Basic Physics

adoucette

19th January 2006 - 04:54 AM

I see I found your button.

I'll have fun pushing it again in the future.

Foxx.

He's as full of it as you are, and yes I did see his 'we'll build in the C4 as part of the structure'

No more outlandish than tons of thermite in the basement.

No more proof either.

I think he's partially RIGHT about the concrete actually.

But you know what I'd be willing to bet.

That the construction detail (he has an interesting usenet letter on his site, if its a fake its a damn good one, that includes the cast concrete rectangles) only goes up to possibly the lowest floors with a hint from another source that it might be up to the 10th.

I've been researching this since I saw his site and I found the first descriptions of the concrete floors within the Core. They certainly sounded fairly convincing.

As I said in my response though, no one else has mentioned these cast concrete rectangles, but then again, most discussions have been about the floors near the impact zones.

Which is why I also said it didn't really matter.

What mattered was the casting dispersions on his site so as to cast dispersions on the photos. What you didn't point out is that the pictures on his site are NOT his originals and they CAN be found on the web.

What you HAVE NOT DONE, then or NOW is do ANYTHING to substantiate YOUR claim that the pictures are fake.

Nice try at redirection though.

Maybe you should try wearing a dress?

Arthur

yesitdid

19th January 2006 - 04:57 AM

ooooh, I see, "page 3" actually means "figure 3" in newtspeak and apparently Foxx is fluent in newtspeak. Sorry, they did not offer a course in that when I was in school.

Now, concerning them pesky "engineering, blueprints, floorplans(sic), schematics" , maybe I am blind or need new glasses but I cannot find any reference to transverse anything in that document newton. Mind locating that for me? Face it you cannot show any evidence that such (ok I'll say it for you) transverse truss joist was a permanent component of the floor system. Not that it particularly matters since as I point out, the ends of it would have to extend the length of the floor as opposed to the width from perimeter to core and would be only adding weight and little or no additional support to the floor's ability to carry a load.

Foxx writes, " I keep mentioning TRANSVERSE and he posts an essay on vertical 'BEAMS' ".
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else Foxx. I have never posted anything on vertical beams in response to your use of the term transverse. I believe I ONCE referred to a beam when I meant a column. Once, about a year ago.

This from the guy who needed it pointed out to him that the Adobe page number does not necessarily match the document's page number.

adoucette

19th January 2006 - 05:10 AM

Foxx just wants to fill a lot of pages to put distance between his calling those pictures fake and his inability to provide any evidence that they are.

Which is why he is going on and on about NOTHING.

Its getting to be like a Seinfeld episode around here.

Foxx plays the part of Kramer.

Arthur

yesitdid

19th January 2006 - 05:12 AM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 19 2006, 05:10 AM)

Foxx just wants to fill a lot of pages to put distance between his calling those pictures fake and his inability to provide any evidence that they are.

Which is why he is going on and on about NOTHING.

That was my thought as I read his last post.

yesitdid

19th January 2006 - 05:15 AM

QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 18 2006, 10:47 PM)

Does the poster in the foreground look like it has been affected by a 1000 degree 'pyroclastic flow'? does the police car? does the Coke truck in the background? They are all very close to the remains of one tower as witnessed by the perimeter columns in the picture. Surely if the 'pyroclastic flow' was at 1000 degrees then it would have scorched these objects. Hoffman, debunked yet again!

not so hot

Look, partial slabs of concrete that wasn't turned to powder!

slabs

No way for oxygen to get to the underground fires? Well maybe via the subway system, ya think!

subway station

So far the only comment on these TIME magazine pictures has come from a few of us 'government shills'.

To borrow a phrase, "things that make you go , hmmmm".

reasonwhy

19th January 2006 - 05:21 AM

QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 18 2006, 08:57 PM)

ooooh, I see, "page 3" actually means "figure 3" in newtspeak and apparently Foxx is fluent in newtspeak. Sorry, they did not offer a course in that when I was in school.

Now, concerning them pesky "engineering, blueprints, floorplans(sic), schematics" , maybe I am blind or need new glasses but I cannot find any reference to transverse anything in that document newton. Mind locating that for me? Face it you cannot show any evidence that such (ok I'll say it for you) transverse truss joist was a permanent component of the floor system. Not that it particularly matters since as I point out, the ends of it would have to extend the length of the floor as opposed to the width from perimeter to core and would be only adding weight and little or no additional support to the floor's ability to carry a load.

