop insulting these people, its low life.
-------
The mainstream media -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
In the same lecture to two capacity audiences in New York Dr Griffin called on the NY Times to address this fact. The New York Times did not even make an attempt to refute such an allegation made by a highly respected academic who has the backing of many academics including member of the CFR (Council for Foreign Relations) Richard Falk and a former member of the Bush administration Morgan Reynolds. Why? We know this wont just go away so their refusal to even acknowledge Dr Griffins claims speaks volumes in itself. America has been shown just recently the editorial integrity of he New York Times which sat on the latest NSA scandal for over a year, forced into publishing by the fact it was leaked elsewhere. A disgrace.
"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11."
http://vtcommons.org/node/233
His lies do great disservice to the victims, their families, the firemen, the police, and all the rescue workers involved.
He has been shown evidence that "The Jersey Girls" and other victims family members are not satisfied and want answers to questions they provided prior to the inquiry, most of which were never even addressed.
He has been shown evidence that the investigation was called a "half baked farce" from the outset by fire dept people.
Further evidence has been provided showing police members and firemen suspect/know explosives were involved.
His attitude to the Zogby poll shows the contempt he holds for the people of New York.
Common Sense - stop insulting these people, its low life.
-------
The mainstream media -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
In the same lecture to two capacity audiences in New York Dr Griffin called on the NY Times to address this fact. The New York Times did not even make an attempt to refute such an allegation made by a highly respected academic who has the backing of many academics including member of the CFR (Council for Foreign Relations) Richard Falk and a former member of the Bush administration Morgan Reynolds. Why? We know this wont just go away so their refusal to even acknowledge Dr Griffins claims speaks volumes in itself. America has been shown just recently the editorial integrity of he New York Times which sat on the latest NSA scandal for over a year, forced into publishing by the fact it was leaked elsewhere. A disgrace.
"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11."
http://vtcommons.org/node/233
metamars,
Since I'm a confessed bribe accepter and what people call bible nut, you're more than welcome to throw everything I say in the trash as total nonsense, but on the other hand a useful statement could even be found in a rotten scum bag like myself, mostly because my eyes are on the situation and I have information about what happened.
At this point it is irrelevant exactly how much or how little Bush knew about the operation. It's quite possible that Bush Jr. is nothing more than a little puppet or bad actor sponsored by a combination of defense contractors, oil companies, etc. who also control 80% of the wealth in this country.
In fact it's highly doubtful and unreasonable to believe that these people who control trillion dollar industries are going to let a half wit president like GW make decisions all on his own.
The poor guy can barely speak in public and has to rely on an earpiece or various idiot cards, called cue cards to instruct him what to say.
On 9/11 at the school, whether people believe the 'W' knew or didn't know, the undeniable fact is he was told what to do and what to say.
If anyone was in charge or headed up the task then obviously Cheny would be the first choice for having enough mental abilities to orchestrate the events, but even *** alone couldn't pull this off without the sponsorship of many other groups that are behind their little game.
Bush is most definitely guilty of PLAYING HIS PART, but in reality bush is about as responsible as a soul news journalists is for what goes on the air.
And more importantly, bush's connection and/or guilt is irrelevant at this point, (as obvious as it is) because the FIRST STEP is establishing whether a governmental crime was committed, then and only then can governmental accountability proceed.
It's like some of the guys who SUPPOSEDLY COMMITTED SUICIDE under Clinton's watch, like Vince Foster and others. There were reports of a case where a guy had 2, not one but (2) gunshot wounds to the back of the head and they ruled the death a SUICIDE. You can't even begin to investigate a homicide if it's ruled a suicide.
And they can't even begin to draw connections until it has been established that EXPLOSIVES WERE USED TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS.
Now the intelligent people know it was EXPLODED, and some of them can dig a little deeper, but ANYONE who lives in denial that the towers were imploded can't even begin to draw any connections to Bush.
Since I'm a confessed bribe accepter and what people call bible nut, you're more than welcome to throw everything I say in the trash as total nonsense, but on the other hand a useful statement could even be found in a rotten scum bag like myself, mostly because my eyes are on the situation and I have information about what happened.
At this point it is irrelevant exactly how much or how little Bush knew about the operation. It's quite possible that Bush Jr. is nothing more than a little puppet or bad actor sponsored by a combination of defense contractors, oil companies, etc. who also control 80% of the wealth in this country.
In fact it's highly doubtful and unreasonable to believe that these people who control trillion dollar industries are going to let a half wit president like GW make decisions all on his own.
The poor guy can barely speak in public and has to rely on an earpiece or various idiot cards, called cue cards to instruct him what to say.
On 9/11 at the school, whether people believe the 'W' knew or didn't know, the undeniable fact is he was told what to do and what to say.
If anyone was in charge or headed up the task then obviously Cheny would be the first choice for having enough mental abilities to orchestrate the events, but even *** alone couldn't pull this off without the sponsorship of many other groups that are behind their little game.
Bush is most definitely guilty of PLAYING HIS PART, but in reality bush is about as responsible as a soul news journalists is for what goes on the air.
And more importantly, bush's connection and/or guilt is irrelevant at this point, (as obvious as it is) because the FIRST STEP is establishing whether a governmental crime was committed, then and only then can governmental accountability proceed.
It's like some of the guys who SUPPOSEDLY COMMITTED SUICIDE under Clinton's watch, like Vince Foster and others. There were reports of a case where a guy had 2, not one but (2) gunshot wounds to the back of the head and they ruled the death a SUICIDE. You can't even begin to investigate a homicide if it's ruled a suicide.
And they can't even begin to draw connections until it has been established that EXPLOSIVES WERE USED TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS.
Now the intelligent people know it was EXPLODED, and some of them can dig a little deeper, but ANYONE who lives in denial that the towers were imploded can't even begin to draw any connections to Bush.
OH NOOOO!!!! Say it aint so!
It must be true because according to metamars anything in an organizational chart is true! Anyway it's about as believeable as the rest of their crap. Even more so.
It must be true because according to metamars anything in an organizational chart is true! Anyway it's about as believeable as the rest of their crap. Even more so.
OH NOOOO!!!! Say it aint so!
http://65.217.248.202/9-11.jpg
It must be true because according to metamars anything in an organizational chart is true! Anyway it's about as believeable as the rest of their crap. Even more so.
http://65.217.248.202/9-11.jpg
It must be true because according to metamars anything in an organizational chart is true! Anyway it's about as believeable as the rest of their crap. Even more so.
RealityCheck,
I can't disagree with you about religious priests and such bringing in all kinds of lies, BS and ridiculous fairy tales into the lime light.
As I said before I believe in God, not in religion, and I found truth in the bible, and if anybody ever read the bible they find that the religious organizations all contradict and disagree with what it really says.
I've found more truth in many atheists, than I have in christians and other religious groups, because at least an atheist will admit he's a fool, whereas all too many christians lie and deny it and pretend to know God's will, while they openly support the murder of innocent people, just because they were raised in a different environment.
I don't dislike the people who happen to be christians, or atheists or even wackos like the neo/con bush fairy tale supporters, but what I am against is lies and deception, no matter who tells it.
Where the big bang and other fairy tales came from, I do not know, just like I don't know who created teletubbies, but I do know they're both fantasies.
I can't disagree with you about religious priests and such bringing in all kinds of lies, BS and ridiculous fairy tales into the lime light.
As I said before I believe in God, not in religion, and I found truth in the bible, and if anybody ever read the bible they find that the religious organizations all contradict and disagree with what it really says.
I've found more truth in many atheists, than I have in christians and other religious groups, because at least an atheist will admit he's a fool, whereas all too many christians lie and deny it and pretend to know God's will, while they openly support the murder of innocent people, just because they were raised in a different environment.
I don't dislike the people who happen to be christians, or atheists or even wackos like the neo/con bush fairy tale supporters, but what I am against is lies and deception, no matter who tells it.
Where the big bang and other fairy tales came from, I do not know, just like I don't know who created teletubbies, but I do know they're both fantasies.
Steve,
Entirely agree with you - this was one of the reasons I started this thread - to focus on the 'what' question. Then if we can agree on that (using Physics and video - which I say *is* entirely conclusive), we can then move on to the how.
To put it simply, if people on this list can't agree that a *different* crime was committed on Sept 11th to the one the media told us about later on that day and on all the days following, how will a new investigation ever get under way?
And of course, the many posters on this list who deny the basic physics of the issue, by using technical analyses, which seem to go into considerable detail based on sketchy data, only obfuscate the issue.
Just look at the activity on this thread and compare to all the others in this same section of the forum.
Anyone thought about that factor?
Entirely agree with you - this was one of the reasons I started this thread - to focus on the 'what' question. Then if we can agree on that (using Physics and video - which I say *is* entirely conclusive), we can then move on to the how.
To put it simply, if people on this list can't agree that a *different* crime was committed on Sept 11th to the one the media told us about later on that day and on all the days following, how will a new investigation ever get under way?
And of course, the many posters on this list who deny the basic physics of the issue, by using technical analyses, which seem to go into considerable detail based on sketchy data, only obfuscate the issue.
Just look at the activity on this thread and compare to all the others in this same section of the forum.
Anyone thought about that factor?
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 1 2006, 11:47 PM)
RealityCheck,
I can't disagree with you about religious priests and such bringing in all kinds of lies, BS and ridiculous fairy tales into the lime light.
As I said before I believe in God, not in religion, and I found truth in the bible, and if anybody ever read the bible they find that the religious organizations all contradict and disagree with what it really says.
I've found more truth in many atheists, than I have in christians and other religious groups, because at least an atheist will admit he's a fool, whereas all too many christians lie and deny it and pretend to know God's will, while they openly support the murder of innocent people, just because they were raised in a different environment.
I don't dislike the people who happen to be christians, or atheists or even wackos like the neo/con bush fairy tale supporters, but what I am against is lies and deception, no matter who tells it.
Where the big bang and other fairy tales came from, I do not know, just like I don't know who created teletubbies, but I do know they're both fantasies.
.
Hi steve1957.
That is why I prefer to stick to what physics/science I can prove/support with objective facts interpreted through direct knowledge/experience gained from relevant research/experiments in the physical matters/principles under discussion. Anything else is a waste of time and a distraction for me; as all I want is to get at ABSOLUTE TRUTHS irrespective of peoples' opinions and biases EITHER WAY. Good luck in your chosen "reality", steve1957.
RC.
.
I can't disagree with you about religious priests and such bringing in all kinds of lies, BS and ridiculous fairy tales into the lime light.
As I said before I believe in God, not in religion, and I found truth in the bible, and if anybody ever read the bible they find that the religious organizations all contradict and disagree with what it really says.
I've found more truth in many atheists, than I have in christians and other religious groups, because at least an atheist will admit he's a fool, whereas all too many christians lie and deny it and pretend to know God's will, while they openly support the murder of innocent people, just because they were raised in a different environment.
I don't dislike the people who happen to be christians, or atheists or even wackos like the neo/con bush fairy tale supporters, but what I am against is lies and deception, no matter who tells it.
Where the big bang and other fairy tales came from, I do not know, just like I don't know who created teletubbies, but I do know they're both fantasies.
.
Hi steve1957.
That is why I prefer to stick to what physics/science I can prove/support with objective facts interpreted through direct knowledge/experience gained from relevant research/experiments in the physical matters/principles under discussion. Anything else is a waste of time and a distraction for me; as all I want is to get at ABSOLUTE TRUTHS irrespective of peoples' opinions and biases EITHER WAY. Good luck in your chosen "reality", steve1957.
RC.
.
Andrew Johnson,
Amen brother! I totally agree. Good point! and this is a pretty interesting thread.
It seems to me that we could calmly and rationally investigate the matter with truth and facts and evidence in a methodical, logical, reasonable, step by step manner for the purpose of deriving at the truth, WHATEVER THAT HAPPENS TO BE.
If in fact the government, IE; bush and parties were innocent, then it seems that his supporters would want the truth to come out.
But when people block the investigation and CLOUD UP the issues with bogus theories that defy the laws of physics, then it only makes the accused party look more guilty.
After all, this government is supposed to be "By the people and for the people" and the elected officials are hired help, paid by the tax payers to perform certain duties. According to our laws, the president is not a king or a Lord, or an emperor, but only HIRED HELP.
In reality "We the people" are the boss, it is our country and government officials are merely HIRED HELP.
Therefore it is our responsibility to discuss these things, investigate and if need be take the appropriate action, because this country is owned by "We the people", and not by some corrupt politicians.
Unfortunately there is so much corruption amongst our HIRED HELP, that it's hard to get anything done around here, but at least we can discuss these things, and investigate, using the resources we have available, such as the Internet, etc.
I noticed a lot of the deceivers on this board imply that anything on the Internet is a scam and a lie, especially concerning 9/11.
Well in truth, I'm sure there are many scams and lies, but not everything, you have to sift through the websites and use true common sense.
We could all go to the libraries and do research there, but the Internet is much faster. You can look on the main stream news, but I'd be willing to bet that maybe 10% of that stuff is true, while 90% is manipulated malarkey.
Never the less, beware of people, like cOmMoN sEnSe, who warn people to never look at anything on the Internet concerning 9/11, because in so doing he's really trying his best to HAMPER and block the investigation.
The reasons why he wants to HINDER THE INVESTIGATION, are speculative, but I'm sure that many people have their theories on that.
Amen brother! I totally agree. Good point! and this is a pretty interesting thread.
It seems to me that we could calmly and rationally investigate the matter with truth and facts and evidence in a methodical, logical, reasonable, step by step manner for the purpose of deriving at the truth, WHATEVER THAT HAPPENS TO BE.
If in fact the government, IE; bush and parties were innocent, then it seems that his supporters would want the truth to come out.
But when people block the investigation and CLOUD UP the issues with bogus theories that defy the laws of physics, then it only makes the accused party look more guilty.
After all, this government is supposed to be "By the people and for the people" and the elected officials are hired help, paid by the tax payers to perform certain duties. According to our laws, the president is not a king or a Lord, or an emperor, but only HIRED HELP.
In reality "We the people" are the boss, it is our country and government officials are merely HIRED HELP.
Therefore it is our responsibility to discuss these things, investigate and if need be take the appropriate action, because this country is owned by "We the people", and not by some corrupt politicians.
Unfortunately there is so much corruption amongst our HIRED HELP, that it's hard to get anything done around here, but at least we can discuss these things, and investigate, using the resources we have available, such as the Internet, etc.
I noticed a lot of the deceivers on this board imply that anything on the Internet is a scam and a lie, especially concerning 9/11.
Well in truth, I'm sure there are many scams and lies, but not everything, you have to sift through the websites and use true common sense.
We could all go to the libraries and do research there, but the Internet is much faster. You can look on the main stream news, but I'd be willing to bet that maybe 10% of that stuff is true, while 90% is manipulated malarkey.
Never the less, beware of people, like cOmMoN sEnSe, who warn people to never look at anything on the Internet concerning 9/11, because in so doing he's really trying his best to HAMPER and block the investigation.
The reasons why he wants to HINDER THE INVESTIGATION, are speculative, but I'm sure that many people have their theories on that.
RealityCheck,
Yeah! I'd be more than happy to stick with physics and science and keep the discussion focused on that, but the problem I have is when truth is neglected and deception is disguised as physics.
Let's try to keep the conversation TRUE PHYSICS, & TRUE SCIENCE, then we'll have no problems.
Yeah! I'd be more than happy to stick with physics and science and keep the discussion focused on that, but the problem I have is when truth is neglected and deception is disguised as physics.
Let's try to keep the conversation TRUE PHYSICS, & TRUE SCIENCE, then we'll have no problems.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 2 2006, 12:15 AM)
RealityCheck,
Yeah! I'd be more than happy to stick with physics and science and keep the discussion focused on that, but the problem I have is when truth is neglected and deception is disguised as physics.
Let's try to keep the conversation TRUE PHYSICS, & TRUE SCIENCE, then we'll have no problems.
.
With YOU as the arbiter as to what IS 'true' science and 'true' physics?...or would you be willing to accept that there may be others who may have a better grasp of such things?...and that not all of those others might necessarily see eye-to-eye with you on all things?
RC.
.
Yeah! I'd be more than happy to stick with physics and science and keep the discussion focused on that, but the problem I have is when truth is neglected and deception is disguised as physics.
Let's try to keep the conversation TRUE PHYSICS, & TRUE SCIENCE, then we'll have no problems.
.
With YOU as the arbiter as to what IS 'true' science and 'true' physics?...or would you be willing to accept that there may be others who may have a better grasp of such things?...and that not all of those others might necessarily see eye-to-eye with you on all things?
RC.
.
OK metamars, time to out you for who you are..
Fair enough..
Fair enough..
If I was a propagandist, given to distortion like yourself, why would I ask for evidence to be posted, which would decide the issue, and quite likely show my suspicions to be unfounded?
Tell me something genius. If I'm a propagandist then who am I doing it for? You can only be talking about the government, and who is the head of the government as we speak? Bush. You wont get away with these innuendos here. You can't insinuate Bush is involved in a conspiracy to mass murder 3000 people then claim just because you weren't man enough to say it out right you somehow didn't say it. Only the people you brought here from conspiracycenteral.com are that gullible.
You mean the way you lop everyone who doesn't believe the conspiracy theorist fairy-tails as propagandist? Yeah, I'll do it as long as people do it to me.
You mean the way you lop everyone who doesn't believe the conspiracy theorist fairy-tails as propagandist? Yeah, I'll do it as long as people do it to me.
My logic is that one should back up ones beliefs with evidence, when it's available. I don't think you'd be so foolish as to claim that's not a good thing, even if you really don't believe it.
You not only have 0 evidence for everything you say but I've caught you guys with lie after lie. Starting with Steve's video which cuts off the pentagon video just as the fireball turns black. He says the fireball from an passenger jet fire should be black and then he edits the video just before it does so. What a lying sack of shait! Then I show a picture of the first tower impact which didn't have a black fireball at all! So the whole video is KAKA. That was ME who produced that evidence. And in turn what do YOU do. You provide innuendos from half truths and text taken out of context. Just so you can say "I DIDN'T SAY THAT???" What, who, ME???" The mere fact that you say you bring evidence is a LIE. Anyone can point fingers at other people work and say "Na, not good enough". That's not evidence FOR anything. Evidence FOR is like what I produced in the column picture. It's like what I produced in the fireman's quotes. I PROVED you morons are taking fireman's words out of context. I PROVED the fire in staircase 4 and even on the 78th floor being small means nothing. What have you proved? As I showed anyone can make an organizational chart.
To recap, the only ones impressed by you are your prison bitches.
Do you think your weak a$$ passive aggressive slandering is appropriate? Do you think your pseudo psychiatric analysis of my skepticism is appropriate? Because I never attack anyone who doesn't attack me first.
Do you think your weak a$$ passive aggressive slandering is appropriate? Do you think your pseudo psychiatric analysis of my skepticism is appropriate? Because I never attack anyone who doesn't attack me first.
If anybody understands this gibberish, feel free to post an interpretation into English.
I think it says you're a moron.
QUOTE
I've never accused Bush of being "directly" connected, though I believe that's the case. If I made such a claim, I would want to have some kind of evidence. *
Fair enough..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've never accused Bush of being "directly" connected, though I believe that's the case. If I made such a claim, I would want to have some kind of evidence. * |
Fair enough..
If I was a propagandist, given to distortion like yourself, why would I ask for evidence to be posted, which would decide the issue, and quite likely show my suspicions to be unfounded?