Foxx writes, " I keep mentioning TRANSVERSE and he posts an essay on vertical 'BEAMS' ".
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else Foxx. I have never posted anything on vertical beams in response to your use of the term transverse. I believe I ONCE referred to a beam when I meant a column. Once, about a year ago.

This from the guy who needed it pointed out to him that the Adobe page number does not necessarily match the document's page number.

Arthur,

It was page 11 , not page 3 or 12. Figure 3.
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publ...aper%202003.pdf

There were apparently, 60 double trusses spanning the 60 feet from the perimeter wall to (a beam attached to) the core and 24 double trusses spanning the 35 feet from the perimeter wall to the core. They are pictured in the following graphic:

user posted image

Transverse trusses ran perpendicular to the double trusses as illustrated:
user posted image

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...olition-old.htm

adoucette

19th January 2006 - 05:26 AM

Go figure.

Arthur

YID, this must be for you, more nothing to waste pages on.

Schneibster

19th January 2006 - 05:34 AM

QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 19 2006, 01:07 AM)

Maybe the button got stuck.

No, more a matter of something getting stuck in a zipper, I think...

Mel

19th January 2006 - 05:54 AM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 19 2006, 04:13 AM)

Thanks for:

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publ...aper%202003.pdf

WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE, FIELD
INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley,

He doesn't support your CD theory.

1. When the planes hit the towers with very high speed, the impact of the plane broke many exterior columns and their bolted splices with relative ease without much damage inflicted to the plane itself. This was due to the fact that the box columns of the exterior tube were relatively thin at the higher floors where the planes hit. The shock of impact must have shaken the sprayed-on fireproofing off the structure at least in the floors near the impact area.
2. When the planes entered the towers their fuselodge and wings had not been significantly damaged and the planes had the bulk of their jet fuel delivered inside the building. After entering the towers, the planes hit the floor slabs in 3-4 floors and most likely demolished relatively light joists and the floor slab. It is likely that the floor slabs must have inflicted serious damage to the plane or its wings cutting through them. At this time most likely the jet fuel was spread inside the buildings and the fire must have started.
3. After entering the towers and demolishing the floors,the damaged planes continued to move inside the buildings until they hit the relatively heavy structures of the core. It appears that at this point the damaged planes must have been brocken apart and in case of the South tower, the plane exploded. After planes exploded inside, the heavy parts like engines still continued flying inside the towers and in fact one engine was found several block away from the towers. At this time all the fuel was spread within the open space of several floors. Notice that as Figure 1 shows, the towers had very large open spaces without strong firewalls to compartmentalize the large open space. As a result, the fire spread very rapidly throughout the entre floors that were impacted.
4. When the planes hit the core of the building, they must have demolished the stairways on their path. As indicated earlier, the stairways in the tower had only relatively light and weak gypsum board walls. It is established that only one of the three stairwells in the south tower survived the impact of the planes and was partially open for the occupants’ escape. In the North tower, all three stairways apparently were demolished and closed preventing the occupants from escaping before the towers collapsed.
5. After the planes hit the core and broke apart, the jet fuel spread throughout the open floors which conatined furniture and particularly very flamable paper material. The fire that most likely had started earlier, continued with more intensity as more and more contents reached flash point. Since probably there was not much of fireproofing left on the steel elements, the fire started warming up the relatively thin and exposed floor joists as well as the exterior columns. The properties of steel and concrete under high temperature is well known. As shown in Figure 7, when the temperature reaches about 500 to600 degree Celsius, the yield strength as well as modulus of elasticity of steel drops rapidly. As the fires went on, it is likely that the floor joists collapsed frst resulting in elimination of bracing that they were providing to the columns. Since the unbraced length of the columns now had increased significantly, the columns buckled and initiated the final collapse.
6. As a result of buckling of exterior columns, and perhaps some of the interior columns, the top portion of the towers, above the impact floors dropped on the lower portion and under the pull of the acceleration of gravity ponded the lower floors down to complete vertical collapse.

Arthur

Is this guy (gal?) a five-year-old? Mr. (Mrs.) ASTANEH-ASL sure makes heavy use of the phrase 'must have'. And I really liked the comment about the "particularly very flamable paper material". I wonder what happened to the fire-proof paper material?

What a joke.

Foxx

19th January 2006 - 06:07 AM

Danged 'Come-Backs' are a Beitch, aren't they?

Adoucette - No more outlandish than tons of thermite in the basement.