Tell me something genius. If I'm a propagandist then who am I doing it for? You can only be talking about the government, and who is the head of the government as we speak? Bush. You wont get away with these innuendos here. You can't insinuate Bush is involved in a conspiracy to mass murder 3000 people then claim just because you weren't man enough to say it out right you somehow didn't say it. Only the people you brought here from conspiracycenteral.com are that gullible.
QUOTE
Of course, lopping all disbelievers in the FEMA Fairy Tale together and implying they all believe the same thing is one of your fortes, isn't it? And the more ridiculous the belief you assign to us corporately, the happier you are.
You mean the way you lop everyone who doesn't believe the conspiracy theorist fairy-tails as propagandist? Yeah, I'll do it as long as people do it to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Of course, lopping all disbelievers in the FEMA Fairy Tale together and implying they all believe the same thing is one of your fortes, isn't it? And the more ridiculous the belief you assign to us corporately, the happier you are. |
You mean the way you lop everyone who doesn't believe the conspiracy theorist fairy-tails as propagandist? Yeah, I'll do it as long as people do it to me.
My logic is that one should back up ones beliefs with evidence, when it's available. I don't think you'd be so foolish as to claim that's not a good thing, even if you really don't believe it.
You not only have 0 evidence for everything you say but I've caught you guys with lie after lie. Starting with Steve's video which cuts off the pentagon video just as the fireball turns black. He says the fireball from an passenger jet fire should be black and then he edits the video just before it does so. What a lying sack of shait! Then I show a picture of the first tower impact which didn't have a black fireball at all! So the whole video is KAKA. That was ME who produced that evidence. And in turn what do YOU do. You provide innuendos from half truths and text taken out of context. Just so you can say "I DIDN'T SAY THAT???" What, who, ME???" The mere fact that you say you bring evidence is a LIE. Anyone can point fingers at other people work and say "Na, not good enough". That's not evidence FOR anything. Evidence FOR is like what I produced in the column picture. It's like what I produced in the fireman's quotes. I PROVED you morons are taking fireman's words out of context. I PROVED the fire in staircase 4 and even on the 78th floor being small means nothing. What have you proved? As I showed anyone can make an organizational chart.
To recap, the only ones impressed by you are your prison bitches.
QUOTE
I note, in fairness, that many posters on my side of the debate also can't help from refraining to use "naked ape" type of "arguments".
Shame on all of you.
Shame on all of you.
Do you think your weak a$$ passive aggressive slandering is appropriate? Do you think your pseudo psychiatric analysis of my skepticism is appropriate? Because I never attack anyone who doesn't attack me first.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I note, in fairness, that many posters on my side of the debate also can't help from refraining to use "naked ape" type of "arguments". Shame on all of you. |
Do you think your weak a$$ passive aggressive slandering is appropriate? Do you think your pseudo psychiatric analysis of my skepticism is appropriate? Because I never attack anyone who doesn't attack me first.
If anybody understands this gibberish, feel free to post an interpretation into English.
QUOTE
Only a moron bigger than Bush would think Bush and co smart enough to pull this off. ONLY A MORON!
I think it says you're a moron.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 1 2006, 11:47 PM)
RealityCheck,
I can't disagree with you about religious priests and such bringing in all kinds of lies, BS and ridiculous fairy tales into the lime light.
As I said before I believe in God, not in religion, and I found truth in the bible, and if anybody ever read the bible they find that the religious organizations all contradict and disagree with what it really says.
I've found more truth in many atheists, than I have in christians and other religious groups, because at least an atheist will admit he's a fool, whereas all too many christians lie and deny it and pretend to know God's will, while they openly support the murder of innocent people, just because they were raised in a different environment.
I don't dislike the people who happen to be christians, or atheists or even wackos like the neo/con bush fairy tale supporters, but what I am against is lies and deception, no matter who tells it.
Where the big bang and other fairy tales came from, I do not know, just like I don't know who created teletubbies, but I do know they're both fantasies.
HAHAHA OH the IRONY! A convicted con man who doesn't like lies! HAHAHA
I can't disagree with you about religious priests and such bringing in all kinds of lies, BS and ridiculous fairy tales into the lime light.
As I said before I believe in God, not in religion, and I found truth in the bible, and if anybody ever read the bible they find that the religious organizations all contradict and disagree with what it really says.
I've found more truth in many atheists, than I have in christians and other religious groups, because at least an atheist will admit he's a fool, whereas all too many christians lie and deny it and pretend to know God's will, while they openly support the murder of innocent people, just because they were raised in a different environment.
I don't dislike the people who happen to be christians, or atheists or even wackos like the neo/con bush fairy tale supporters, but what I am against is lies and deception, no matter who tells it.
Where the big bang and other fairy tales came from, I do not know, just like I don't know who created teletubbies, but I do know they're both fantasies.
HAHAHA OH the IRONY! A convicted con man who doesn't like lies! HAHAHA
Well. Happy New Year.
I see not much has changed.
Hmmmm, let's see...
The NY Fire fighters would know much more than all of 'us' about explosions and building collapses.
I have to tend to agree with that statement. At least, (I do not know any qualified fire-fighters posting on this thread).
Firefighters tend to know about 'those things'... ( not by Googling up some information on the internet ), but rather through first hand empirical knowledge.
I also have to agree that it means their LIFE to know how dangerous & deadly these things can be. I do know about that because my father (God rest his soul) was a career Naval DND Firefighter.
NOT THAT, this fact would make me any kind of 'expert' on Fire-Engineering...
You tend not to take your son to work with you when you are engaged in life-threatening situations as a line of work, so I didn't personally get to see all the military explosions, incendiary fires , and fuel storage fires that he was called upon to fight.
I would just listen to his stories and be awestruck... (this was just about the time television was being introduced).
The only actual empirical knowledge I have regarding fire-stations is going with my father to help wash & polish the trucks
Yet you say...
"they (the rank & file fire-fighters) don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why?
You haven't been hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan for the last four years, have you???
What do you know about the controversy that erupted between firefighters and 'good ol' boy, Guiliani?
That was while the 'clean-up' operations were still going on, wasn't it?
IIRC, a number of fire-fighters from the rank & file were thrown into jail... (as kindofa 'warning')...
Weren't they ???
Schneibster, You not only lie...
Hmmmm, let's see...
The NY Fire fighters would know much more than all of 'us' about explosions and building collapses.
I have to tend to agree with that statement. At least, (I do not know any qualified fire-fighters posting on this thread).
Firefighters tend to know about 'those things'... ( not by Googling up some information on the internet ), but rather through first hand empirical knowledge.
I also have to agree that it means their LIFE to know how dangerous & deadly these things can be. I do know about that because my father (God rest his soul) was a career Naval DND Firefighter.
NOT THAT, this fact would make me any kind of 'expert' on Fire-Engineering...
You tend not to take your son to work with you when you are engaged in life-threatening situations as a line of work, so I didn't personally get to see all the military explosions, incendiary fires , and fuel storage fires that he was called upon to fight.
I would just listen to his stories and be awestruck... (this was just about the time television was being introduced).
The only actual empirical knowledge I have regarding fire-stations is going with my father to help wash & polish the trucks
Yet you say...
"they (the rank & file fire-fighters) don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why?
You haven't been hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan for the last four years, have you???
What do you know about the controversy that erupted between firefighters and 'good ol' boy, Guiliani?
That was while the 'clean-up' operations were still going on, wasn't it?
IIRC, a number of fire-fighters from the rank & file were thrown into jail... (as kindofa 'warning')...
Weren't they ???
Schneibster, You not only lie...
Here's the court-room transcript:
Prosecution: Your Honor, before hearing testimony from this witness, re. the alleged 'pancake collapse' of the WTC towers, we first need to establish the witness's credibility. To this end, I would like to ask the defendant a few questions, if I may.
Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Mel.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Mister Schneibster: on Dec. 14, 2005 7:00pm, did you or did you not claim that Mr. Rodriquez 'has been shown to have engaged in perjury'?
Defendant: Yes sir, I did.
Prosecution: And on Dec. 14, 7:38pm, did a Mr. metamars question you on the veracity of this 'perjury' claim, and further, ask you to cite the source of your information?
Defendant: Yes, but...
Prosecution: A simple yes or no will suffice, Mr Schneibster. Now, approximately 2 short hours later, did you or did you not offer a retraction of the original claim, stating that you were misled by a disinformation web site?
Defendant: I guess that's plain for all to see, isn't it, you idiot.
Judge: If you don't mind, Mr. Schneibster, please keep the arrogant wise-cracks to yourself.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Now, Mr. Schneibster, were you or were you not asked by yours truly, some 3.5 hours later, to post a link to the web site that you had already deemed 'dis-informational', and 4 hours later you replied that you were unable to find the link to the site that only 7 hours previous you had determined lied to you?
Defendant: Huh? I don't think I understand the question...but, but, I really was unable to find the site...it wasn't even in my 'history list'. As mentioned, though, I do visit a lot of...you know..."kiddie" web sites, and I clear my history list often so my wife doesn't see where I've been...
Prosecution: That's nice, Mr. Schneibster...more info than we needed, really. So, to clarify one more time, are you claiming that in the course of a 7 hour period, you were able to find a web site, determine that its information was bogus, then be completely unable to produce a link to same said site?
Defendant: Ya, I guess I am. But I am "The Schneibster", you know, and I can contain such contradictions and blatant Tom-foolery. I am ordained -- by God himself -- to make any claim I deem necessary to defend the WTC 'pancake theory'.
Prosecution: (bitch-slapping defendant) No further questions, your Honor. It is abundantly clear that the initial claim of 'perjury' was slanderous, and the timely retraction and subsequent 'excuse' for the slander were themselves blatant lies. Given this, I feel it is in the best interest of this court room to disallow further testimony from this witness with regards to the events of 9/11/2005.
Defendant: Ya, but, but, but...you're a 'this', and you're a 'that'. And I don't like you very much anymore. You have no right to call me on my lies. MOMMY!
Judge: Settle down, Mr. Schneibster. Given the overwhelming evidence provided by Mr. Mel, I have no choice but to dismiss you from this court room. You may step down, Mr. Schneibster...and please don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
Court adjourned.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
Not only do you LIE ...You are attempting to re-write history when you say...
The 'administration' / 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters always seem to want to push this fairy-tale don't they?
Extrapolation of 'The Schniebster' quotes: -
"Get serious, idiots... no one in the Fire-Engineering field takes these 'conspiracy theories' seriously. If THEY had thought there was something 'suspicious' they would have spoken out about it a Long Time Ago. That NEVER happened sooooo...It's a dead theory you are pushing... (to get contributions for evil entrepeneurs who are simply trying to PROFIT from mass murder) "
Bill Manning sounds like my father talking.
My father had a high sense of honor and truth. He would speak to his convictions even if he knew that speaking the truth could lead to NOT being 'Politically Correct' ...(whatever 'THAT' IS)?
You see, Truth, far rises above 'politics'.
This is Schneibsters latest 'divide & conquer' tactic which he brings to this physics debate...
Pretend that 'somehow' politics plays a role in viewpoints regarding the science of 'gravity-driven collapse' vs 'explosive demolition' theories
Fire Engineering Magazine has been recognized as the leading magazine for fire-fighter professionals and fire-engineers for the last 125 years.
At the time of the 'murders' (Sept 11, 2001), Bill Manning was the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine.
Here is what HE had to say... (early 2002)
$elling Out The Investigation
The 'administration' / 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters always seem to want to push this fairy-tale don't they?
Extrapolation of 'The Schniebster' quotes: -
"Get serious, idiots... no one in the Fire-Engineering field takes these 'conspiracy theories' seriously. If THEY had thought there was something 'suspicious' they would have spoken out about it a Long Time Ago. That NEVER happened sooooo...It's a dead theory you are pushing... (to get contributions for evil entrepeneurs who are simply trying to PROFIT from mass murder) "
Bill Manning sounds like my father talking.
My father had a high sense of honor and truth. He would speak to his convictions even if he knew that speaking the truth could lead to NOT being 'Politically Correct' ...(whatever 'THAT' IS)?
You see, Truth, far rises above 'politics'.
This is Schneibsters latest 'divide & conquer' tactic which he brings to this physics debate...
Pretend that 'somehow' politics plays a role in viewpoints regarding the science of 'gravity-driven collapse' vs 'explosive demolition' theories
Fire Engineering Magazine has been recognized as the leading magazine for fire-fighter professionals and fire-engineers for the last 125 years.
At the time of the 'murders' (Sept 11, 2001), Bill Manning was the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine.
Here is what HE had to say... (early 2002)
$elling Out The Investigation
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.
Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"- no one's checking the evidence for anything.
As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.
How prophetic of Mr. Manning !
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.
To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.
The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.
Emphasis Mine.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...7&VERSION_NUM=1
How long has FireHouse dot com, been around? Just wondering?
Yeahhh... There's a telling sign all right!
Why did I leave this portion of the 'Quote' out???
Because there is nothing concrete there. He... (like all of us) is speculating on a plausible cause to the effect which we ALL saw.
Is his inferred postulation correct?
Personally, I don't believe that Bill Manning is given to 'Conspiracy Theories'... He only... (like many others)... wants an independant 'blue-ribbon' independant investigion into these incidences wherever the Truth lies. We won't KNOW where this leads until we get there.
Do you have something AGAINST 'THAT' ???
PS ... fellow Truth-Seekers---
please pay CLOSE ATTENTION to the 'answer' to my above question.
Obfuscation? Sophistry? Appeal-to-Authority? Insults?
Schneibster / ComMon SEnSE...You need to get 'CHUCKLES' , 'Coastal', 'YID', or 'Arthurs' ... 'back-up' on this one... it shouldn't be hard to do.
I see not much has changed.
QUOTE
Originally posted by the 'Schneibster' aka 'cOMmoN SEnsE'
-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 rule imposed on all fire fighters. 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. This is not imposing a gag rule on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim.
-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 rule imposed on all fire fighters. 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. This is not imposing a gag rule on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim.
Hmmmm, let's see...
The NY Fire fighters would know much more than all of 'us' about explosions and building collapses.
I have to tend to agree with that statement. At least, (I do not know any qualified fire-fighters posting on this thread).
Firefighters tend to know about 'those things'... ( not by Googling up some information on the internet ), but rather through first hand empirical knowledge.
I also have to agree that it means their LIFE to know how dangerous & deadly these things can be. I do know about that because my father (God rest his soul) was a career Naval DND Firefighter.
NOT THAT, this fact would make me any kind of 'expert' on Fire-Engineering...
You tend not to take your son to work with you when you are engaged in life-threatening situations as a line of work, so I didn't personally get to see all the military explosions, incendiary fires , and fuel storage fires that he was called upon to fight.
I would just listen to his stories and be awestruck... (this was just about the time television was being introduced).
The only actual empirical knowledge I have regarding fire-stations is going with my father to help wash & polish the trucks
Yet you say...
"they (the rank & file fire-fighters) don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why?
You haven't been hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan for the last four years, have you???
What do you know about the controversy that erupted between firefighters and 'good ol' boy, Guiliani?
That was while the 'clean-up' operations were still going on, wasn't it?
IIRC, a number of fire-fighters from the rank & file were thrown into jail... (as kindofa 'warning')...
Weren't they ???
Schneibster, You not only lie...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by the 'Schneibster' aka 'cOMmoN SEnsE' -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 rule imposed on all fire fighters. 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. This is not imposing a gag rule on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. |
Hmmmm, let's see...
The NY Fire fighters would know much more than all of 'us' about explosions and building collapses.
I have to tend to agree with that statement. At least, (I do not know any qualified fire-fighters posting on this thread).
Firefighters tend to know about 'those things'... ( not by Googling up some information on the internet ), but rather through first hand empirical knowledge.
I also have to agree that it means their LIFE to know how dangerous & deadly these things can be. I do know about that because my father (God rest his soul) was a career Naval DND Firefighter.
NOT THAT, this fact would make me any kind of 'expert' on Fire-Engineering...
You tend not to take your son to work with you when you are engaged in life-threatening situations as a line of work, so I didn't personally get to see all the military explosions, incendiary fires , and fuel storage fires that he was called upon to fight.
I would just listen to his stories and be awestruck... (this was just about the time television was being introduced).
The only actual empirical knowledge I have regarding fire-stations is going with my father to help wash & polish the trucks
Yet you say...
"they (the rank & file fire-fighters) don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why?
You haven't been hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan for the last four years, have you???
What do you know about the controversy that erupted between firefighters and 'good ol' boy, Guiliani?
That was while the 'clean-up' operations were still going on, wasn't it?
IIRC, a number of fire-fighters from the rank & file were thrown into jail... (as kindofa 'warning')...
Weren't they ???
Schneibster, You not only lie...
Here's the court-room transcript:
Prosecution: Your Honor, before hearing testimony from this witness, re. the alleged 'pancake collapse' of the WTC towers, we first need to establish the witness's credibility. To this end, I would like to ask the defendant a few questions, if I may.
Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Mel.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Mister Schneibster: on Dec. 14, 2005 7:00pm, did you or did you not claim that Mr. Rodriquez 'has been shown to have engaged in perjury'?
Defendant: Yes sir, I did.
Prosecution: And on Dec. 14, 7:38pm, did a Mr. metamars question you on the veracity of this 'perjury' claim, and further, ask you to cite the source of your information?
Defendant: Yes, but...
Prosecution: A simple yes or no will suffice, Mr Schneibster. Now, approximately 2 short hours later, did you or did you not offer a retraction of the original claim, stating that you were misled by a disinformation web site?
Defendant: I guess that's plain for all to see, isn't it, you idiot.
Judge: If you don't mind, Mr. Schneibster, please keep the arrogant wise-cracks to yourself.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Now, Mr. Schneibster, were you or were you not asked by yours truly, some 3.5 hours later, to post a link to the web site that you had already deemed 'dis-informational', and 4 hours later you replied that you were unable to find the link to the site that only 7 hours previous you had determined lied to you?
Defendant: Huh? I don't think I understand the question...but, but, I really was unable to find the site...it wasn't even in my 'history list'. As mentioned, though, I do visit a lot of...you know..."kiddie" web sites, and I clear my history list often so my wife doesn't see where I've been...
Prosecution: That's nice, Mr. Schneibster...more info than we needed, really. So, to clarify one more time, are you claiming that in the course of a 7 hour period, you were able to find a web site, determine that its information was bogus, then be completely unable to produce a link to same said site?
Defendant: Ya, I guess I am. But I am "The Schneibster", you know, and I can contain such contradictions and blatant Tom-foolery. I am ordained -- by God himself -- to make any claim I deem necessary to defend the WTC 'pancake theory'.
Prosecution: (bitch-slapping defendant) No further questions, your Honor. It is abundantly clear that the initial claim of 'perjury' was slanderous, and the timely retraction and subsequent 'excuse' for the slander were themselves blatant lies. Given this, I feel it is in the best interest of this court room to disallow further testimony from this witness with regards to the events of 9/11/2005.
Defendant: Ya, but, but, but...you're a 'this', and you're a 'that'. And I don't like you very much anymore. You have no right to call me on my lies. MOMMY!
Judge: Settle down, Mr. Schneibster. Given the overwhelming evidence provided by Mr. Mel, I have no choice but to dismiss you from this court room. You may step down, Mr. Schneibster...and please don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
Court adjourned.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...635&#entry44998
Not only do you LIE ...You are attempting to re-write history when you say...
QUOTE
"They DIDN'T call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers..."
The 'administration' / 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters always seem to want to push this fairy-tale don't they?
Extrapolation of 'The Schniebster' quotes: -
"Get serious, idiots... no one in the Fire-Engineering field takes these 'conspiracy theories' seriously. If THEY had thought there was something 'suspicious' they would have spoken out about it a Long Time Ago. That NEVER happened sooooo...It's a dead theory you are pushing... (to get contributions for evil entrepeneurs who are simply trying to PROFIT from mass murder) "
Bill Manning sounds like my father talking.
My father had a high sense of honor and truth. He would speak to his convictions even if he knew that speaking the truth could lead to NOT being 'Politically Correct' ...(whatever 'THAT' IS)?
You see, Truth, far rises above 'politics'.
This is Schneibsters latest 'divide & conquer' tactic which he brings to this physics debate...
Pretend that 'somehow' politics plays a role in viewpoints regarding the science of 'gravity-driven collapse' vs 'explosive demolition' theories
Fire Engineering Magazine has been recognized as the leading magazine for fire-fighter professionals and fire-engineers for the last 125 years.
At the time of the 'murders' (Sept 11, 2001), Bill Manning was the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine.
Here is what HE had to say... (early 2002)
$elling Out The Investigation
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "They DIDN'T call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers..." |
The 'administration' / 'gravity-driven collapse' supporters always seem to want to push this fairy-tale don't they?
Extrapolation of 'The Schniebster' quotes: -
"Get serious, idiots... no one in the Fire-Engineering field takes these 'conspiracy theories' seriously. If THEY had thought there was something 'suspicious' they would have spoken out about it a Long Time Ago. That NEVER happened sooooo...It's a dead theory you are pushing... (to get contributions for evil entrepeneurs who are simply trying to PROFIT from mass murder) "
Bill Manning sounds like my father talking.
My father had a high sense of honor and truth. He would speak to his convictions even if he knew that speaking the truth could lead to NOT being 'Politically Correct' ...(whatever 'THAT' IS)?
You see, Truth, far rises above 'politics'.
This is Schneibsters latest 'divide & conquer' tactic which he brings to this physics debate...
Pretend that 'somehow' politics plays a role in viewpoints regarding the science of 'gravity-driven collapse' vs 'explosive demolition' theories
Fire Engineering Magazine has been recognized as the leading magazine for fire-fighter professionals and fire-engineers for the last 125 years.
At the time of the 'murders' (Sept 11, 2001), Bill Manning was the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine.
Here is what HE had to say... (early 2002)
$elling Out The Investigation
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.
Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"- no one's checking the evidence for anything.
As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.
How prophetic of Mr. Manning !
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.
To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.
The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.
Emphasis Mine.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...7&VERSION_NUM=1
How long has FireHouse dot com, been around? Just wondering?
Foxx, why did you leave the following paragraph out of your quote of the Bill Manning editorial?:
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Is it because it contained the sentence "Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Is it because it contained the sentence "Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
A pussy with a toy gun... It figures, Just like you... you can't even insult the wrong person competently. Heh! My advice is stick to picking out curtains.
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 @ 12/12/05 02:43:27
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/11271/9_11_WTC_...etal_Pics_Video
You still haven't gotten over the beating you took from him huh LARRY. Sad. You see Schneibster's around every corner. Heh!
That reaminds me... His program from that post...
Now, for the program:
**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**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
Schneibster @ 12/12/05 11:36:47
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 @ 12/12/05 02:43:27
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/11271/9_11_WTC_...etal_Pics_Video
You still haven't gotten over the beating you took from him huh LARRY. Sad. You see Schneibster's around every corner. Heh!
That reaminds me... His program from that post...
Now, for the program:
**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**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
Schneibster @ 12/12/05 11:36:47
QUOTE (Barbara Olson+Jan 2 2006, 12:55 AM)
Foxx, why did you leave the following paragraph out of your quote of the Bill Manning editorial?:
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Is it because it contained the sentence "Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
Yeah Larry, why don't you tell us?
You're going to find as I have these people always leave out anything which hurts their case. Especially grotesque is the editing of fireman's quotes to take them out of context in order to pedal their DVD wares.
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Is it because it contained the sentence "Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
Yeah Larry, why don't you tell us?
You're going to find as I have these people always leave out anything which hurts their case. Especially grotesque is the editing of fireman's quotes to take them out of context in order to pedal their DVD wares.
RealityCheck,
Instead of wasting time on the semantics of what is truth, what is my truth what is your truth, yada, yada, yada.
Would you agree that 2 + 2 = 4? Or does there have to be endless debates with mountains of scientific data posted to prove or disprove that statement?
You see the issue might be divided into 3 parts, what is truth, what is lies and what we believe. But reality is what it is no matter what we believe.
If I believe the sun in the solar system doesn't exist, then my belief is in a lie, because in truth the sun does exist, yada, yada, yada.
Now if I'm talking about a personal preference then that's different. I might say Vanilla ice cream is better, while you disagree and prefer chocolate.
But we're not talking about personal preferences, we're talking about what is true.
Here's an example;
If you bought a pack of smokes for $5. at a 7/11 and gave a guy a $20. bill and it was captured on video and verified in a number of other ways, and the guy said "No, you only gave me a $10. Then that would be a plain and simple lie, because in truth you gave the guy a $20. and that can be verified with evidence including the video.
Now when it comes to 9/11, we can debate politics all we want and say republicans are better or democrats are better, or Clinton was a bigger liar than Bush or the other way around, and these things come down to personal preferences.
But if we are legitimately trying to arrive at the TRUTH of what really happened on 9/11, and we use the best evidence available to us, then it's not a matter of personal preferences, but it's a matter of truth, facts and reality. Like the $20. bill you gave the guy at the store, it's either true or untrue.
And if we look at 9/11 using pure physics and mathematics along with the best evidence available there should be no reason that we can't arrive at the truth.
Now what's obvious however, is the fact that all too many people, I don't need to mention names, but I'll give you a hint "no common sense" and they have serious biases and the truth is the last thing they are interested in. Like the OJ defense team, they are ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE.
I'm not saying that cops and prosecutors are perfect, there are many cases where they all too often lie as well, but the point is we should try to set aside our personal biases and strive to discover what REALLY HAPPENED.
If in fact it was proven that I was wrong and Bin Laden really did it and the jet fuel caused the collapse then fine I want to know, but the reason I can't accept this is not because of vendettas against Bush, for God's sake I was for Bush in the 2000 election, but it's about the truth, it's about what really happened.
Now of course you might say I was wrong and I made a terrible mistake in supporting Bush in the 2000 election, and on this I would agree, that was one of my many mistakes, I confess I was wrong.
But that was more of a personal preference as bad as it was.
Instead of wasting time on the semantics of what is truth, what is my truth what is your truth, yada, yada, yada.
Would you agree that 2 + 2 = 4? Or does there have to be endless debates with mountains of scientific data posted to prove or disprove that statement?
You see the issue might be divided into 3 parts, what is truth, what is lies and what we believe. But reality is what it is no matter what we believe.
If I believe the sun in the solar system doesn't exist, then my belief is in a lie, because in truth the sun does exist, yada, yada, yada.
Now if I'm talking about a personal preference then that's different. I might say Vanilla ice cream is better, while you disagree and prefer chocolate.
But we're not talking about personal preferences, we're talking about what is true.
Here's an example;
If you bought a pack of smokes for $5. at a 7/11 and gave a guy a $20. bill and it was captured on video and verified in a number of other ways, and the guy said "No, you only gave me a $10. Then that would be a plain and simple lie, because in truth you gave the guy a $20. and that can be verified with evidence including the video.
Now when it comes to 9/11, we can debate politics all we want and say republicans are better or democrats are better, or Clinton was a bigger liar than Bush or the other way around, and these things come down to personal preferences.
But if we are legitimately trying to arrive at the TRUTH of what really happened on 9/11, and we use the best evidence available to us, then it's not a matter of personal preferences, but it's a matter of truth, facts and reality. Like the $20. bill you gave the guy at the store, it's either true or untrue.
And if we look at 9/11 using pure physics and mathematics along with the best evidence available there should be no reason that we can't arrive at the truth.
Now what's obvious however, is the fact that all too many people, I don't need to mention names, but I'll give you a hint "no common sense" and they have serious biases and the truth is the last thing they are interested in. Like the OJ defense team, they are ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE.
I'm not saying that cops and prosecutors are perfect, there are many cases where they all too often lie as well, but the point is we should try to set aside our personal biases and strive to discover what REALLY HAPPENED.
If in fact it was proven that I was wrong and Bin Laden really did it and the jet fuel caused the collapse then fine I want to know, but the reason I can't accept this is not because of vendettas against Bush, for God's sake I was for Bush in the 2000 election, but it's about the truth, it's about what really happened.
Now of course you might say I was wrong and I made a terrible mistake in supporting Bush in the 2000 election, and on this I would agree, that was one of my many mistakes, I confess I was wrong.
But that was more of a personal preference as bad as it was.
That quote by Foxx from Fire Engineering.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
Fire Engineering Article link
•The impact of the impact. It is accepted that, after the impact, the fires that raged in the WTC towers heated the stressed steel external and core columns that then had to carry redistributed loads resulting from the severing of up to two-thirds of the external columns and an unknown number of the core columns. But how much did the extra stress on the steel reduce its fire resistance? Steel "plasticates"or loses its ability to carry loads in proportion to the temperature to which it is heated. Did the fires in these buildings not have to reach such exceptional temperatures or heat release rates to cause such sudden and spectacular collapses because the steel was also so stressed? If so, should much greater fire safety margins be built into protected steel structures for cases where blast or impact is followed by fire?
•The temperature, extent, and range of the fires. Just how hot and powerful were these fires? Initial estimates suggested that the fires were exceptional, with temperature guesses ranging up to 2,000°F. But modeling and analysis produced for lawyers—not, please note, federal investigators—suggests these were not exceptionally fierce fires. More modeling work on the ventilation and the fuel loads should come up with some more definitive answers. If only the cause but not the effect of these fires was exceptional, there are huge, vital lessons to learn here. Huge, open-plan floor spaces at high-rise or even super high-rise height may be much more vulnerable to fire than planners, code writers, or even fire chiefs currently realize, particularly when suppression systems, such as sprinklers, do not work.
•How inadequate was the fireproofing? The inadequacy of the fireproofing in the WTC is no longer disputed. Inspections by experts throughout the 1990s, including some by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the WTC, show that fireproofing on the floor trusses was thin and nonexistent in places and was peeling away in room-high sheets from the core columns. The key question here is, What effect did this have in inducing the collapse? In 1995, the Port Authority began a fireproofing rehabilitation program, in particular spraying the floor trusses with 11/2 inches of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing where previously layers of just 1/2- or 3/4-inch had been considered sufficient to secure the three-hour fire rating needed to conform to the Class 1A building category provisions of the New York City building and fire code. All the floor trusses of the impact floors in the North Tower had been rehabbed with thicker, new fireproofing by September 11, whereas only one impact floor, the 78th floor, had been rehabbed in the South Tower. Was this one of the factors that enabled the North Tower to remain standing for nearly double the time of the South?
• Where are the fireproofing test results? The Port Authority says it based the rehabbing of the fireproofing on the floor trusses with 11/2 inches of coating on an Underwriters Laboratories test, specifically G805, listed in UL's Fire Resistance Directory. The test was first listed in 1992. If 11/2 inches of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing was necessary to ensure three-hour fireproofing in 1992, why was only 1/2 inch of the same fireproofing material deemed necessary to secure the same fire rating on the same floor trusses in 1970 during construction? Where are the original fireproofing tests for the open-web floor trusses that justified such a thin coating of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing material? An equally urgent question, Where are the deflection/cohesion/adhesion tests for the CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing? When first used in the WTC in 1970, it was a very new product, a last-minute nonasbestos substitute for its asbestos-based precursor, CAFCO Blazeshield D. Were such tests ever done? If not, why not?
• How much of the fireproofing survived impact? Some fire engineers have argued that the CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing, a mineral fiber-based product, would not have survived the impact of the aircraft, so whether it was in place or was adequate before impact is irrelevant. Only deflection/cohesion/adhesion tests of the fireproofing on models of the trusses and columns will give us the answers as to how much fireproofing might have survived in the WTC towers and where. Such studies have huge import. Fire engineers, firefighters, architects, and structural engineers need to know what blast or impact forces—from a bomb, a gas explosion, an earthquake, or an aircraft—different types of fireproofing can withstand. Obviously, fireproofing only stands a chance of protecting steel or means of egress if it is in place when a fire takes hold.
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside? Once the aircraft had sliced through the external columns, were the buildings doomed? Would a traditional column-and-beam structure—with more widely spaced steel columns making up the outside walls with steel flange beams supporting the floors throughout the structure to give the building the traditional steel "skeleton"—have withstood such multifloor fires better as the experiences with high-rise fires in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza and Los Angeles' First Interstate Bank seem to indicate? And if it would have, how would a column-and-beam structure have reacted to the initial impact of the aircraft? Tube structures can be built with much less steel than traditional column-and-beam structures, which is one of their main attractions. But is it too little "body" or mass, particularly with so little concrete, masonry, or cement, to stand up to the committed terrorist?
• Trusses and their connections, primary members. The open-web trusses that were the basis for the floors in the WTC towers spanned distances of up to 60 feet in connecting the external columns to those of the core. Were the trusses or their connections (standard high-tensile field bolts, attached to relatively narrow seat angles with plates welded on top) strong enough to withstand the catenary bending action and the shear on the bolts induced by relatively modest fires, let alone those raging on September 11? Moreover, did the function of the floor trusses in bracing the core and external columns to keep them the requisite distance apart, in equilibrium, make the trusses primary, rather than secondary, members in this design? If so, even without the fires and weakening effect of impact on September 11, how many sets of floor trusses could you have removed from this design without the towers going into terminal and very rapid progressive collapse, as they did that morning?
•Shaft-wall partition system central core. The vast majority of the victims of the WTC attacks on September 11 died because they had no means of escape. They were trapped above the impact floors with the buildings' umbilical cord—the elevators and three sets of stairs—severed below them. The WTC towers included a shaft-wall partition system central core—two layers of gypsum board attached to widely spaced core columns—20 feet off center. The only cement and concrete used in the central core was in the stairs themselves. Would a more traditional central core, with masonry, cement, and concrete as its main components, have survived the impact and fires better? All these elements are known for their blast-, impact-, and fire-resistance properties. Should central cores in high-rise buildings possess the rigidity and durability the name implies?
• Defend in place—surely it is dead. The towers each had three stairways, only one of which, at 54 inches, was considered sufficiently wide to comfortably accommodate two-abreast flows of evacuees. Where firefighters were ascending, there was one flow of evacuees descending and a counterflow of emergency personnel. No one knows how long it would have taken to completely evacuate the towers with such limited stair capacity when fully occupied—six or seven hours is one guess (based on the mass evacuation of February 1993 following the bomb attack). The sorry truth is that the towers were never designed for mass, simultaneous evacuation, yet each time there was a major incident—in 1975 (fire), in 1993 (bomb), and again in 2001 (fire)—that was precisely what was necessary. Even if "defend in place" is an option for fire and other emergency personnel in some instances, if the buildings' occupants have no confidence in it or will not adhere to it, it must be scrapped as an emergency procedure. All high-rise buildings must have adequate means of egress for mass, simultaneous evacuation by all occupants in a set period of time. And in extreme circumstances, such as September 11, occupants do not have six or seven hours. Had the aircraft hit those buildings just one hour later, when the buildings would have been fully occupied, the death toll would have been much, much higher, perhaps between 10,000 and 15,000. The reason is simple: Their capacity to evacuate would have come nowhere near meeting the numbers needed to get out in the time allowed.
• Built-in redundancy to reduce/eliminate the threat of progressive collapse. The WTC towers' collapse was the most extreme and deadly example of progressive collapse ever seen. The failure of one or more floors overloaded the floor or floors below, causing a chain reaction that took only 10 to 12 seconds to complete. Was sufficient redundancy built into the towers' design? The external walls had sufficient redundancy—the ability to redistribute loads to other structural members to prevent failure—as the initial impact proved. But what about inside? What about the open-web floor trusses and core columns? Could the floor trusses and their connections have been more redundant with connections fastening them to the columns at the lower as well as upper chords? Could the core columns have been cross-braced with steel members for additional stability? What difference might this have made, especially for those occupants and rescue personnel trapped in the South Tower? Although it collapsed in less than an hour, one stairwell remained intact and at least two firefighters reached the 78th floor sky lobby. Here, at least, more time could have made all the difference.
If fact a seach of the site reveals no article connecting WTC and Controlled demolition.
I did find this:
From an article about the search for potential survivors and victims:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...tion%20WTC&p=25
Just minutes earlier, officials were monitoring radio traffic and cellular calls from firefighters and civilians trapped in the basement of Building #7. But with the collapse, also came the end of those calls for help.
I wonder, if as Foxx asserts the damage to WTC 7 was so slight and the fires so minor, how they got trapped?
Arthur
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
Fire Engineering Article link
•The impact of the impact. It is accepted that, after the impact, the fires that raged in the WTC towers heated the stressed steel external and core columns that then had to carry redistributed loads resulting from the severing of up to two-thirds of the external columns and an unknown number of the core columns. But how much did the extra stress on the steel reduce its fire resistance? Steel "plasticates"or loses its ability to carry loads in proportion to the temperature to which it is heated. Did the fires in these buildings not have to reach such exceptional temperatures or heat release rates to cause such sudden and spectacular collapses because the steel was also so stressed? If so, should much greater fire safety margins be built into protected steel structures for cases where blast or impact is followed by fire?
•The temperature, extent, and range of the fires. Just how hot and powerful were these fires? Initial estimates suggested that the fires were exceptional, with temperature guesses ranging up to 2,000°F. But modeling and analysis produced for lawyers—not, please note, federal investigators—suggests these were not exceptionally fierce fires. More modeling work on the ventilation and the fuel loads should come up with some more definitive answers. If only the cause but not the effect of these fires was exceptional, there are huge, vital lessons to learn here. Huge, open-plan floor spaces at high-rise or even super high-rise height may be much more vulnerable to fire than planners, code writers, or even fire chiefs currently realize, particularly when suppression systems, such as sprinklers, do not work.
•How inadequate was the fireproofing? The inadequacy of the fireproofing in the WTC is no longer disputed. Inspections by experts throughout the 1990s, including some by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the WTC, show that fireproofing on the floor trusses was thin and nonexistent in places and was peeling away in room-high sheets from the core columns. The key question here is, What effect did this have in inducing the collapse? In 1995, the Port Authority began a fireproofing rehabilitation program, in particular spraying the floor trusses with 11/2 inches of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing where previously layers of just 1/2- or 3/4-inch had been considered sufficient to secure the three-hour fire rating needed to conform to the Class 1A building category provisions of the New York City building and fire code. All the floor trusses of the impact floors in the North Tower had been rehabbed with thicker, new fireproofing by September 11, whereas only one impact floor, the 78th floor, had been rehabbed in the South Tower. Was this one of the factors that enabled the North Tower to remain standing for nearly double the time of the South?
• Where are the fireproofing test results? The Port Authority says it based the rehabbing of the fireproofing on the floor trusses with 11/2 inches of coating on an Underwriters Laboratories test, specifically G805, listed in UL's Fire Resistance Directory. The test was first listed in 1992. If 11/2 inches of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing was necessary to ensure three-hour fireproofing in 1992, why was only 1/2 inch of the same fireproofing material deemed necessary to secure the same fire rating on the same floor trusses in 1970 during construction? Where are the original fireproofing tests for the open-web floor trusses that justified such a thin coating of CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing material? An equally urgent question, Where are the deflection/cohesion/adhesion tests for the CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing? When first used in the WTC in 1970, it was a very new product, a last-minute nonasbestos substitute for its asbestos-based precursor, CAFCO Blazeshield D. Were such tests ever done? If not, why not?