Who said there was TONS, I asked you all to quantify amounts required and you refused to back-up your claims quantitatively. BTW... Now that you mention it, I'm STILL waiting for anyone to propose a more LIKELY source candidate for the underground fires (which caused rivers & pools of molten metal to flow for weeks after the collapse)...
{
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html }

...ACCORDING TO THE LIST OF RELEVANT FACTORS THAT I EARLIER PROVIDED...

QUOTE

the LIST
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

There is absolutely NO gravity-driven collapse theory which can account for all these factors... therefore, IT can NOT be TRUTH. Simple as that.

Now, I WILL admit that EVEN 'Psych-Brown's theory is more plausible than the gravity-driven collapse theory, nevertheless HIS Cannot account for the above factors either.

While you mock metamars (and others, myself included) for their theories, you are forced to a position to propose even MORE outrageously ridiculous theories such as the Amazing Underground Bellows and Supersonic Jet Fuel Theories in order to try to fit known FACTS into some kind of plausible theory.

As metamars and I have openly discussed, I am not convinced of the thermo-nuclear theory (BUT ONLY due to the lack of high-level radiation at the site). There was low-level radio-nuclide levels detected in sedimentary analysis (which could not have come from the up-river nuclear plant), and those have NOT been explained satisfactorily to me yet.

Still... a KNOWN thermo-nuclear device could not account for the localized and focused destruction witnessed.

This does not discount the possibility of some type of advanced weaponry that none of us is aware of which could have accounted for ALL the above 'list of Factors'

On the other hand the thermite theory DOES account for all the above list of factors, and the ONLY detraction (or re-buttle) to that theory is the hand-waving exercise that it would have taken TONS & TONS of 'the stuff'.

These 'hand-waving exercises' have NEVER SHOWN ANY SCIENTIFIC PROOF that just because it may have taken large quantities of thermite to produce such 'volcanic temperature/heat effects and molten rivers of steel'... it would have BEEN IMPOSSIBLE to pre-position such incendiaries...

Again, remember WHO was in charge of Security?

IF 'tons & tons' were required... there was NO valid impediment to importation and planting of such incendiaries.

Again, I stress that I do not say that it WAS 'thermite'... but AFAIK thermite/diasite is the only KNOWN incendiary which could 'fit' the entire list of factors.

This does NOT preclude that the military does NOT HAVE other incendiaries (which we do NOT KNOW about) that could also 'fit' the above list of factors, nor does it preclude the possibility of other thermal / nuclear / exotics which could produce the same effects.

What we DO KNOW FOR CERTAIN, is that a gravity-driven collapse CAN NOT produce these effects even should we allow for Magical Bellows and Supersonic Jet-Fuel which are far more wacky than anything I've seen metamars, and others ... (even allowing for Psyche-Browns theory) propose.

Any theory must still lay within the bounds of science and physics... and I'm sorry, but supersonic-jet-fuel, is OUTSIDE those boundaries.

I could carry on, but sleep calls me.

When you think of SOME RATIONAL gravity-driven collapse theory which explains those 'rivers of molten metal' for weeks afterward...

Wake me

metamars

19th January 2006 - 10:27 AM

QUOTE (newton+Jan 19 2006, 01:28 AM)

i can't wait for the nist report on seven.

you people realise this is the biggest event since christ, right?

every single thought you put down into the physically impossible(indetectable) web of cognisance/consciousness has a great likelihood of being carved in eternal stone.

i'm alright with that, personally, HAHAHAHA!

happy circle squared, everyone.

In spite of NIST's 'expertise' (wink, wink), they are looking to farm out the work. No doubt this will lead to a delay of years(wink, wink) - I'm expecting whoever gets the contract to "have to" start from scratch(wink, wink). One way that this psycho-drama may play out is that NIST rejects the conclusion(wink, wink) (which eventually takes, say, another 4 years(wink, wink)), but that after all that time, they "honestly"(wink, wink) feel that no good purpose would be served by wasting yet more of the tax payers' hard earned money on this project(wink, wink), as building codes have changed slightly, blah, blah, blah. Wink, wink and wink.

Did I forget any nods? Oh, well!

There's generally 1 truth about things, but myriad ways to lie about it.

Temp

19th January 2006 - 10:47 AM

Exotic Weaponry fact or fantasy?