• How much of the fireproofing survived impact? Some fire engineers have argued that the CAFCO Blazeshield D/CF fireproofing, a mineral fiber-based product, would not have survived the impact of the aircraft, so whether it was in place or was adequate before impact is irrelevant. Only deflection/cohesion/adhesion tests of the fireproofing on models of the trusses and columns will give us the answers as to how much fireproofing might have survived in the WTC towers and where. Such studies have huge import. Fire engineers, firefighters, architects, and structural engineers need to know what blast or impact forces—from a bomb, a gas explosion, an earthquake, or an aircraft—different types of fireproofing can withstand. Obviously, fireproofing only stands a chance of protecting steel or means of egress if it is in place when a fire takes hold.
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside? Once the aircraft had sliced through the external columns, were the buildings doomed? Would a traditional column-and-beam structure—with more widely spaced steel columns making up the outside walls with steel flange beams supporting the floors throughout the structure to give the building the traditional steel "skeleton"—have withstood such multifloor fires better as the experiences with high-rise fires in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza and Los Angeles' First Interstate Bank seem to indicate? And if it would have, how would a column-and-beam structure have reacted to the initial impact of the aircraft? Tube structures can be built with much less steel than traditional column-and-beam structures, which is one of their main attractions. But is it too little "body" or mass, particularly with so little concrete, masonry, or cement, to stand up to the committed terrorist?
• Trusses and their connections, primary members. The open-web trusses that were the basis for the floors in the WTC towers spanned distances of up to 60 feet in connecting the external columns to those of the core. Were the trusses or their connections (standard high-tensile field bolts, attached to relatively narrow seat angles with plates welded on top) strong enough to withstand the catenary bending action and the shear on the bolts induced by relatively modest fires, let alone those raging on September 11? Moreover, did the function of the floor trusses in bracing the core and external columns to keep them the requisite distance apart, in equilibrium, make the trusses primary, rather than secondary, members in this design? If so, even without the fires and weakening effect of impact on September 11, how many sets of floor trusses could you have removed from this design without the towers going into terminal and very rapid progressive collapse, as they did that morning?
•Shaft-wall partition system central core. The vast majority of the victims of the WTC attacks on September 11 died because they had no means of escape. They were trapped above the impact floors with the buildings' umbilical cord—the elevators and three sets of stairs—severed below them. The WTC towers included a shaft-wall partition system central core—two layers of gypsum board attached to widely spaced core columns—20 feet off center. The only cement and concrete used in the central core was in the stairs themselves. Would a more traditional central core, with masonry, cement, and concrete as its main components, have survived the impact and fires better? All these elements are known for their blast-, impact-, and fire-resistance properties. Should central cores in high-rise buildings possess the rigidity and durability the name implies?
• Defend in place—surely it is dead. The towers each had three stairways, only one of which, at 54 inches, was considered sufficiently wide to comfortably accommodate two-abreast flows of evacuees. Where firefighters were ascending, there was one flow of evacuees descending and a counterflow of emergency personnel. No one knows how long it would have taken to completely evacuate the towers with such limited stair capacity when fully occupied—six or seven hours is one guess (based on the mass evacuation of February 1993 following the bomb attack). The sorry truth is that the towers were never designed for mass, simultaneous evacuation, yet each time there was a major incident—in 1975 (fire), in 1993 (bomb), and again in 2001 (fire)—that was precisely what was necessary. Even if "defend in place" is an option for fire and other emergency personnel in some instances, if the buildings' occupants have no confidence in it or will not adhere to it, it must be scrapped as an emergency procedure. All high-rise buildings must have adequate means of egress for mass, simultaneous evacuation by all occupants in a set period of time. And in extreme circumstances, such as September 11, occupants do not have six or seven hours. Had the aircraft hit those buildings just one hour later, when the buildings would have been fully occupied, the death toll would have been much, much higher, perhaps between 10,000 and 15,000. The reason is simple: Their capacity to evacuate would have come nowhere near meeting the numbers needed to get out in the time allowed.
• Built-in redundancy to reduce/eliminate the threat of progressive collapse. The WTC towers' collapse was the most extreme and deadly example of progressive collapse ever seen. The failure of one or more floors overloaded the floor or floors below, causing a chain reaction that took only 10 to 12 seconds to complete. Was sufficient redundancy built into the towers' design? The external walls had sufficient redundancy—the ability to redistribute loads to other structural members to prevent failure—as the initial impact proved. But what about inside? What about the open-web floor trusses and core columns? Could the floor trusses and their connections have been more redundant with connections fastening them to the columns at the lower as well as upper chords? Could the core columns have been cross-braced with steel members for additional stability? What difference might this have made, especially for those occupants and rescue personnel trapped in the South Tower? Although it collapsed in less than an hour, one stairwell remained intact and at least two firefighters reached the 78th floor sky lobby. Here, at least, more time could have made all the difference.
If fact a seach of the site reveals no article connecting WTC and Controlled demolition.
I did find this:
From an article about the search for potential survivors and victims:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...tion%20WTC&p=25
Just minutes earlier, officials were monitoring radio traffic and cellular calls from firefighters and civilians trapped in the basement of Building #7. But with the collapse, also came the end of those calls for help.
I wonder, if as Foxx asserts the damage to WTC 7 was so slight and the fires so minor, how they got trapped?
Arthur
QUOTE
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Yeahhh... There's a telling sign all right!
Why did I leave this portion of the 'Quote' out???
Because there is nothing concrete there. He... (like all of us) is speculating on a plausible cause to the effect which we ALL saw.
Is his inferred postulation correct?
Personally, I don't believe that Bill Manning is given to 'Conspiracy Theories'... He only... (like many others)... wants an independant 'blue-ribbon' independant investigion into these incidences wherever the Truth lies. We won't KNOW where this leads until we get there.
Do you have something AGAINST 'THAT' ???
PS ... fellow Truth-Seekers---
please pay CLOSE ATTENTION to the 'answer' to my above question.
Obfuscation? Sophistry? Appeal-to-Authority? Insults?
Schneibster / ComMon SEnSE...You need to get 'CHUCKLES' , 'Coastal', 'YID', or 'Arthurs' ... 'back-up' on this one... it shouldn't be hard to do.
What becomes all so obvious from the posts of the nit-wits is when they quote articles from popular mechanics and other prostitutes who have already been caught in many notorious lies.
It's not just the fact that these phoney baloney scientists have an agenda, a conflict of interest and support the IMPOSSIBLE FAIRY TALE, but they've been caught RED HANDED misleading and mis-stating facts in an OBVIOUS method of MIS-LEADING PEOPLE.
They're like the Johnnie Chocroaches of the world, ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE, they'll lie and say anything they can get away with to support their president.
And these other ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE, IE; Arthur, ETC. ETC. quote these OBVIOUS scams and pretend they are facts.
Now if Reality Check was for real then he'd at least be able to see through it all and understand the difference between pure science and BIASED fairy tales.
If you want to call the stuff on my site bias, fine, if you want to call the stuff on other 9/11 sites bias, fine, don't take my word for it or anyone elses but THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Look at the information and try to use that stuff in between your ears and THINK.
Well, I almost forgot in order to really think about these things it requires a desire for the truth
It's not just the fact that these phoney baloney scientists have an agenda, a conflict of interest and support the IMPOSSIBLE FAIRY TALE, but they've been caught RED HANDED misleading and mis-stating facts in an OBVIOUS method of MIS-LEADING PEOPLE.
They're like the Johnnie Chocroaches of the world, ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE, they'll lie and say anything they can get away with to support their president.
And these other ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE, IE; Arthur, ETC. ETC. quote these OBVIOUS scams and pretend they are facts.
Now if Reality Check was for real then he'd at least be able to see through it all and understand the difference between pure science and BIASED fairy tales.
If you want to call the stuff on my site bias, fine, if you want to call the stuff on other 9/11 sites bias, fine, don't take my word for it or anyone elses but THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Look at the information and try to use that stuff in between your ears and THINK.
Well, I almost forgot in order to really think about these things it requires a desire for the truth
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 01:25 AM)
Obfuscation? Sophistry? Appeal-to-Authority? Insults?
Schneibster / ComMon SEnSE...You need to get 'CHUCKLES' , 'Coastal', 'YID', or 'Arthurs' ... 'back-up' on this one... it shouldn't be hard to do.
Why should there be anything ironic here? He only comes for drive by insults.... The fact that he shoots himself in the foot in the process means nothing...
Schneibster / ComMon SEnSE...You need to get 'CHUCKLES' , 'Coastal', 'YID', or 'Arthurs' ... 'back-up' on this one... it shouldn't be hard to do.
Why should there be anything ironic here? He only comes for drive by insults.... The fact that he shoots himself in the foot in the process means nothing...
Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.
Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.
In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.
Origins and the experiment
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Subjects rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave.
However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the subject was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some subjects were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks, those in the $1 group showed a much greater propensity to embellish in favor of the experiment when asked to lie about the tasks. Experimenters theorized that when paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, which the experimenters claim explains their lesser willingness to lie favoring the tasks in the experiment.
The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by literally changing their attitude in a process akin to autobrainwashing in order really to believe that they found the tasks enjoyable.
Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth. Only when sufficient justification is given, researchers speculated, are human beings able to resist having their mind instantly reprogrammed by any request that they lie.
Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being an any element of knowlege attitude, emotion, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
The main criticism of the cognitive consistency hypothesis is that it is impossible to verify or falsify by experiment. Even so, experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Opponents of this hypothesis cite the apparent ability of many human beings to reconcile mutually exclusive or contradictory beliefs with no apparent stress, though the original theory would suggest that such beliefs were not psychologically important.
In economics this term is also called buyer's remorse. This post-purchase behavior is more likely to happen when the purchase is a more expensive one. The consumer may experience some regrets or questioning as to whether the purchase was a good one. This is the fifth step in the decision making process. Marketers can help eliminate this by properly selling the product and doing a follow-up to help reinforce the buyer's "good" decision.
Origins and the experiment
In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Subjects rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave.
However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the subject was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some subjects were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks, those in the $1 group showed a much greater propensity to embellish in favor of the experiment when asked to lie about the tasks. Experimenters theorized that when paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, which the experimenters claim explains their lesser willingness to lie favoring the tasks in the experiment.
The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by literally changing their attitude in a process akin to autobrainwashing in order really to believe that they found the tasks enjoyable.
Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth. Only when sufficient justification is given, researchers speculated, are human beings able to resist having their mind instantly reprogrammed by any request that they lie.
Festinger further tested his theory on observations of counterintuitive belief persistence of most members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
QUOTE (Barbara Olson+Jan 2 2006, 12:55 AM)
Foxx, why did you leave the following paragraph out of your quote of the Bill Manning editorial?:
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Is it because it contained the sentence "Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
Ehhhh Barb, (aka Coastal ?)
Although I highly respect Bill Mannings 'questions' (which you completely ignore in your 'come-back')... I never implied that Bill manning was a 'pope'.
As far as I recall, I don't remember Manning ever stating he was a 'structural engineer' (only a 'fire-engineer').
Without following his advice and convening a truly independant independant INQUIRY... how would we ever know the TRUE ANSWERS ???
Puuuhlease... DO NOT tell me that you Believe the 9/11 Omission 'Inquiry' was satisfactory. (Let's just close our eyes and pretend IT didn't happen).
I will ask you again...
What do you have against the formation of a 'truly independant independant INQUIRY' ???
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Is it because it contained the sentence "Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
Ehhhh Barb, (aka Coastal ?)
QUOTE
"Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
Although I highly respect Bill Mannings 'questions' (which you completely ignore in your 'come-back')... I never implied that Bill manning was a 'pope'.
As far as I recall, I don't remember Manning ever stating he was a 'structural engineer' (only a 'fire-engineer').
Without following his advice and convening a truly independant independant INQUIRY... how would we ever know the TRUE ANSWERS ???
Puuuhlease... DO NOT tell me that you Believe the 9/11 Omission 'Inquiry' was satisfactory. (Let's just close our eyes and pretend IT didn't happen).
I will ask you again...
What do you have against the formation of a 'truly independant independant INQUIRY' ???
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (Barbara Olson+Jan 2 2006, 12:55 AM)
Foxx, why did you leave the following paragraph out of your quote of the Bill Manning editorial?:
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Is it because it contained the sentence "Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
Ehhhh Barb, (aka Coastal ?)
Although I highly respect Bill Mannings 'questions' (which you completely ignore in your 'come-back')... I never implied that Bill manning was a 'pope'.
As far as I recall, I don't remember Manning ever stating he was a 'structural engineer' (only a 'fire-engineer').
Without following his advice and convening a truly independant independant INQUIRY... how would we ever know the TRUE ANSWERS ???
Puuuhlease... DO NOT tell me that you Believe the 9/11 Omission 'Inquiry' was satisfactory. (Let's just close our eyes and pretend IT didn't happen).
I will ask you again...
What do you have against the formation of a 'truly independant independant INQUIRY' ???
A clear case of Cognitive dissonance.
methinks you are confusing Fire Engineering dot com with Fire House dot com???
Do you have any 'inside' information as to how long FireHouse.com has been in existance?... (I can find no record of it prior to 2002)
As opposed to Fire-Engineering.com ???... (over 100 years as the leading magazine related to fire-engineering questions) ???
Damn CT's have infiltrated ALL walks of life!
methinks you are confusing Fire Engineering dot com with Fire House dot com???
Do you have any 'inside' information as to how long FireHouse.com has been in existance?... (I can find no record of it prior to 2002)
As opposed to Fire-Engineering.com ???... (over 100 years as the leading magazine related to fire-engineering questions) ???
Damn CT's have infiltrated ALL walks of life!
Ehhh... you might want to exercise your Colonial authority over them few Aussies on the site...
hope he doesn't slap you too hard 'reality check'
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Is it because it contained the sentence "Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
Ehhhh Barb, (aka Coastal ?)
QUOTE
"Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. ??
Although I highly respect Bill Mannings 'questions' (which you completely ignore in your 'come-back')... I never implied that Bill manning was a 'pope'.
As far as I recall, I don't remember Manning ever stating he was a 'structural engineer' (only a 'fire-engineer').
Without following his advice and convening a truly independant independant INQUIRY... how would we ever know the TRUE ANSWERS ???
Puuuhlease... DO NOT tell me that you Believe the 9/11 Omission 'Inquiry' was satisfactory. (Let's just close our eyes and pretend IT didn't happen).
I will ask you again...
What do you have against the formation of a 'truly independant independant INQUIRY' ???
A clear case of Cognitive dissonance.
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'The Pope'
That quote by Foxx from Firehouse.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
That quote by Foxx from Firehouse.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
methinks you are confusing Fire Engineering dot com with Fire House dot com???
Do you have any 'inside' information as to how long FireHouse.com has been in existance?... (I can find no record of it prior to 2002)
As opposed to Fire-Engineering.com ???... (over 100 years as the leading magazine related to fire-engineering questions) ???
Damn CT's have infiltrated ALL walks of life!
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 02:09 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'The Pope'
That quote by Foxx from Firehouse.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
That quote by Foxx from Firehouse.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
methinks you are confusing Fire Engineering dot com with Fire House dot com???
Do you have any 'inside' information as to how long FireHouse.com has been in existance?... (I can find no record of it prior to 2002)
As opposed to Fire-Engineering.com ???... (over 100 years as the leading magazine related to fire-engineering questions) ???
Damn CT's have infiltrated ALL walks of life!
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 2 2006, 01:29 AM)
What becomes all so obvious from the posts of the nit-wits is when they quote articles from popular mechanics and other prostitutes who have already been caught in many notorious lies.
It's not just the fact that these phoney baloney scientists have an agenda, a conflict of interest and support the IMPOSSIBLE FAIRY TALE, but they've been caught RED HANDED misleading and mis-stating facts in an OBVIOUS method of MIS-LEADING PEOPLE.
They're like the Johnnie Chocroaches of the world, ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE, they'll lie and say anything they can get away with to support their president.
And these other ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE, IE; Arthur, ETC. ETC. quote these OBVIOUS scams and pretend they are facts.
Now if Reality Check was for real then he'd at least be able to see through it all and understand the difference between pure science and BIASED fairy tales.
If you want to call the stuff on my site bias, fine, if you want to call the stuff on other 9/11 sites bias, fine, don't take my word for it or anyone elses but THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Look at the information and try to use that stuff in between your ears and THINK.
Well, I almost forgot in order to really think about these things it requires a desire for the truth
.
Hi steve1957.
I am a scientist first, an australian second and have an independent streak a mile long that leads me as a first precaution to ASSUME EVERYONE ELSE IS LYING OR MISTAKEN...which is why I am no good in 'team' situations which would require my being a 'team player' irrespective of objective reality. Hence I am a LONER who, from 9yrs old (an immigrant child), has trusted only what knowledge he can confirm himself...mainly because the welfare/success of family, relatives and friends (and later, employers) quite often depended on it.
46 yrs of almost constant research/experiment/problem-solving/trouble-shooting in everything from ditch-digging to aero-space, from law to materials technology etc etc etc. has enabled me to have a wide-ranging appreciation for the actual realities as well as the theories in most real-world situations.
Add to that my disinterestedness in politics, religion, money-making, power-getting etc etc., and you will appreciate where I'm coming from; to wit: I don't give a damn about anything that doesn't 'speak' to me on a PURELY OBJECTIVE LEVEL...anything else is fraught with personal/mercenary/group etc BIAS and INTENT....which is why anything that anyone HERE says about anything OTHER than JUST THE PHYSICS INVOLVED is irrelevant and boring to me (don't get the wrong idea; as a human being and responsible citizen of the world, I take my social duties seriously, but I do not see myself as carrying out those social responsibilities by adding to fruitless/unsubstantiated speculation...I go for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FIRST...and then, if found, WOE BETIDE ANY MISCREANTS TO WHICH THAT EVIDENCE POINTS as having been the perpetrator of wrongdoing....for they could have no greater nemesis than people like me (of which I'm certainly not the only one around the world with the qualifications to comprehend ALL the evidence across ALL the disciplines involved).
I also hope you can understand that one can SIMULTANEOUSLY be impartial AND STILL be concerned about getting at the real provable OBJECTIVE TRUTH in matters of import. Good luck and good thinking, mate!
RC.
.
It's not just the fact that these phoney baloney scientists have an agenda, a conflict of interest and support the IMPOSSIBLE FAIRY TALE, but they've been caught RED HANDED misleading and mis-stating facts in an OBVIOUS method of MIS-LEADING PEOPLE.
They're like the Johnnie Chocroaches of the world, ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE, they'll lie and say anything they can get away with to support their president.
And these other ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENSE, IE; Arthur, ETC. ETC. quote these OBVIOUS scams and pretend they are facts.
Now if Reality Check was for real then he'd at least be able to see through it all and understand the difference between pure science and BIASED fairy tales.
If you want to call the stuff on my site bias, fine, if you want to call the stuff on other 9/11 sites bias, fine, don't take my word for it or anyone elses but THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Look at the information and try to use that stuff in between your ears and THINK.
Well, I almost forgot in order to really think about these things it requires a desire for the truth
.
Hi steve1957.