User posted image

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/06..._e-weapons.html

Sensable

19th January 2006 - 11:42 AM

QUOTE (Temp+Jan 19 2006, 10:47 AM)

Exotic Weaponry fact or fantasy?

User posted image

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/06..._e-weapons.html

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

Sensable

19th January 2006 - 11:45 AM

QUOTE (Mel+Jan 19 2006, 05:54 AM)

Is this guy (gal?) a five-year-old?

From that response I'm assumng you're asking because you need a playpal. All those big words must seem funny to you.

Sensable

19th January 2006 - 11:53 AM

QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 19 2006, 06:07 AM)

Danged 'Come-Backs' are a Beitch, aren't they?

Adoucette - No more outlandish than tons of thermite in the basement.

Who said there was TONS, I asked you all to quantify amounts required and you refused to back-up your claims quantitatively. BTW... Now that you mention it, I'm STILL waiting for anyone to propose a more LIKELY source candidate for the underground fires (which caused rivers & pools of molten metal to flow for weeks after the collapse)...
{
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html }

...ACCORDING TO THE LIST OF RELEVANT FACTORS THAT I EARLIER PROVIDED...

QUOTE

the LIST
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

There is absolutely NO gravity-driven collapse theory which can account for all these factors... therefore, IT can NOT be TRUTH. Simple as that.

Now, I WILL admit that EVEN 'Psych-Brown's theory is more plausible than the gravity-driven collapse theory, nevertheless HIS Cannot account for the above factors either.

While you mock metamars (and others, myself included) for their theories, you are forced to a position to propose even MORE outrageously ridiculous theories such as the Amazing Underground Bellows and Supersonic Jet Fuel Theories in order to try to fit known FACTS into some kind of plausible theory.

As metamars and I have openly discussed, I am not convinced of the thermo-nuclear theory (BUT ONLY due to the lack of high-level radiation at the site). There was low-level radio-nuclide levels detected in sedimentary analysis (which could not have come from the up-river nuclear plant), and those have NOT been explained satisfactorily to me yet.

Still... a KNOWN thermo-nuclear device could not account for the localized and focused destruction witnessed.

This does not discount the possibility of some type of advanced weaponry that none of us is aware of which could have accounted for ALL the above 'list of Factors'

On the other hand the thermite theory DOES account for all the above list of factors, and the ONLY detraction (or re-buttle) to that theory is the hand-waving exercise that it would have taken TONS & TONS of 'the stuff'.

These 'hand-waving exercises' have NEVER SHOWN ANY SCIENTIFIC PROOF that just because it may have taken large quantities of thermite to produce such 'volcanic temperature/heat effects and molten rivers of steel'... it would have BEEN IMPOSSIBLE to pre-position such incendiaries...

Again, remember WHO was in charge of Security?

IF 'tons & tons' were required... there was NO valid impediment to importation and planting of such incendiaries.

Again, I stress that I do not say that it WAS 'thermite'... but AFAIK thermite/diasite is the only KNOWN incendiary which could 'fit' the entire list of factors.

This does NOT preclude that the military does NOT HAVE other incendiaries (which we do NOT KNOW about) that could also 'fit' the above list of factors, nor does it preclude the possibility of other thermal / nuclear / exotics which could produce the same effects.

What we DO KNOW FOR CERTAIN, is that a gravity-driven collapse CAN NOT produce these effects even should we allow for Magical Bellows and Supersonic Jet-Fuel which are far more wacky than anything I've seen metamars, and others ... (even allowing for Psyche-Browns theory) propose.

Any theory must still lay within the bounds of science and physics... and I'm sorry, but supersonic-jet-fuel, is OUTSIDE those boundaries.

I could carry on, but sleep calls me.

When you think of SOME RATIONAL gravity-driven collapse theory which explains those 'rivers of molten metal' for weeks afterward...

Wake me

What's really outlandish is a bomb in the basement of a 110 story office building directing it's total explosive power to the top floors first. No explosion is seen on the bottom floors. The most they can point to is little whisps of debris comming from windows AFTER the building is already coming down and NOT on the bottom floors.

Sad to see people who call themselves grown up buying into this. It's the kind of lack of critical thinking skills Bush gives metals for.

adoucette

19th January 2006 - 04:42 PM

QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 19 2006, 06:07 AM)

Adoucette - No more outlandish than tons of thermite in the basement.

Who said there was TONS, I asked you all to quantify amounts required and you refused to back-up your claims quantitatively. BTW... Now that you mention it, I'm STILL waiting for anyone to propose a more LIKELY source candidate for the underground fires (which caused rivers & pools of molten metal to flow for weeks after the collapse)...
{
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html }

...ACCORDING TO THE LIST OF RELEVANT FACTORS THAT I EARLIER PROVIDED...

QUOTE

the LIST
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

There is absolutely NO gravity-driven collapse theory which can account for all these factors... therefore, IT can NOT be TRUTH. Simple as that.

You propose Thermite, but I have to figure out how much of it would take to burn for weeks?

Surely you jest.

You can't provide one picture of said "rivers or pools" of molten metal that "flowed for weeks".

You know, one would think that would be pretty photogenic.

Guess not.

As to your relevant factors:

See photo of Subway.

Not compressed.

See http://www.pyrocool.org/ground_zero.htm

That WHITE SMOKE you go on as "evidence", seems its STEAM from the use of Pyrocool.

Seems it is used to put out regulation fires as well.

Nowhere in their write-up does the maker of Pyrocool indicate it was anything OUT OF THE NORMAL, what they mention is the SIZE of the pile, not the contents.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

the LIST
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

There is absolutely NO gravity-driven collapse theory which can account for all these factors... therefore, IT can NOT be TRUTH. Simple as that.

You propose Thermite, but I have to figure out how much of it would take to burn for weeks?

Surely you jest.

You can't provide one picture of said "rivers or pools" of molten metal that "flowed for weeks".

You know, one would think that would be pretty photogenic.

Guess not.

As to your relevant factors:

See photo of Subway.

Not compressed.

See http://www.pyrocool.org/ground_zero.htm

That WHITE SMOKE you go on as "evidence", seems its STEAM from the use of Pyrocool.

Seems it is used to put out regulation fires as well.

Nowhere in their write-up does the maker of Pyrocool indicate it was anything OUT OF THE NORMAL, what they mention is the SIZE of the pile, not the contents.

Each floor of the World Trade Center towers comprised an area of one acre. All two hundred and twenty floors are now compressed into an angulated mass of twisted and charred 30 ton I beams. It was beneath these enormous debris piles, and particularly in the sub levels beneath the towers, that the fires continued to burn.

And finally I like your admission that you have a limited imagination:

QUOTE

There is absolutely NO gravity-driven collapse theory which can account for all these factors...

What you mean is NONE YOU CAN THINK OF

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

There is absolutely NO gravity-driven collapse theory which can account for all these factors...

What you mean is NONE YOU CAN THINK OF

therefore, IT can NOT be TRUTH. Simple as that.

Sorry Foxx, Reality is NOT constrained by your mental abilities.

Simple as that.

Arthur

Guest_Steve

19th January 2006 - 05:13 PM

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 11:42 AM)

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

From the article:

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

...Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too." emphasis added

Read the article. Lasers and microwaves don't work in the lower atmosphere?!? The fantasy is in your mind... Anyone who believes "Mr. Super Scientist/Cold Fusion Creator/Lone Scientist Against the World" needs a Reality Check!

metamars

19th January 2006 - 05:19 PM

QUOTE (Wink+Jan 19 2000, 02:18 PM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 10:27 AM)

QUOTE (newton+Jan 19 2006, 01:28 AM)

i can't wait for the nist report on seven.

you people realise this is the biggest event since christ, right?

every single thought you put down into the physically impossible(indetectable) web of cognisance/consciousness has a great likelihood of being carved in eternal stone.

i'm alright with that, personally, HAHAHAHA!

happy circle squared, everyone.

In spite of NIST's 'expertise' (wink, wink), they are looking to farm out the work. No doubt this will lead to a delay of years(wink, wink) - I'm expecting whoever gets the contract to "have to" start from scratch(wink, wink). One way that this psycho-drama may play out is that NIST rejects the conclusion(wink, wink) (which eventually takes, say, another 4 years(wink, wink)), but that after all that time, they "honestly"(wink, wink) feel that no good purpose would be served by wasting yet more of the tax payers' hard earned money on this project(wink, wink), as building codes have changed slightly, blah, blah, blah. Wink, wink and wink.

Did I forget any nods? Oh, well!

There's generally 1 truth about things, but myriad ways to lie about it.

Because if the hundreds of people who worked on the report from the NIST weren't in on this mass murder of 3000 American citizens you'd be wrong. (Wink, wink) They all have to be co-conspirators to this massive conspiracy or your a fool. (Wink, wink)

No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. And that all Republicans were involved in the rigging of electronic voting machines in 2004 in the Republican's favor. Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?