I am a scientist first, an australian second and have an independent streak a mile long that leads me as a first precaution to ASSUME EVERYONE ELSE IS LYING OR MISTAKEN...which is why I am no good in 'team' situations which would require my being a 'team player' irrespective of objective reality. Hence I am a LONER who, from 9yrs old (an immigrant child), has trusted only what knowledge he can confirm himself...mainly because the welfare/success of family, relatives and friends (and later, employers) quite often depended on it.
46 yrs of almost constant research/experiment/problem-solving/trouble-shooting in everything from ditch-digging to aero-space, from law to materials technology etc etc etc. has enabled me to have a wide-ranging appreciation for the actual realities as well as the theories in most real-world situations.
Add to that my disinterestedness in politics, religion, money-making, power-getting etc etc., and you will appreciate where I'm coming from; to wit: I don't give a damn about anything that doesn't 'speak' to me on a PURELY OBJECTIVE LEVEL...anything else is fraught with personal/mercenary/group etc BIAS and INTENT....which is why anything that anyone HERE says about anything OTHER than JUST THE PHYSICS INVOLVED is irrelevant and boring to me (don't get the wrong idea; as a human being and responsible citizen of the world, I take my social duties seriously, but I do not see myself as carrying out those social responsibilities by adding to fruitless/unsubstantiated speculation...I go for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FIRST...and then, if found, WOE BETIDE ANY MISCREANTS TO WHICH THAT EVIDENCE POINTS as having been the perpetrator of wrongdoing....for they could have no greater nemesis than people like me (of which I'm certainly not the only one around the world with the qualifications to comprehend ALL the evidence across ALL the disciplines involved).
I also hope you can understand that one can SIMULTANEOUSLY be impartial AND STILL be concerned about getting at the real provable OBJECTIVE TRUTH in matters of import. Good luck and good thinking, mate!
RC.
.
Wikipedia ...
Sorry... not impressed, Adoucette. Wikipedia is just another one of those 'grab your money' sites. Like the 'CT sites they ask for...
MORE APPEALS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE...
"Wikimedia needs your help in its current fund drive. See our fundraising page for details."
http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/
Doesn't this just make you sick, Schneibster (aka 'CoMMon sEnSE' )???
And to think that our dear pope arthur would fall prey to 'these people'?
Sad... very sad.
Sorry... not impressed, Adoucette. Wikipedia is just another one of those 'grab your money' sites. Like the 'CT sites they ask for...
QUOTE
Please take a moment to read this personal appeal for donations from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales...
Tax-deductibility of donations - Daily report...
$204,138.15.
Tax-deductibility of donations - Daily report...
$204,138.15.
MORE APPEALS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE...
"Wikimedia needs your help in its current fund drive. See our fundraising page for details."
http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/2005q4/
Doesn't this just make you sick, Schneibster (aka 'CoMMon sEnSE' )???
And to think that our dear pope arthur would fall prey to 'these people'?
Sad... very sad.
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Jan 1 2006, 11:51 PM)
Steve,
Entirely agree with you - this was one of the reasons I started this thread - to focus on the 'what' question. Then if we can agree on that (using Physics and video - which I say *is* entirely conclusive), we can then move on to the how.
To put it simply, if people on this list can't agree that a *different* crime was committed on Sept 11th to the one the media told us about later on that day and on all the days following, how will a new investigation ever get under way?
And of course, the many posters on this list who deny the basic physics of the issue, by using technical analyses, which seem to go into considerable detail based on sketchy data, only obfuscate the issue.
Just look at the activity on this thread and compare to all the others in this same section of the forum.
Anyone thought about that factor?
Ehhh, Andrew...
good points, and I have spent a great deal of time in thinking about the new factor you bring forward.
Andrew, the 'gravity-driven' collapse supporters have become absolutely desperate in attempting to support their position.
Ehhh... you might want to exercise your Colonial authority over them few Aussies on the site...
hope he doesn't slap you too hard 'reality check'
(Actually,RC ... I don't think it would take a hard smack to Wake You UP.
You already know)
Cheers (from Canada & Great Britain)
Damn those military-industrialites from the US who seek ONLY the profits of WAR.
Entirely agree with you - this was one of the reasons I started this thread - to focus on the 'what' question. Then if we can agree on that (using Physics and video - which I say *is* entirely conclusive), we can then move on to the how.
To put it simply, if people on this list can't agree that a *different* crime was committed on Sept 11th to the one the media told us about later on that day and on all the days following, how will a new investigation ever get under way?
And of course, the many posters on this list who deny the basic physics of the issue, by using technical analyses, which seem to go into considerable detail based on sketchy data, only obfuscate the issue.
Just look at the activity on this thread and compare to all the others in this same section of the forum.
Anyone thought about that factor?
Ehhh, Andrew...
good points, and I have spent a great deal of time in thinking about the new factor you bring forward.
QUOTE
Just look at the activity on this thread and compare to all the others in this same section of the forum.
Anyone thought about that factor?
Anyone thought about that factor?
Andrew, the 'gravity-driven' collapse supporters have become absolutely desperate in attempting to support their position.
Ehhh... you might want to exercise your Colonial authority over them few Aussies on the site...
hope he doesn't slap you too hard 'reality check'
(Actually,RC ... I don't think it would take a hard smack to Wake You UP.
You already know)
Cheers (from Canada & Great Britain)
Damn those military-industrialites from the US who seek ONLY the profits of WAR.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 02:54 AM)
Ehhh... you might want to exercise your Colonial authority over them few Aussies on the site...
hope he doesn't slap you too hard 'reality check'
Hehehe. As I just got through informing steve1957, foxx, I have an INDEPENDENT STREAK a mile long...so it'd take more than some 'colonial authority' to bother me, heh?
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 02:54 AM)
(Actually,RC ... I don't think it would take a hard smack to Wake You UP. You already know)
My critical faculties never sleep, so I don't need 'waking'...but thanks for the thought just the same, hehehe.
From Arthur's link...
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
Yep, It was certainly the most extreme ... In fact, so 'extreme' that it has NEVER been seen before-or-since...
I'd call that....
'Extreme' ???
Your 'point' being...???
Anybody who believes this is anything other than a lie is invited to search this thread for my posts, to see if they can confirm it.
Anybody who believes this is anything other than a lie is invited to search this thread for my posts, to see if they can confirm it.
Anyway it's about as believeable as the rest of their crap. Even more so.
In case anybody missed it, the chart that "Common Sense" is attempting to mock as "crap" is that on leftgatekeepers.com ,
specifically at this link: http://leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm
Leftgatekeepers.com digs deeply into the gatekeeping phenomenon within avowedly "left alternative" media outlets. They don't just connect the dots between individuals and news organizations, they also follow the money. E.g., the following is from an article at leftgatekeepers:
Among the U.S. alternative media and/or U.S. anti-war NGOs
that were given additional grants by the U.S. Establishment's
Ford Foundation in 2005 were the following:
1. F.A.I.R./CounterSpin ($50,000);
2. Pacific News Service ($800,000);
3. Ploughshares Fund ($2.25 million);
4. Link Media ($1.8 milliion);
5. Bay Area Video Coalition ($50,000);
6. Center for Investigative Reporting ($150,000);
7. La Pena ($150,000);
8. Global Action Project ($150,000); and
9. Prometheus Radio ($200,000).
The Ford Foundation has apparently still not divested itself
from U.S. companies that manufacture weapons for the
Pentagon for use in the U.S. government's endless
military intervention in Iraq.
Common Sense lies repeatedly.
His lies do great disservice to the victims, their families, the firemen, the police, and all the rescue workers involved.
He has been shown evidence that "The Jersey Girls" and other victims family members are not satisfied and want answers to questions they provided prior to the inquiry, most of which were never even addressed.
He has been shown evidence that the investigation was called a "half baked farce" from the outset by fire dept people.
Further evidence has been provided showing police members and firemen suspect/know explosives were involved.
His attitude to the Zogby poll shows the contempt he holds for the people of New York
emphasis mine.
Not necessarily contempt, but at least indifference.
When Stinnet gave lectures on his blockbuster "Day of Deceit", some family members of those killed at Pearl Harbor would break out in tears. This is 60 years after that deceitful atrocity. One can well imagine the insults that "Common Sense" would have hurled at Stinnet and those family members, if he had been present.
I do feel sorry for anybody who lost a loved one on 911 who may be unfortunate enough to read the pope-ish and nasty writings of the likes of "Common Sense".
I would remind such folks that this temporal existence has never been one for anything like perfect justice, and that real healing has to come from a place deeper than any judicial constructs of man, and more Eternal even than the laws of physics.
My efforts in ferreting out 911 truth is not really aimed at procuring justice or even a full accounting. It's to prevent other such atrocities from being committed. Though my efforts are not essentially for their benefit, I would still consider it an honor if any 911 survivors took solace in this.
My best wishes for a Healing New Year, if not a Happy New Year, to anybody still grieving a loss from that day.
Common Sense lies repeatedly.
His lies do great disservice to the victims, their families, the firemen, the police, and all the rescue workers involved.
He has been shown evidence that "The Jersey Girls" and other victims family members are not satisfied and want answers to questions they provided prior to the inquiry, most of which were never even addressed.
He has been shown evidence that the investigation was called a "half baked farce" from the outset by fire dept people.
Further evidence has been provided showing police members and firemen suspect/know explosives were involved.
His attitude to the Zogby poll shows the contempt he holds for the people of New York
emphasis mine.
Not necessarily contempt, but at least indifference.
When Stinnet gave lectures on his blockbuster "Day of Deceit", some family members of those killed at Pearl Harbor would break out in tears. This is 60 years after that deceitful atrocity. One can well imagine the insults that "Common Sense" would have hurled at Stinnet and those family members, if he had been present.
I do feel sorry for anybody who lost a loved one on 911 who may be unfortunate enough to read the pope-ish and nasty writings of the likes of "Common Sense".
I would remind such folks that this temporal existence has never been one for anything like perfect justice, and that real healing has to come from a place deeper than any judicial constructs of man, and more Eternal even than the laws of physics.
My efforts in ferreting out 911 truth is not really aimed at procuring justice or even a full accounting. It's to prevent other such atrocities from being committed. Though my efforts are not essentially for their benefit, I would still consider it an honor if any 911 survivors took solace in this.
My best wishes for a Healing New Year, if not a Happy New Year, to anybody still grieving a loss from that day.
Well said, metamars. Peace to yours also.
Originally posted by Schneibster (aka - cOMMenSenSE')
Has anyone ever suggested to you that you are a very sick man, 'cOMMonSenSE' ???
This has nothing to do with the tragic events of 9/11.
Please accept my advice and get some psychological help.
You are Really in need of some kindof... psychological help.
methinks you are confusing Fire Engineering dot com with Fire House dot com???
Do you have any 'inside' information as to how long FireHouse.com has been in existance?... (I can find no record of it prior to 2002)
As opposed to Fire-Engineering.com ???... (over 100 years as the leading magazine related to fire-engineering questions) ???
Damn CT's have infiltrated ALL walks of life!
No, It was your reference at the end to Fire House dot com that confused me when I typed the post.
But my reference was from Fire Engineering, same as yours.
I've fixed the link, and edited it so it refers to the correct site.
Which, had you looked at the link you would have seen it was to the SAME SITE as you quoted from.
Arthur
If you don't want to go back here's the link again:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20wtc&p=25
methinks you are confusing Fire Engineering dot com with Fire House dot com???
Do you have any 'inside' information as to how long FireHouse.com has been in existance?... (I can find no record of it prior to 2002)
As opposed to Fire-Engineering.com ???... (over 100 years as the leading magazine related to fire-engineering questions) ???
Damn CT's have infiltrated ALL walks of life!
No, It was your reference at the end to Fire House dot com that confused me when I typed the post.
But my reference was from Fire Engineering, same as yours.
I've fixed the link, and edited it so it refers to the correct site.
Which, had you looked at the link you would have seen it was to the SAME SITE as you quoted from.
Arthur
If you don't want to go back here's the link again:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20wtc&p=25
I thank you for your correction, your holiness.
Do you understand what you are reading there???
If you have a clear perspective that's great, I'm glad. I don't even have a problem when people disagree on what may or may not have happened on 9/11.
When truthful science and truthful mathematics are used to determine as best we can what really happened then great, but what happens all too often in life in general is people sometimes try to sell a fairy tale that has no basis in fact and reality.
It's not just the fairy tale scam that gets my goat, but it's the total obviousness that drives me up the wall.
It's like a guy in court who really did kill someone, but unfortunately there's just not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And in those cases it's understandable why a jury has to let a killer go free, there's just not enough evidence.
But in cases, such as OJ and 9/11 where there is a mountain of evidence that goes well beyond any reasonable scope that's a different story. While there are many mysteries about what really happened on 9/11, there are also many things that are not so mysterious, but in fact OBVIOUS.
So my suggestion is that we focus on what we know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, and then proceed to make further calculations from there.
The fact of the matter is that EXPLOSIVES WERE USED, this is an undeniable physical fact of reality, and there is no honest debate about that, there is however a lot of dishonest and falsified information to try and mislead people away from that hard cold fact of reality.
We know there were explosives used based upon the very best evidence available, including but not limited to the FREE-FALL SPEED FACTOR, the directional path the buildings fell in, the HEAT OF THE METAL, and the multitudes upon multitudes of eye witnesses.
But what we don't know is how the bombs were planted and who planted them and exactly when. These are things that remain a mystery for now, but who knows maybe some new information will come up later on to help shed light on that.
Point being, we need to graduate past the 1st grade, but if we continuously debate over things that are RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS then we're just wasting our time sitting in the first grade, stuck in our desks when we should be moving forward.
Maybe little bush being at booker t elementary school, reading my pet goat has some symbolic meaning to how most people are dealing with these issues. That I don't know, I'm just guessing.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 02:54 AM)
Damn those military-industrialites from the US who seek ONLY the profits of WAR.
'twas ever thus, and LONG BEFORE the US military-Industrial complex ever came on the scene, mate. History shows that EVERY government model is built on the NECESSITY of lying/deceit...it's called POLITICS. Again, I trust any 'authority' as little as I trust any 'individual'...only the 'objective reality' is worthy of trust. Paranoid? No....merely Realistic...hence my nom de plume. Have a happy and safe New Year, mate! Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
Built-in redundancy to reduce/eliminate the threat of progressive collapse. The WTC towers' collapse was the most extreme and deadly example of progressive collapse ever seen.
Built-in redundancy to reduce/eliminate the threat of progressive collapse. The WTC towers' collapse was the most extreme and deadly example of progressive collapse ever seen.
From Arthur's link...
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
Yep, It was certainly the most extreme ... In fact, so 'extreme' that it has NEVER been seen before-or-since...
I'd call that....
'Extreme' ???
Your 'point' being...???
RC You've always been one of my favorite posters. 
It's a pure shame our reptilian brains (Not you) have taken over here. I've always respected your wish to stay out of this and will continue to do so. I've always tried to drawn conclutions from evidence and not belief so I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. (At the risk of giving some here "Chum" I'd like to say we could have been... Mates!) If there is somewhere you think I haven't been unbias please feel free to point it out. I repect your opinion.
It's a pure shame our reptilian brains (Not you) have taken over here. I've always respected your wish to stay out of this and will continue to do so. I've always tried to drawn conclutions from evidence and not belief so I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. (At the risk of giving some here "Chum" I'd like to say we could have been... Mates!) If there is somewhere you think I haven't been unbias please feel free to point it out. I repect your opinion.
QUOTE
It must be true because according to metamars anything in an organizational chart is true!
Anybody who believes this is anything other than a lie is invited to search this thread for my posts, to see if they can confirm it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It must be true because according to metamars anything in an organizational chart is true! |
Anybody who believes this is anything other than a lie is invited to search this thread for my posts, to see if they can confirm it.
Anyway it's about as believeable as the rest of their crap. Even more so.
In case anybody missed it, the chart that "Common Sense" is attempting to mock as "crap" is that on leftgatekeepers.com ,
specifically at this link: http://leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm
Leftgatekeepers.com digs deeply into the gatekeeping phenomenon within avowedly "left alternative" media outlets. They don't just connect the dots between individuals and news organizations, they also follow the money. E.g., the following is from an article at leftgatekeepers:
QUOTE
Among the U.S. alternative media and/or U.S. anti-war NGOs
that were given additional grants by the U.S. Establishment's
Ford Foundation in 2005 were the following:
1. F.A.I.R./CounterSpin ($50,000);
2. Pacific News Service ($800,000);
3. Ploughshares Fund ($2.25 million);
4. Link Media ($1.8 milliion);
5. Bay Area Video Coalition ($50,000);
6. Center for Investigative Reporting ($150,000);
7. La Pena ($150,000);
8. Global Action Project ($150,000); and
9. Prometheus Radio ($200,000).
The Ford Foundation has apparently still not divested itself
from U.S. companies that manufacture weapons for the
Pentagon for use in the U.S. government's endless
military intervention in Iraq.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 2 2006, 03:48 AM)
RC You've always been one of my favorite posters. It's a pure shame our reptilian brains (Not you) have taken over here. I've always respected your wish to stay out of this and will continue to do so. I've always tried to drawn conclutions from evidence and not belief so I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. (At the risk of giving some here "Chum" I'd like to say we could have been... Mates!) If there is somewhere you think I haven't been unbias please feel free to point it out. I repect your opinion.
Not quite 'following you' there schneibster?
Are you saying now 'The Reptilian' anti-zoids have taken over !!! Ohhh My Gosh !!!
It seems there is no end to your straw-man tactics.
Do you really take us for 'Idiots'???
Steve1957 ... we ALL have 'some skeletons' in our closets.
I (for one) appreciate your honesty in confronting past errors.
Don't let the J.Edgar Hoover (Coastal 'Quack-Quack') 'attacks' get you down B'rer.
But, I see that they do not phase you much.
I don't think you need 'defend' yourself against shills.
The attacks are simply WHAT they do for a living. Don't Feed the Trolls!
While I tend to agree with you on the spiritual aspects, these are not specifically relevant to the title of this thread... (UNLESS these miraculous events were a sign from God)???
Remember that God 'allowed' his 'chosen people' to be enslaved by Nebuchnezzar for His Purposes, BUT ...Let's NOT drift off into religious / theocratic debates on this thread).
Schneibster points out that Usama was trained in civil engineering... So...
... theoretically he would KNOW that IF he hit the Towers in a certain way they would crumble and turn to dust. !!!
This presents a 'Conundrum' for the 'gravity-driven-collapse / 19-evil-muslims' theory, because...
...in the Fake Video Confession first presented to support the 'Official Story'; the fake 'Osama' confessed he had NO IDEA that the aircraft impacts would lead to Complete Global Disproportionate Collapse...
but 'thanks to Allah' this 'miracle' took place???
Simply Amazing stuff, when you think about it. !
It's a pure shame our reptilian brains (Not you) have taken over here. I've always respected your wish to stay out of this and will continue to do so. I've always tried to drawn conclutions from evidence and not belief so I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. (At the risk of giving some here "Chum" I'd like to say we could have been... Mates!) If there is somewhere you think I haven't been unbias please feel free to point it out. I repect your opinion. QUOTE
RC You've always been one of my favorite posters. It's a pure shame our reptilian brains (Not you) have taken over here.
It's a pure shame our reptilian brains (Not you) have taken over here. Not quite 'following you' there schneibster?
Are you saying now 'The Reptilian' anti-zoids have taken over !!! Ohhh My Gosh !!!
It seems there is no end to your straw-man tactics.
Do you really take us for 'Idiots'???
Steve1957 ... we ALL have 'some skeletons' in our closets.
I (for one) appreciate your honesty in confronting past errors.
Don't let the J.Edgar Hoover (Coastal 'Quack-Quack') 'attacks' get you down B'rer.
But, I see that they do not phase you much.
I don't think you need 'defend' yourself against shills.
The attacks are simply WHAT they do for a living. Don't Feed the Trolls!
While I tend to agree with you on the spiritual aspects, these are not specifically relevant to the title of this thread... (UNLESS these miraculous events were a sign from God)???
Remember that God 'allowed' his 'chosen people' to be enslaved by Nebuchnezzar for His Purposes, BUT ...Let's NOT drift off into religious / theocratic debates on this thread).
Schneibster points out that Usama was trained in civil engineering... So...
... theoretically he would KNOW that IF he hit the Towers in a certain way they would crumble and turn to dust. !!!
This presents a 'Conundrum' for the 'gravity-driven-collapse / 19-evil-muslims' theory, because...
...in the Fake Video Confession first presented to support the 'Official Story'; the fake 'Osama' confessed he had NO IDEA that the aircraft impacts would lead to Complete Global Disproportionate Collapse...
but 'thanks to Allah' this 'miracle' took place???
Simply Amazing stuff, when you think about it. !
QUOTE
Common Sense lies repeatedly.
His lies do great disservice to the victims, their families, the firemen, the police, and all the rescue workers involved.
He has been shown evidence that "The Jersey Girls" and other victims family members are not satisfied and want answers to questions they provided prior to the inquiry, most of which were never even addressed.
He has been shown evidence that the investigation was called a "half baked farce" from the outset by fire dept people.
Further evidence has been provided showing police members and firemen suspect/know explosives were involved.
His attitude to the Zogby poll shows the contempt he holds for the people of New York
emphasis mine.
Not necessarily contempt, but at least indifference.
When Stinnet gave lectures on his blockbuster "Day of Deceit", some family members of those killed at Pearl Harbor would break out in tears. This is 60 years after that deceitful atrocity. One can well imagine the insults that "Common Sense" would have hurled at Stinnet and those family members, if he had been present.
I do feel sorry for anybody who lost a loved one on 911 who may be unfortunate enough to read the pope-ish and nasty writings of the likes of "Common Sense".
I would remind such folks that this temporal existence has never been one for anything like perfect justice, and that real healing has to come from a place deeper than any judicial constructs of man, and more Eternal even than the laws of physics.
My efforts in ferreting out 911 truth is not really aimed at procuring justice or even a full accounting. It's to prevent other such atrocities from being committed. Though my efforts are not essentially for their benefit, I would still consider it an honor if any 911 survivors took solace in this.
My best wishes for a Healing New Year, if not a Happy New Year, to anybody still grieving a loss from that day.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 2 2006, 05:27 AM)
QUOTE
Common Sense lies repeatedly.
His lies do great disservice to the victims, their families, the firemen, the police, and all the rescue workers involved.
He has been shown evidence that "The Jersey Girls" and other victims family members are not satisfied and want answers to questions they provided prior to the inquiry, most of which were never even addressed.
He has been shown evidence that the investigation was called a "half baked farce" from the outset by fire dept people.
Further evidence has been provided showing police members and firemen suspect/know explosives were involved.
His attitude to the Zogby poll shows the contempt he holds for the people of New York
emphasis mine.
Not necessarily contempt, but at least indifference.
When Stinnet gave lectures on his blockbuster "Day of Deceit", some family members of those killed at Pearl Harbor would break out in tears. This is 60 years after that deceitful atrocity. One can well imagine the insults that "Common Sense" would have hurled at Stinnet and those family members, if he had been present.
I do feel sorry for anybody who lost a loved one on 911 who may be unfortunate enough to read the pope-ish and nasty writings of the likes of "Common Sense".
I would remind such folks that this temporal existence has never been one for anything like perfect justice, and that real healing has to come from a place deeper than any judicial constructs of man, and more Eternal even than the laws of physics.
My efforts in ferreting out 911 truth is not really aimed at procuring justice or even a full accounting. It's to prevent other such atrocities from being committed. Though my efforts are not essentially for their benefit, I would still consider it an honor if any 911 survivors took solace in this.
My best wishes for a Healing New Year, if not a Happy New Year, to anybody still grieving a loss from that day.
Well said, metamars. Peace to yours also.
Originally posted by Schneibster (aka - cOMMenSenSE')
Has anyone ever suggested to you that you are a very sick man, 'cOMMonSenSE' ???
This has nothing to do with the tragic events of 9/11.
Please accept my advice and get some psychological help.
You are Really in need of some kindof... psychological help.
Whoops, Sorry metamars... looks like you've been 'outed' by the 'master-outer' 
Somehow... I'm thinking that Schneibster (and his crew) are just NOT GETTING IT?
Let's take a poll.
Who (in their RIGHT MIND) want's to 'associate' themselves with the philosophy of the likes of 'The Schneibster' ???
YID ???
Adoucette ???
QUOTE
OK metamars, time to out you for who you are..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=49811
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=49811
Somehow... I'm thinking that Schneibster (and his crew) are just NOT GETTING IT?
Let's take a poll.
Who (in their RIGHT MIND) want's to 'associate' themselves with the philosophy of the likes of 'The Schneibster' ???
YID ???
Adoucette ???
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 02:09 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'The Pope'
That quote by Foxx from Firehouse.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
That quote by Foxx from Firehouse.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
methinks you are confusing Fire Engineering dot com with Fire House dot com???
Do you have any 'inside' information as to how long FireHouse.com has been in existance?... (I can find no record of it prior to 2002)
As opposed to Fire-Engineering.com ???... (over 100 years as the leading magazine related to fire-engineering questions) ???
Damn CT's have infiltrated ALL walks of life!
No, It was your reference at the end to Fire House dot com that confused me when I typed the post.
But my reference was from Fire Engineering, same as yours.
I've fixed the link, and edited it so it refers to the correct site.
Which, had you looked at the link you would have seen it was to the SAME SITE as you quoted from.
Arthur
If you don't want to go back here's the link again:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20wtc&p=25
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 2 2006, 06:53 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 02:09 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'The Pope'
That quote by Foxx from Firehouse.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
That quote by Foxx from Firehouse.com was from Jan 2002, you know the one where he left out the bit that was CONTRARY to his position.
Well, this is from the same site, Oct 2002
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20WTC&p=25
methinks you are confusing Fire Engineering dot com with Fire House dot com???
Do you have any 'inside' information as to how long FireHouse.com has been in existance?... (I can find no record of it prior to 2002)
As opposed to Fire-Engineering.com ???... (over 100 years as the leading magazine related to fire-engineering questions) ???
Damn CT's have infiltrated ALL walks of life!
No, It was your reference at the end to Fire House dot com that confused me when I typed the post.
But my reference was from Fire Engineering, same as yours.
I've fixed the link, and edited it so it refers to the correct site.
Which, had you looked at the link you would have seen it was to the SAME SITE as you quoted from.
Arthur
If you don't want to go back here's the link again:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20wtc&p=25
I thank you for your correction, your holiness.
Do you understand what you are reading there???
QUOTE
Reality Check,
46 yrs of almost constant research/experiment/problem-solving/trouble-shooting in everything from ditch-digging to aero-space, from law to materials technology etc etc etc. has enabled me to have a wide-ranging appreciation for the actual realities as well as the theories in most real-world situations.
46 yrs of almost constant research/experiment/problem-solving/trouble-shooting in everything from ditch-digging to aero-space, from law to materials technology etc etc etc. has enabled me to have a wide-ranging appreciation for the actual realities as well as the theories in most real-world situations.
If you have a clear perspective that's great, I'm glad. I don't even have a problem when people disagree on what may or may not have happened on 9/11.
When truthful science and truthful mathematics are used to determine as best we can what really happened then great, but what happens all too often in life in general is people sometimes try to sell a fairy tale that has no basis in fact and reality.
It's not just the fairy tale scam that gets my goat, but it's the total obviousness that drives me up the wall.
It's like a guy in court who really did kill someone, but unfortunately there's just not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And in those cases it's understandable why a jury has to let a killer go free, there's just not enough evidence.
But in cases, such as OJ and 9/11 where there is a mountain of evidence that goes well beyond any reasonable scope that's a different story. While there are many mysteries about what really happened on 9/11, there are also many things that are not so mysterious, but in fact OBVIOUS.
So my suggestion is that we focus on what we know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, and then proceed to make further calculations from there.
The fact of the matter is that EXPLOSIVES WERE USED, this is an undeniable physical fact of reality, and there is no honest debate about that, there is however a lot of dishonest and falsified information to try and mislead people away from that hard cold fact of reality.
We know there were explosives used based upon the very best evidence available, including but not limited to the FREE-FALL SPEED FACTOR, the directional path the buildings fell in, the HEAT OF THE METAL, and the multitudes upon multitudes of eye witnesses.
But what we don't know is how the bombs were planted and who planted them and exactly when. These are things that remain a mystery for now, but who knows maybe some new information will come up later on to help shed light on that.
Point being, we need to graduate past the 1st grade, but if we continuously debate over things that are RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS then we're just wasting our time sitting in the first grade, stuck in our desks when we should be moving forward.
Maybe little bush being at booker t elementary school, reading my pet goat has some symbolic meaning to how most people are dealing with these issues. That I don't know, I'm just guessing.
Steve1957..
Have you ever read 'My Pet Goat' ???
I do confess that I have never had the opportunity myself, but it seems that it must be quite an absorbing story !
Have you ever read 'My Pet Goat' ???
I do confess that I have never had the opportunity myself, but it seems that it must be quite an absorbing story !
Quote
The Midgard Serpent, also known as Jormangund, was a monster of Norse mythology.The Midgard Serpent (sometimes called Midgardsorm) was said to circle the Norse world, with its tail in its mouth, an easily recognizable symbol of eternity. This serpent was an ANTAGONISTIC figure in the myths. On a couple of occasions, Thor attempts to kill the serpent, and aids some sailors and fishermen when they get into trouble with the beast. The fact that The Thunder god Thor was great enemies with this beast plays prominently into the Norse myth of Ragnorok, the twilight of the Gods -- the end of the world. In this gigantic battle, the Midgard Serpent comes from the ocean to join in the battle.
Now, think about that bazaar photo schneibster posted! Then, compare the elements of the myth with the myth of schneibster, if you dare?!
The Midgard Serpent, also known as Jormangund, was a monster of Norse mythology.The Midgard Serpent (sometimes called Midgardsorm) was said to circle the Norse world, with its tail in its mouth, an easily recognizable symbol of eternity. This serpent was an ANTAGONISTIC figure in the myths. On a couple of occasions, Thor attempts to kill the serpent, and aids some sailors and fishermen when they get into trouble with the beast. The fact that The Thunder god Thor was great enemies with this beast plays prominently into the Norse myth of Ragnorok, the twilight of the Gods -- the end of the world. In this gigantic battle, the Midgard Serpent comes from the ocean to join in the battle.
Now, think about that bazaar photo schneibster posted! Then, compare the elements of the myth with the myth of schneibster, if you dare?!
Foxx,
Come to think of it, I never did read "My Pet Goat" or "The Pet Goat" or whatever the book was that he was reading, but with the understanding that "We the people" are the employers, and little bush, the employee, "Hired Help" my first reaction is to fire the jerk for neglecting his duties.
His actions on 9/11 alone should be an impeachable offense, it's called dereliction of duty. It's similar to a guard falling asleep on duty, when he's supposed to be guarding the camp.
Even if they never proved little bush aided and abetted in the 9/11 tragedy, at best he should be sent to jail for dereliction of duty.
Of course the Haige might want him first for all the war crimes.
Oops, I got off track from the physics topic, sorry.
Come to think of it, I never did read "My Pet Goat" or "The Pet Goat" or whatever the book was that he was reading, but with the understanding that "We the people" are the employers, and little bush, the employee, "Hired Help" my first reaction is to fire the jerk for neglecting his duties.
His actions on 9/11 alone should be an impeachable offense, it's called dereliction of duty. It's similar to a guard falling asleep on duty, when he's supposed to be guarding the camp.
Even if they never proved little bush aided and abetted in the 9/11 tragedy, at best he should be sent to jail for dereliction of duty.
Of course the Haige might want him first for all the war crimes.
Oops, I got off track from the physics topic, sorry.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 2 2006, 07:57 AM)
Quote
The Midgard Serpent, also known as Jormangund, was a monster of Norse mythology.The Midgard Serpent (sometimes called Midgardsorm) was said to circle the Norse world, with its tail in its mouth, an easily recognizable symbol of eternity. This serpent was an ANTAGONISTIC figure in the myths. On a couple of occasions, Thor attempts to kill the serpent, and aids some sailors and fishermen when they get into trouble with the beast. The fact that The Thunder god Thor was great enemies with this beast plays prominently into the Norse myth of Ragnorok, the twilight of the Gods -- the end of the world. In this gigantic battle, the Midgard Serpent comes from the ocean to join in the battle.
Now, think about that bazaar photo schneibster posted! Then, compare the elements of the myth with the myth of schneibster, if you dare?!
My impression after reading common senses posts are that is a picture of himself and he is in need of urgent medical help. Before abusing him further I think people should show some compassion at least until he gets his head out of his *** (personally, I do not think that will ever happen).
The Midgard Serpent, also known as Jormangund, was a monster of Norse mythology.The Midgard Serpent (sometimes called Midgardsorm) was said to circle the Norse world, with its tail in its mouth, an easily recognizable symbol of eternity. This serpent was an ANTAGONISTIC figure in the myths. On a couple of occasions, Thor attempts to kill the serpent, and aids some sailors and fishermen when they get into trouble with the beast. The fact that The Thunder god Thor was great enemies with this beast plays prominently into the Norse myth of Ragnorok, the twilight of the Gods -- the end of the world. In this gigantic battle, the Midgard Serpent comes from the ocean to join in the battle.
Now, think about that bazaar photo schneibster posted! Then, compare the elements of the myth with the myth of schneibster, if you dare?!
My impression after reading common senses posts are that is a picture of himself and he is in need of urgent medical help. Before abusing him further I think people should show some compassion at least until he gets his head out of his *** (personally, I do not think that will ever happen).
Foxx,
Yes we all have skeletons in the closet
Yes we all have skeletons in the closet
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 2 2006, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 2 2006, 07:57 AM)
Quote
The Midgard Serpent, also known as Jormangund, was a monster of Norse mythology.The Midgard Serpent (sometimes called Midgardsorm) was said to circle the Norse world, with its tail in its mouth, an easily recognizable symbol of eternity. This serpent was an ANTAGONISTIC figure in the myths. On a couple of occasions, Thor attempts to kill the serpent, and aids some sailors and fishermen when they get into trouble with the beast. The fact that The Thunder god Thor was great enemies with this beast plays prominently into the Norse myth of Ragnorok, the twilight of the Gods -- the end of the world. In this gigantic battle, the Midgard Serpent comes from the ocean to join in the battle.
Now, think about that bazaar photo schneibster posted! Then, compare the elements of the myth with the myth of schneibster, if you dare?!
My impression after reading common senses posts are that is a picture of himself and he is in need of urgent medical help. Before abusing him further I think people should show some compassion at least until he gets his head out of his *** (personally, I do not think that will ever happen).
That's putting it mildly.
Do you understand what you are reading there???
Yeah, not ONE reference to a bomb.
Your contention that your view has support from the firefighters is not shown in any article I can find in this esteemed journal.
Arthur
The Midgard Serpent, also known as Jormangund, was a monster of Norse mythology.The Midgard Serpent (sometimes called Midgardsorm) was said to circle the Norse world, with its tail in its mouth, an easily recognizable symbol of eternity. This serpent was an ANTAGONISTIC figure in the myths. On a couple of occasions, Thor attempts to kill the serpent, and aids some sailors and fishermen when they get into trouble with the beast. The fact that The Thunder god Thor was great enemies with this beast plays prominently into the Norse myth of Ragnorok, the twilight of the Gods -- the end of the world. In this gigantic battle, the Midgard Serpent comes from the ocean to join in the battle.
Now, think about that bazaar photo schneibster posted! Then, compare the elements of the myth with the myth of schneibster, if you dare?!
My impression after reading common senses posts are that is a picture of himself and he is in need of urgent medical help. Before abusing him further I think people should show some compassion at least until he gets his head out of his *** (personally, I do not think that will ever happen).
That's putting it mildly.
Post #1 of this thread hasn´t been disproven yet.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 2 2006, 06:59 AM)
Do you understand what you are reading there???
Yeah, not ONE reference to a bomb.
Your contention that your view has support from the firefighters is not shown in any article I can find in this esteemed journal.
Arthur
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Sep 30 2005, 08:09 AM)
Dear All,
I invite everyone reading this to disprove basic Physics and Chemistry I (and many others) have presented regarding the collapse of the World Trade Centre towers.
Please look at this:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collap...of%20Towers.swf
Then consider if NIST is/are correct http://www.physorg.com/news3686.html.
[[ Due to website access problems, I have mirrored this file here]]:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ad.johnson/Co...of%20Towers.swf
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.johnso...of%20Towers.swf
People can disagree with me for sure, but please point out the error in my Physics if you are going to do so.
Thanks for reading.
Andrew Johnson
UK
I guess the two clowns plugging the official
conspiracy theory need to go back to square one.
I invite everyone reading this to disprove basic Physics and Chemistry I (and many others) have presented regarding the collapse of the World Trade Centre towers.
Please look at this:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collap...of%20Towers.swf
Then consider if NIST is/are correct http://www.physorg.com/news3686.html.
[[ Due to website access problems, I have mirrored this file here]]:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ad.johnson/Co...of%20Towers.swf
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.johnso...of%20Towers.swf
People can disagree with me for sure, but please point out the error in my Physics if you are going to do so.
Thanks for reading.
Andrew Johnson
UK
I guess the two clowns plugging the official
conspiracy theory need to go back to square one.
Don´t worry guys; the Chinese kept samples
of the steel to keep Bush and co. in line.
of the steel to keep Bush and co. in line.
Statement after statement doesn't make it so. Saying over and over again "the buildings fall is impossible" doesn't make it so. And in the last 175 pages of this thread that's all people have.
The absurdity of suggesting someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings AND blow them up is in itself stupid. Could you imagine the meeting?...
Government: OK, so we want to cause a tragedy so great the American people will blindly follow us into war... What do you think gentlemen...
Accomplice #1: Well, the Towers are a perfect choice.. It's been bombed before. We can just blame Osama again. We've been priming the American people by having him blow up our warships and our buildings in other countries.
Government: Yeah, good idea! How will we do that?
Accomplice #1: We can hire Osama to get some of his friends to fly planes into it!
Accomplice #2: Wait... I have a better idea, We can BOMB the buildings!
Accomplice #1: Well, that means placing enough bombs into the 110 story building. That's going to take a lot of man power and risk us being uncovered...
Accomplice #2: Yeah but that way your sure to knock it down. Besides, Maybe the hijackers wont make it to the target. Maybe they'll be uncovered!
Accomplice #1 But you don't need to knock it down, all you need is the horrific sight of the planes hitting the buildings. People will get the message. It's an attack on American soil. We'll also have people like the blind sheik to cover for us. We'll put a guy on a train with evidence.
Your plan isn't perfect either you know. Do I have to remind you of Operation Towel Pop? We already tried to embarrass Clinton by knocking it down and failed.
Accomplice #2: Yeah, our bay of pigs, but I say the only way they can get the message is if we knock it down.
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Government: Gentlemen, gentlemen... Please... What the hell, we'll just do both! How do we do that? I mean how do you keep explosions from showing up on TV? We're going to have to investigate this at some point. How do we cover up the seen?
Accomplice #2: But why not just knock it dow...
Government: I've made my decision. continue...
Accomplice #2: OK.. We install charges on every floor so that after the planes hit, we blow each floor under the crash floor one by one, very fast to simulate pancaking. We'll let the building burn a while just for effect. This will also give time for the trusses to sag making it LOOK like a fire caused the building to fall.
Accomplice #1: Nice touch...
Accomplice #2: Why, thank you. ...We'll set a charge off in the middle of the building AFTER the top is on it's way down so everyone thinks the puffs of debris coming from the windows are from the tremendous hypodermic needle like pressure blowing debris from the weakest point in the building.
Government: What about the sound of explosions? Isn't that a dead giveaway?
Accomplice #2: No problem, We'll just let them think it's normal electrical explosions like transformers blowing up or the inicial concrete and Steel and floors hitting the floors below.
Accomplice #1: Yeah, it could also be the steel columns snapping like twigs from the tremendous weight of the floors above... Don't worry, we have disinformation specialists in Key internet forums like physorg.com.
Government: WOW, You guys think of everything.. What about Building 7? Can we take that out at the same time?
Accomplice #1: We wont be able to fly plans into it, that's for sure...
Accomplice #2: Leave it to me. If we set off the explosions just right we can have one of the towers hit Building 7 missing the two next to it. After that we can set fires on the bottom floors and let it burn for a while, you know, to make it look possible for a normal collapse. I'll call my agent in the fire department to get everyone out before we blow it. I'll figure a way to make the floors look buckled for effect as well.
Government: Amassing... I also want to take out the pentagon. Any suggestions?
Accomplice #1: What we'll do is hijack a plane just for effect then fire a missile at the pentagon. A bunker buster.
Government: But what about the people on the plane?
Accomplice #1: We'll land the plane in area 51 then shoot them all.
Government: Why not use the plane instead of the missile? That way you take care of all the evidence at the same time... People on the highway can also see the planes hit. If you use a missile there's going to be a lot of witnesses who saw a missile and not a plan.
Accomplice #1: err... ah, Don't worry about these small details. I have an under cover op in the DC police department who will take the names down and shot them all.
Government: How are you going to get all the people involved in this? Bush isn't exactly loved you know..
Don't worry, psych-ops will take care of the brainwashing of the American people. As for the media, we control the left and the right!
Government: GREAT! Nice work all! Lets make the target date Sept 11 2001.
As Randi Rhodes would say "Yeah, I believe that, I'm there!"
The absurdity of suggesting someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings AND blow them up is in itself stupid. Could you imagine the meeting?...
Government: OK, so we want to cause a tragedy so great the American people will blindly follow us into war... What do you think gentlemen...
Accomplice #1: Well, the Towers are a perfect choice.. It's been bombed before. We can just blame Osama again. We've been priming the American people by having him blow up our warships and our buildings in other countries.
Government: Yeah, good idea! How will we do that?
Accomplice #1: We can hire Osama to get some of his friends to fly planes into it!
Accomplice #2: Wait... I have a better idea, We can BOMB the buildings!
Accomplice #1: Well, that means placing enough bombs into the 110 story building. That's going to take a lot of man power and risk us being uncovered...
Accomplice #2: Yeah but that way your sure to knock it down. Besides, Maybe the hijackers wont make it to the target. Maybe they'll be uncovered!
Accomplice #1 But you don't need to knock it down, all you need is the horrific sight of the planes hitting the buildings. People will get the message. It's an attack on American soil. We'll also have people like the blind sheik to cover for us. We'll put a guy on a train with evidence.
Your plan isn't perfect either you know. Do I have to remind you of Operation Towel Pop? We already tried to embarrass Clinton by knocking it down and failed.
Accomplice #2: Yeah, our bay of pigs, but I say the only way they can get the message is if we knock it down.
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Accomplice #1 Do not
Accomplice #2 Do too
Government: Gentlemen, gentlemen... Please... What the hell, we'll just do both!
How do we do that? I mean how do you keep explosions from showing up on TV? We're going to have to investigate this at some point. How do we cover up the seen?Accomplice #2: But why not just knock it dow...
Government: I've made my decision. continue...
Accomplice #2: OK.. We install charges on every floor so that after the planes hit, we blow each floor under the crash floor one by one, very fast to simulate pancaking. We'll let the building burn a while just for effect. This will also give time for the trusses to sag making it LOOK like a fire caused the building to fall.
Accomplice #1: Nice touch...
Accomplice #2: Why, thank you.
...We'll set a charge off in the middle of the building AFTER the top is on it's way down so everyone thinks the puffs of debris coming from the windows are from the tremendous hypodermic needle like pressure blowing debris from the weakest point in the building.Government: What about the sound of explosions? Isn't that a dead giveaway?
Accomplice #2: No problem, We'll just let them think it's normal electrical explosions like transformers blowing up or the inicial concrete and Steel and floors hitting the floors below.
Accomplice #1: Yeah, it could also be the steel columns snapping like twigs from the tremendous weight of the floors above... Don't worry, we have disinformation specialists in Key internet forums like physorg.com.
Government: WOW, You guys think of everything.. What about Building 7? Can we take that out at the same time?
Accomplice #1: We wont be able to fly plans into it, that's for sure...
Accomplice #2: Leave it to me. If we set off the explosions just right we can have one of the towers hit Building 7 missing the two next to it. After that we can set fires on the bottom floors and let it burn for a while, you know, to make it look possible for a normal collapse. I'll call my agent in the fire department to get everyone out before we blow it. I'll figure a way to make the floors look buckled for effect as well.
Government: Amassing... I also want to take out the pentagon. Any suggestions?
Accomplice #1: What we'll do is hijack a plane just for effect then fire a missile at the pentagon. A bunker buster.
Government: But what about the people on the plane?
Accomplice #1: We'll land the plane in area 51 then shoot them all.
Government: Why not use the plane instead of the missile? That way you take care of all the evidence at the same time... People on the highway can also see the planes hit. If you use a missile there's going to be a lot of witnesses who saw a missile and not a plan.
Accomplice #1: err... ah, Don't worry about these small details. I have an under cover op in the DC police department who will take the names down and shot them all.
Government: How are you going to get all the people involved in this? Bush isn't exactly loved you know..
Don't worry, psych-ops will take care of the brainwashing of the American people. As for the media, we control the left and the right!
Government: GREAT! Nice work all! Lets make the target date Sept 11 2001.
As Randi Rhodes would say "Yeah, I believe that, I'm there!"
Ridiculous nonsense.
Reality Check gives us this below -
"46 yrs of almost constant research/experiment/problem-solving/trouble-shooting in everything from ditch-digging to aero-space, from law to materials technology etc etc etc. has enabled me to have a wide-ranging appreciation for the actual realities as well as the theories in most real-world situations."
Reality Check's "constant research" led him to be one of the first on this thread to state the towers were hollow tubes, no central core so giving the pancake theory plausability.
Did Reality Check apologise for his misleading post? Did the factual information he was given in response to his misinformation have any appreciable effect on his understanding of "the actual realities" of the situation?
Will Common Sense reappear as Muck Raker?
-------
Mainstream media -
Paul Thompsons 911 timeline at "Cooperative Research" is made up of reports gleaned on the whole from mainstream sources. It is a massive catalogue of related material which in and of itself offers more than enough information to completely destroy the official line. Reports sourced from the UK Guardian alone are sufficient to underline the need for a genuine inquiry. The main problem seems that whilst reporting the huge number of anomilies no journalist is prepared to connect the dots and at the same time these papers run endless uncritical pieces which underpin the huge September 11 lie.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/aboutsite.jsp
Andrew Johnson has pointed out the numbers relating to this thread and posed the what now question. It's simple - no one can reasonably disagree that a genuinely independent inquiry is desirable even if only to understand the why these buildings collapsed for future safety. This was clearly beyond NIST.
So, it is in the interests of the greater good that an independent inquiry is established as soon as possible and it is important that each and every one makes their own contribution towards reaching the critical mass required to make this inevitable. metamars suggestions here are valuable.
For those readers who have no wish to join in the "conspiracy theory" debate or to be labled such they have no need, all that is required of each is to recognise that major questions need answered and the only way they will be answered is a genuinely independent inquiry - and to add in their way or locale to the call for one.
An aside - on one of the videos of the various 911 truth meetings one of the participants being interviewd afterwards called for an inquiry, saying it could be headed by such as George Schultz - not what most have in mind as independent to say the least. The point being, if critical mass is being approached there will no doubt be a huge effort to keep the supposed independent inquiry in house once more.
Anyone know who it was touting Schultz, I cannot recall.
"46 yrs of almost constant research/experiment/problem-solving/trouble-shooting in everything from ditch-digging to aero-space, from law to materials technology etc etc etc. has enabled me to have a wide-ranging appreciation for the actual realities as well as the theories in most real-world situations."
Reality Check's "constant research" led him to be one of the first on this thread to state the towers were hollow tubes, no central core so giving the pancake theory plausability.
Did Reality Check apologise for his misleading post? Did the factual information he was given in response to his misinformation have any appreciable effect on his understanding of "the actual realities" of the situation?
Will Common Sense reappear as Muck Raker?
-------
Mainstream media -
Paul Thompsons 911 timeline at "Cooperative Research" is made up of reports gleaned on the whole from mainstream sources. It is a massive catalogue of related material which in and of itself offers more than enough information to completely destroy the official line. Reports sourced from the UK Guardian alone are sufficient to underline the need for a genuine inquiry. The main problem seems that whilst reporting the huge number of anomilies no journalist is prepared to connect the dots and at the same time these papers run endless uncritical pieces which underpin the huge September 11 lie.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/aboutsite.jsp
Andrew Johnson has pointed out the numbers relating to this thread and posed the what now question. It's simple - no one can reasonably disagree that a genuinely independent inquiry is desirable even if only to understand the why these buildings collapsed for future safety. This was clearly beyond NIST.
So, it is in the interests of the greater good that an independent inquiry is established as soon as possible and it is important that each and every one makes their own contribution towards reaching the critical mass required to make this inevitable. metamars suggestions here are valuable.
For those readers who have no wish to join in the "conspiracy theory" debate or to be labled such they have no need, all that is required of each is to recognise that major questions need answered and the only way they will be answered is a genuinely independent inquiry - and to add in their way or locale to the call for one.
An aside - on one of the videos of the various 911 truth meetings one of the participants being interviewd afterwards called for an inquiry, saying it could be headed by such as George Schultz - not what most have in mind as independent to say the least. The point being, if critical mass is being approached there will no doubt be a huge effort to keep the supposed independent inquiry in house once more.
Anyone know who it was touting Schultz, I cannot recall.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 2 2006, 03:51 PM)
Statement after statement doesn't make it so. Saying over and over again "the buildings fall is impossible" doesn't make it so. And in the last 175 pages of this thread that's all people have.
The absurdity of suggesting someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings AND blow them up is in itself stupid. Could you imagine the meeting?...
As Randi Rhodes would say "Yeah, I believe that, I'm there!"
Could you imagine the meeting?...
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp.
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
The absurdity of suggesting someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings AND blow them up is in itself stupid. Could you imagine the meeting?...
As Randi Rhodes would say "Yeah, I believe that, I'm there!"
Could you imagine the meeting?...
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp.
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 2 2006, 04:14 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 2 2006, 03:51 PM)
Statement after statement doesn't make it so. Saying over and over again "the buildings fall is impossible" doesn't make it so. And in the last 175 pages of this thread that's all people have.
The absurdity of suggesting someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings AND blow them up is in itself stupid. Could you imagine the meeting?...
As Randi Rhodes would say "Yeah, I believe that, I'm there!"
Could you imagine the meeting?...
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp.
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
It has nothing to do with wanting to take the buildings down. It's the absurdity of HOW the CT's suggest they took the buildings down.
But this is exactly my point anyway, This was also thought to be absurd and scraped. It was one of many ideas. You also have evidence in the memo which if they DID carry it out there would have proof. Do you have a memo or any other evidence like the one you posted showing a conspiracy like this on the WTC?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
Not one American was going to be killed as a result of this even IF they did it which they didn't.
You are suggesting that the government would do this KNOWING at some point in history these memos would come out due to the freedom of information act. An act passed well AFTER 1962.
Could it be people are willing to except the 9/11 CT's because of things like this memo which weren't even carried out?
Don't get me wrong, I can tell you of a lot of atrocities not only this country did but this administration. All I'm looking for is evidence.
Among the U.S. alternative media and/or U.S. anti-war NGOs
that were given additional grants by the U.S. Establishment's
Ford Foundation in 2005 were the following:
1. F.A.I.R./CounterSpin ($50,000);
2. Pacific News Service ($800,000);
3. Ploughshares Fund ($2.25 million);
4. Link Media ($1.8 milliion);
5. Bay Area Video Coalition ($50,000);
6. Center for Investigative Reporting ($150,000);
7. La Pena ($150,000);
8. Global Action Project ($150,000); and
9. Prometheus Radio ($200,000).
The Ford Foundation has apparently still not divested itself
from U.S. companies that manufacture weapons for the
Pentagon for use in the U.S. government's endless
military intervention in Iraq.
Theirs a book out saying they followed the money concerning Michael Moore. They said he invested in the Carlyle group which was a total fabrication. Moore doesn't own a dollar in stock. They also had a book saying Al Franken sends his kids to a school which teaches abstinence plus suggesting hes a hypocrite. The fact is they did send his child to a school with abstinence plus education. Guess what the "Plus" was. It means it's not Abstinence "only" which is what hes against. So I need not only evidence these orgs get money from foundations but that those foundations send memos or some other form of communication to the people it gives money to. We KNOW Fox news is a hack because we have memos telling reporters what and how to report. We even have reporters who have come out saying as much.
It would also benifit the reoublicans if the liberals thought the liberal media is corrupt. How do we know LGK isn't paid by the right? I'm not saying they are but who's doing the same to LGK?
Blatantly political policy-oriented output on the part of Heritage and many conservative think-tanks have blurred the line between research and advocacy. Right-wing donors support independent ideologically-grounded capacity while liberal donors, such as the Ford Foundation, shy away from funding broad ideology in favor of targeted policies and issues, such as civil rights.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0606-10.htm
Not every foundation is right wing. Not every left wing group is a hack and not every left wing group is in America. You still haven't answered why no one in the foreign press wants to touch this.
A fair question (if you mean the demolition via explosisives hypothesis), although you're pre-supposing no foreign media did. That's not a given. Furthermore, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that actors in the US would subvert the media here, and not attempt to do so in foreign countries.
In fact, I once had a chat with a Canadian who told me that they knew all about the conspiratorial aspects of the JFK assassination in Canada, and it was just here in the US that the media was censored. Foxx, any input on this? (Of course, even a free Canadian press in the 60's doesn't mean there's still one now.)
Anyway, let's assume that there has been no serious look into demolition via explosives in the foreign media, across the entire world.
I don't have the time or resources to look into this deeply. Besides which, this is supposed to primarily be a physics forum. However, any activists reading this who does have time or resources, feel free. Posting a lot of info on some other board, and links here, seems appropriate.
As to the notion that the US doesn't influence reporting in foreign media at all, that is easy to debunk. The JFK assassination "official story" was obviously inserted into new streams that hit foreign media in an incompetent, but revealing fashion:
http://www.jfk-info.com/discus/messages/73....html?986172979
A fair question (if you mean the demolition via explosisives hypothesis), although you're pre-supposing no foreign media did. That's not a given. Furthermore, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that actors in the US would subvert the media here, and not attempt to do so in foreign countries.
In fact, I once had a chat with a Canadian who told me that they knew all about the conspiratorial aspects of the JFK assassination in Canada, and it was just here in the US that the media was censored. Foxx, any input on this? (Of course, even a free Canadian press in the 60's doesn't mean there's still one now.)
Anyway, let's assume that there has been no serious look into demolition via explosives in the foreign media, across the entire world.
I don't have the time or resources to look into this deeply. Besides which, this is supposed to primarily be a physics forum. However, any activists reading this who does have time or resources, feel free. Posting a lot of info on some other board, and links here, seems appropriate.
As to the notion that the US doesn't influence reporting in foreign media at all, that is easy to debunk. The JFK assassination "official story" was obviously inserted into new streams that hit foreign media in an incompetent, but revealing fashion:
http://www.jfk-info.com/discus/messages/73....html?986172979
Prouty: To put the times in perspective: JFK was killed in Dallas at about 12:30 in the afternoon. That corresponded to 7:30 in the morning in Christchurch, New Zealand. I got the paper before noon, which was, we'll say 7:30 to noon -- that would mean, in Dallas, about 4:30 in the afternoon. Oswald hadn't even been charged by the police with the murder -- with the shooting of the President -- by 4:30 in the afternoon. How did the papers get the information to say that, before that time? Then the rest of the things that are in the paper also are equally unfounded. the paper was saying what the police were going to say some eight hours later. It had to have been a set-up job to put that information in the papers -- and such a lot of information -- I'm only quoting a few things. The articles that I'm talking about were on the front page. They also had follow-on in the back pages of the paper. It was filled with facts about Oswald that most people didn't know for days and days in the rest of the country.
(Fletcher Prouty is the real life analog of X in Oliver STone's JFK movie)
As to the notion that the US doesn't influence events in foreign countries, even to the point of false-flag terrorism in allies ( the logic here is that if you're willing to facilitate organizations that murder innocents in an allied country, manipulating the media there is not beyond your ethics; the logic is NOT A implies B, but rather willingness to do A implies willingness to do B )
The US was instrumental in establishing Operation Gladio in Europe, officially to counter a possible Warsaw Pact invasion. However, it's main claim to fame was terrorism against fellow citizens.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio
"In 2000, a Parliament Commission report from the "Gruppo Democratici di Sinistra l'Ulivo" concluded that the strategy of tension had been supported by the United States to "stop the PCI, and to a certain degree also the PSI, from reaching executive power in the country". A 2000 Senate report, stated that "Those massacres, those bombs, those military actions had been organized or promoted or supported by men inside Italian state institutions and, as has been discovered more recently, by men linked to the structures of United States intelligence." According to Daniele Ganser, General Gianadelio Maletti, former head of Italian counterintelligence, confirmed in March 2001 that the CIA might have promoted terrorism in Italy [5]."
....
"In November 1995, Neo-Fascists terrorists Valerio Fioravanti and Francesca Mambro were convicted to life imprisonment as executors of the 1980 Bologna massacre, for which Gladio's direct influence has been accused; Licio Gelli, headmaster of P2 and former OSS/CIA operative, received a sentence for investigation diversion, as well as Francesco Pazienza and SISMI officers Pietro Musumeci and Giuseppe Belmonte."
Yesitdid said
"If one has a theory that says that the columns should bow outward"
Thermal expansion is not a theory - it is accepted scientific fact, by all it seems, except the authors of the NIST report.
G
Well the New Year's weekend has been nice. Forgive me the fact that i have a life if my response is somewhat slow.
Yes gordon I accept thermal expansion as fact. I also accept the inward bowing obsevred in the towers.
My point was that if thermal expansion is used as the basis of the theory that the perimeter columns had to bow outward then the theory that they had to bow outward is WRONG. The fact remains that they bowed inward.
10:06 amNYPD aviation unit advises everybody to evacuate the area in the vicinity of Battery Park City and states that, about 15 floors from the top, it is totally glowing red on the inside and collapse was inevitable
The north tower, 1 WTC, was struck at 8:46:26 am and collapsed at 10:28:31 am.
2 questions.
1)why was it glowing "totally red" in the middle?
2)why, if 23 minutes before the eventual collapse when it was stated collapse was inevitable , there were people inside the building still, who were still not informed of the imminent danger?
Goes to one of the main points made by FEMA and NIST. That communications between agencies was very poor. The quote is from an NYPD helicopter, this would be relayed to NYPD brass, then to commanders and finally to the police on the scene. In fact (and please do anot ask me to find it again) there were reports by firemen that police were coming down the stairs and talking to the FF about immenent collapse. The FF commanders did not issue a pull out order but the police did. FF continued into the building because they had not been ordered out.
"totally red in the middle", would be a description of what the fire floor looked like from the helicopter where it was possible to see straight into the windows. In other words there was a raging fire in the interior of the building.
The absurdity of suggesting someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings AND blow them up is in itself stupid. Could you imagine the meeting?...
As Randi Rhodes would say "Yeah, I believe that, I'm there!"
Could you imagine the meeting?...
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp.
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
It has nothing to do with wanting to take the buildings down. It's the absurdity of HOW the CT's suggest they took the buildings down.
But this is exactly my point anyway, This was also thought to be absurd and scraped. It was one of many ideas. You also have evidence in the memo which if they DID carry it out there would have proof. Do you have a memo or any other evidence like the one you posted showing a conspiracy like this on the WTC?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
Not one American was going to be killed as a result of this even IF they did it which they didn't.
You are suggesting that the government would do this KNOWING at some point in history these memos would come out due to the freedom of information act. An act passed well AFTER 1962.
Could it be people are willing to except the 9/11 CT's because of things like this memo which weren't even carried out?
Don't get me wrong, I can tell you of a lot of atrocities not only this country did but this administration. All I'm looking for is evidence.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 2 2006, 04:22 AM)
QUOTE
Among the U.S. alternative media and/or U.S. anti-war NGOs
that were given additional grants by the U.S. Establishment's
Ford Foundation in 2005 were the following:
1. F.A.I.R./CounterSpin ($50,000);
2. Pacific News Service ($800,000);
3. Ploughshares Fund ($2.25 million);
4. Link Media ($1.8 milliion);
5. Bay Area Video Coalition ($50,000);
6. Center for Investigative Reporting ($150,000);
7. La Pena ($150,000);
8. Global Action Project ($150,000); and
9. Prometheus Radio ($200,000).
The Ford Foundation has apparently still not divested itself
from U.S. companies that manufacture weapons for the
Pentagon for use in the U.S. government's endless
military intervention in Iraq.
Theirs a book out saying they followed the money concerning Michael Moore. They said he invested in the Carlyle group which was a total fabrication. Moore doesn't own a dollar in stock. They also had a book saying Al Franken sends his kids to a school which teaches abstinence plus suggesting hes a hypocrite. The fact is they did send his child to a school with abstinence plus education. Guess what the "Plus" was. It means it's not Abstinence "only" which is what hes against. So I need not only evidence these orgs get money from foundations but that those foundations send memos or some other form of communication to the people it gives money to. We KNOW Fox news is a hack because we have memos telling reporters what and how to report. We even have reporters who have come out saying as much.
It would also benifit the reoublicans if the liberals thought the liberal media is corrupt. How do we know LGK isn't paid by the right? I'm not saying they are but who's doing the same to LGK?
Blatantly political policy-oriented output on the part of Heritage and many conservative think-tanks have blurred the line between research and advocacy. Right-wing donors support independent ideologically-grounded capacity while liberal donors, such as the Ford Foundation, shy away from funding broad ideology in favor of targeted policies and issues, such as civil rights.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0606-10.htm
Not every foundation is right wing. Not every left wing group is a hack and not every left wing group is in America. You still haven't answered why no one in the foreign press wants to touch this.
cOmMoN sEnSe
Don't get me wrong, I can tell you of a lot of atrocities not only this country did but this administration. All I'm looking for is evidence.
It's true that all men lie at various times in their life, but I'm curious "Do you ever tell the truth"?
When you say all you're looking for is evidence, don't you think these people can see right through your BS?
It's not just the stuff I've posted, but numerous other posts that include undeniable evidence that proves without a doubt EXPLOSIVES WERE USED, and each and every time without fail you bury your head up your behind, like your picture and pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
As if reality will go away just because you refuse to see it.
Regarding the eyewitnesses of bombs in the building there are hundreds and hundreds of VERIFYABLE bits of information that include police, firemen, etc. etc.
So don't even try to pass of your BS story of "All I'm looking for is evidence"
Now click this link and tell us all your sorry for making a complete As# out of yourself by denying the fact that bombs were planted.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/fireman1.htm
or try this link
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911summary.htm
or this link
http://www.iwilltryit.com/walter1.htm
Or it will become even more obvious that the picture you love to display about the guy with his head up his behind is really you.
Don't get me wrong, I can tell you of a lot of atrocities not only this country did but this administration. All I'm looking for is evidence.
It's true that all men lie at various times in their life, but I'm curious "Do you ever tell the truth"?
When you say all you're looking for is evidence, don't you think these people can see right through your BS?
It's not just the stuff I've posted, but numerous other posts that include undeniable evidence that proves without a doubt EXPLOSIVES WERE USED, and each and every time without fail you bury your head up your behind, like your picture and pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
As if reality will go away just because you refuse to see it.
Regarding the eyewitnesses of bombs in the building there are hundreds and hundreds of VERIFYABLE bits of information that include police, firemen, etc. etc.
So don't even try to pass of your BS story of "All I'm looking for is evidence"
Now click this link and tell us all your sorry for making a complete As# out of yourself by denying the fact that bombs were planted.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/fireman1.htm
or try this link
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911summary.htm
or this link
http://www.iwilltryit.com/walter1.htm
Or it will become even more obvious that the picture you love to display about the guy with his head up his behind is really you.
QUOTE
You still haven't answered why no one in the foreign press wants to touch this.
A fair question (if you mean the demolition via explosisives hypothesis), although you're pre-supposing no foreign media did. That's not a given. Furthermore, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that actors in the US would subvert the media here, and not attempt to do so in foreign countries.
In fact, I once had a chat with a Canadian who told me that they knew all about the conspiratorial aspects of the JFK assassination in Canada, and it was just here in the US that the media was censored. Foxx, any input on this? (Of course, even a free Canadian press in the 60's doesn't mean there's still one now.)
Anyway, let's assume that there has been no serious look into demolition via explosives in the foreign media, across the entire world.
I don't have the time or resources to look into this deeply. Besides which, this is supposed to primarily be a physics forum. However, any activists reading this who does have time or resources, feel free. Posting a lot of info on some other board, and links here, seems appropriate.
As to the notion that the US doesn't influence reporting in foreign media at all, that is easy to debunk. The JFK assassination "official story" was obviously inserted into new streams that hit foreign media in an incompetent, but revealing fashion:
http://www.jfk-info.com/discus/messages/73....html?986172979
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You still haven't answered why no one in the foreign press wants to touch this. |
A fair question (if you mean the demolition via explosisives hypothesis), although you're pre-supposing no foreign media did. That's not a given. Furthermore, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that actors in the US would subvert the media here, and not attempt to do so in foreign countries.
In fact, I once had a chat with a Canadian who told me that they knew all about the conspiratorial aspects of the JFK assassination in Canada, and it was just here in the US that the media was censored. Foxx, any input on this? (Of course, even a free Canadian press in the 60's doesn't mean there's still one now.)
Anyway, let's assume that there has been no serious look into demolition via explosives in the foreign media, across the entire world.
I don't have the time or resources to look into this deeply. Besides which, this is supposed to primarily be a physics forum. However, any activists reading this who does have time or resources, feel free. Posting a lot of info on some other board, and links here, seems appropriate.
As to the notion that the US doesn't influence reporting in foreign media at all, that is easy to debunk. The JFK assassination "official story" was obviously inserted into new streams that hit foreign media in an incompetent, but revealing fashion:
http://www.jfk-info.com/discus/messages/73....html?986172979
Prouty: To put the times in perspective: JFK was killed in Dallas at about 12:30 in the afternoon. That corresponded to 7:30 in the morning in Christchurch, New Zealand. I got the paper before noon, which was, we'll say 7:30 to noon -- that would mean, in Dallas, about 4:30 in the afternoon. Oswald hadn't even been charged by the police with the murder -- with the shooting of the President -- by 4:30 in the afternoon. How did the papers get the information to say that, before that time? Then the rest of the things that are in the paper also are equally unfounded. the paper was saying what the police were going to say some eight hours later. It had to have been a set-up job to put that information in the papers -- and such a lot of information -- I'm only quoting a few things. The articles that I'm talking about were on the front page. They also had follow-on in the back pages of the paper. It was filled with facts about Oswald that most people didn't know for days and days in the rest of the country.
(Fletcher Prouty is the real life analog of X in Oliver STone's JFK movie)
As to the notion that the US doesn't influence events in foreign countries, even to the point of false-flag terrorism in allies ( the logic here is that if you're willing to facilitate organizations that murder innocents in an allied country, manipulating the media there is not beyond your ethics; the logic is NOT A implies B, but rather willingness to do A implies willingness to do B )
The US was instrumental in establishing Operation Gladio in Europe, officially to counter a possible Warsaw Pact invasion. However, it's main claim to fame was terrorism against fellow citizens.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio
QUOTE
"In 2000, a Parliament Commission report from the "Gruppo Democratici di Sinistra l'Ulivo" concluded that the strategy of tension had been supported by the United States to "stop the PCI, and to a certain degree also the PSI, from reaching executive power in the country". A 2000 Senate report, stated that "Those massacres, those bombs, those military actions had been organized or promoted or supported by men inside Italian state institutions and, as has been discovered more recently, by men linked to the structures of United States intelligence." According to Daniele Ganser, General Gianadelio Maletti, former head of Italian counterintelligence, confirmed in March 2001 that the CIA might have promoted terrorism in Italy [5]."
....
"In November 1995, Neo-Fascists terrorists Valerio Fioravanti and Francesca Mambro were convicted to life imprisonment as executors of the 1980 Bologna massacre, for which Gladio's direct influence has been accused; Licio Gelli, headmaster of P2 and former OSS/CIA operative, received a sentence for investigation diversion, as well as Francesco Pazienza and SISMI officers Pietro Musumeci and Giuseppe Belmonte."
Total BS
Prouty: To put the times in perspective: JFK was killed in Dallas at about 12:30 in the afternoon. That corresponded to 7:30 in the morning in Christchurch, New Zealand. I got the paper before noon, which was, we'll say 7:30 to noon -- that would mean, in Dallas, about 4:30 in the afternoon. Oswald hadn't even been charged by the police with the murder -- with the shooting of the President -- by 4:30 in the afternoon. How did the papers get the information to say that, before that time? Then the rest of the things that are in the paper also are equally unfounded. the paper was saying what the police were going to say some eight hours later. It had to have been a set-up job to put that information in the papers -- and such a lot of information -- I'm only quoting a few things. The articles that I'm talking about were on the front page. They also had follow-on in the back pages of the paper. It was filled with facts about Oswald that most people didn't know for days and days in the rest of the country.
PEOPLE AREN'T THAT STUPID.
IF THIS WERE TRUE IT WOULD MEAN THE WHOLE THING WAS SET UP IN ADVANCE, WHICH OF COURSE THE NZ PAPERS WOULD KNOW SINCE THEY WOULD BE PRINTING THINGS THAT HADN'T HAPPENED YET. BUT THEY DON'T MENTION THAT CURIOSITY IN THE STORY????
ALL NEW ZEALANDERS WHO CAN DO BASIC MATH (not just Prouty) WOULD ALSO KNOW.
But not one word of this got back to the States, what phones hadn't been introduced to NZ in 63?
By the way, the afternoon edition of the NZ paper would be a REAL collectors item.
I mean its EASY to find a "Dewey Beats Truman" paper.
See if you can find one of the NZ paper.
Is there NO LIMIT to what you are willing to believe if it fits your pre-conceived notions?
Arthur
QUOTE
Prouty: To put the times in perspective: JFK was killed in Dallas at about 12:30 in the afternoon. That corresponded to 7:30 in the morning in Christchurch, New Zealand. I got the paper before noon, which was, we'll say 7:30 to noon -- that would mean, in Dallas, about 4:30 in the afternoon. Oswald hadn't even been charged by the police with the murder -- with the shooting of the President -- by 4:30 in the afternoon. How did the papers get the information to say that, before that time? Then the rest of the things that are in the paper also are equally unfounded. the paper was saying what the police were going to say some eight hours later. It had to have been a set-up job to put that information in the papers -- and such a lot of information -- I'm only quoting a few things. The articles that I'm talking about were on the front page. They also had follow-on in the back pages of the paper. It was filled with facts about Oswald that most people didn't know for days and days in the rest of the country.
PEOPLE AREN'T THAT STUPID.
IF THIS WERE TRUE IT WOULD MEAN THE WHOLE THING WAS SET UP IN ADVANCE, WHICH OF COURSE THE NZ PAPERS WOULD KNOW SINCE THEY WOULD BE PRINTING THINGS THAT HADN'T HAPPENED YET. BUT THEY DON'T MENTION THAT CURIOSITY IN THE STORY????
ALL NEW ZEALANDERS WHO CAN DO BASIC MATH (not just Prouty) WOULD ALSO KNOW.
But not one word of this got back to the States, what phones hadn't been introduced to NZ in 63?
By the way, the afternoon edition of the NZ paper would be a REAL collectors item.
I mean its EASY to find a "Dewey Beats Truman" paper.
See if you can find one of the NZ paper.
Is there NO LIMIT to what you are willing to believe if it fits your pre-conceived notions?
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Dec 30 2005, 11:36 PM)
Yesitdid said
"If one has a theory that says that the columns should bow outward"
Thermal expansion is not a theory - it is accepted scientific fact, by all it seems, except the authors of the NIST report.
G
Well the New Year's weekend has been nice. Forgive me the fact that i have a life if my response is somewhat slow.
Yes gordon I accept thermal expansion as fact. I also accept the inward bowing obsevred in the towers.
My point was that if thermal expansion is used as the basis of the theory that the perimeter columns had to bow outward then the theory that they had to bow outward is WRONG. The fact remains that they bowed inward.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 31 2005, 12:01 AM)
QUOTE
10:06 amNYPD aviation unit advises everybody to evacuate the area in the vicinity of Battery Park City and states that, about 15 floors from the top, it is totally glowing red on the inside and collapse was inevitable
The north tower, 1 WTC, was struck at 8:46:26 am and collapsed at 10:28:31 am.
2 questions.
1)why was it glowing "totally red" in the middle?
2)why, if 23 minutes before the eventual collapse when it was stated collapse was inevitable , there were people inside the building still, who were still not informed of the imminent danger?
Goes to one of the main points made by FEMA and NIST. That communications between agencies was very poor. The quote is from an NYPD helicopter, this would be relayed to NYPD brass, then to commanders and finally to the police on the scene. In fact (and please do anot ask me to find it again) there were reports by firemen that police were coming down the stairs and talking to the FF about immenent collapse. The FF commanders did not issue a pull out order but the police did. FF continued into the building because they had not been ordered out.
"totally red in the middle", would be a description of what the fire floor looked like from the helicopter where it was possible to see straight into the windows. In other words there was a raging fire in the interior of the building.
yesdidt,
Neither one of you was able to wiggle out of the undeniable proof of what the police, fireman and others testified to.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/walter1.htm
Nobody in their right mind can watch this PROOF and still support the fairy tale, but there are many who aren't in their right mind.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911summary.htm
Neither one of you was able to wiggle out of the undeniable proof of what the police, fireman and others testified to.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/walter1.htm
Nobody in their right mind can watch this PROOF and still support the fairy tale, but there are many who aren't in their right mind.
http://www.iwilltryit.com/911summary.htm
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 2 2006, 09:56 PM)
Total BS
Prouty: To put the times in perspective: JFK was killed in Dallas at about 12:30 in the afternoon. That corresponded to 7:30 in the morning in Christchurch, New Zealand. I got the paper before noon, which was, we'll say 7:30 to noon -- that would mean, in Dallas, about 4:30 in the afternoon. Oswald hadn't even been charged by the police with the murder -- with the shooting of the President -- by 4:30 in the afternoon. How did the papers get the information to say that, before that time? Then the rest of the things that are in the paper also are equally unfounded. the paper was saying what the police were going to say some eight hours later. It had to have been a set-up job to put that information in the papers -- and such a lot of information -- I'm only quoting a few things. The articles that I'm talking about were on the front page. They also had follow-on in the back pages of the paper. It was filled with facts about Oswald that most people didn't know for days and days in the rest of the country.
PEOPLE AREN'T THAT STUPID.
IF THIS WERE TRUE IT WOULD MEAN THE WHOLE THING WAS SET UP IN ADVANCE, WHICH OF COURSE THE NZ PAPERS WOULD KNOW SINCE THEY WOULD BE PRINTING THINGS THAT HADN'T HAPPENED YET. BUT THEY DON'T MENTION THAT CURIOSITY IN THE STORY????
ALL NEW ZEALANDERS WHO CAN DO BASIC MATH (not just Prouty) WOULD ALSO KNOW.
But not one word of this got back to the States, what phones hadn't been introduced to NZ in 63?
By the way, the afternoon edition of the NZ paper would be a REAL collectors item.
I mean its EASY to find a "Dewey Beats Truman" paper.
See if you can find one of the NZ paper.
Is there NO LIMIT to what you are willing to believe if it fits your pre-conceived notions?
Arthur
You can read about it here and they have the paper:
http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Heritage/Star23Nov1963/
I do not believe Oliver Stone’s version of the conspiracy or the Warren Commissions lone gunman.
QUOTE
Prouty: To put the times in perspective: JFK was killed in Dallas at about 12:30 in the afternoon. That corresponded to 7:30 in the morning in Christchurch, New Zealand. I got the paper before noon, which was, we'll say 7:30 to noon -- that would mean, in Dallas, about 4:30 in the afternoon. Oswald hadn't even been charged by the police with the murder -- with the shooting of the President -- by 4:30 in the afternoon. How did the papers get the information to say that, before that time? Then the rest of the things that are in the paper also are equally unfounded. the paper was saying what the police were going to say some eight hours later. It had to have been a set-up job to put that information in the papers -- and such a lot of information -- I'm only quoting a few things. The articles that I'm talking about were on the front page. They also had follow-on in the back pages of the paper. It was filled with facts about Oswald that most people didn't know for days and days in the rest of the country.
PEOPLE AREN'T THAT STUPID.
IF THIS WERE TRUE IT WOULD MEAN THE WHOLE THING WAS SET UP IN ADVANCE, WHICH OF COURSE THE NZ PAPERS WOULD KNOW SINCE THEY WOULD BE PRINTING THINGS THAT HADN'T HAPPENED YET. BUT THEY DON'T MENTION THAT CURIOSITY IN THE STORY????
ALL NEW ZEALANDERS WHO CAN DO BASIC MATH (not just Prouty) WOULD ALSO KNOW.
But not one word of this got back to the States, what phones hadn't been introduced to NZ in 63?
By the way, the afternoon edition of the NZ paper would be a REAL collectors item.
I mean its EASY to find a "Dewey Beats Truman" paper.
See if you can find one of the NZ paper.
Is there NO LIMIT to what you are willing to believe if it fits your pre-conceived notions?
Arthur
You can read about it here and they have the paper:
http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Heritage/Star23Nov1963/
I do not believe Oliver Stone’s version of the conspiracy or the Warren Commissions lone gunman.
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.