Your straw man argument is a pathetic one - even a child could see through it .....

brian

19th January 2006 - 06:16 PM

QUOTE (Mel+Jan 19 2006, 05:54 AM)

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 19 2006, 04:13 AM)

Thanks for:

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publ...aper%202003.pdf

WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE, FIELD
INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley,

He doesn't support your CD theory.

1. When the planes hit the towers with very high speed, the impact of the plane broke many exterior columns and their bolted splices with relative ease without much damage inflicted to the plane itself. This was due to the fact that the box columns of the exterior tube were relatively thin at the higher floors where the planes hit. The shock of impact must have shaken the sprayed-on fireproofing off the structure at least in the floors near the impact area.
2. When the planes entered the towers their fuselodge and wings had not been significantly damaged and the planes had the bulk of their jet fuel delivered inside the building. After entering the towers, the planes hit the floor slabs in 3-4 floors and most likely demolished relatively light joists and the floor slab. It is likely that the floor slabs must have inflicted serious damage to the plane or its wings cutting through them. At this time It is likely the jet fuel was spread inside the buildings and the fire must have started.
3. After entering the towers and demolishing the floors,the damaged planes continued to move inside the buildings until they hit the relatively heavy structures of the core. It appears that at this point the damaged planes must have been brocken apart and in case of the South tower, the plane exploded. After planes exploded inside, the heavy parts like engines still continued flying inside the towers and in fact one engine was found several block away from the towers. At this time all the fuel was spread within the open space of several floors. Notice that as Figure 1 shows, the towers had very large open spaces without strong firewalls to compartmentalize the large open space. As a result, the fire spread very rapidly throughout the entre floors that were impacted.
4. When the planes hit the core of the building, they must have demolished the stairways on their path. As indicated earlier, the stairways in the tower had only relatively light and weak gypsum board walls. It is established that only one of the three stairwells in the south tower survived the impact of the planes and was partially open for the occupants’ escape. In the North tower, all three stairways apparently were demolished and closed preventing the occupants from escaping before the towers collapsed.
5. After the planes hit the core and broke apart, the jet fuel spread throughout the open floors which conatined furniture and particularly very flamable paper material. The fire that most likely had started earlier, continued with more intensity as more and more contents reached flash point. Since probably there was not much of fireproofing left on the steel elements, the fire started warming up the relatively thin and exposed floor joists as well as the exterior columns. The properties of steel and concrete under high temperature is well known. As shown in Figure 7, when the temperature reaches about 500 to600 degree Celsius, the yield strength as well as modulus of elasticity of steel drops rapidly. As the fires went on, it is likely that the floor joists collapsed frst resulting in elimination of bracing that they were providing to the columns. Since the unbraced length of the columns now had increased significantly, the columns buckled and initiated the final collapse.
6. As a result of buckling of exterior columns, and perhaps some of the interior columns, the top portion of the towers, above the impact floors dropped on the lower portion and under the pull of the acceleration of gravity ponded the lower floors down to complete vertical collapse.

Arthur

Is this guy (gal?) a five-year-old? Mr. (Mrs.) ASTANEH-ASL sure makes heavy use of the phrase 'must have'. And I really liked the comment about the "particularly very flamable paper material". I wonder what happened to the fire-proof paper material?

What a joke.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL

Before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives

March 6, 2002

C - Please describe the impediments that you encountered during the investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings, such as the loss of material from the WTC site and any effects of such impediments on your work.

A -I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are:

Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.

Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.
---

C - Has the confidential nature of the FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team investigation made it more difficult to gain access to materials that might be useful, such as private videotapes?

A - I have not been provided with the information made available to the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team. This includes, videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort.

--------

Was he ever provided? Or does the lack of provision explain his need to waffle -"It is likely" "It appears" "must have" etc.

"Astaneh-Asl's UC Berkeley web-page is totally devoid of information concerning the WTC collapses (almost all links go nowhere) and has been so for years. It seems Astaneh-Asl likes it that way."

According to ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-ASL at the link below - "I have identified and saved some components of the structures that appear to have been subjected to intense fire or impact of fast moving objects."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...astaneh-wtc.htm

newton

19th January 2006 - 06:53 PM

QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 19 2006, 04:57 AM)

ooooh, I see, "page 3" actually means "figure 3" in newtspeak and apparently Foxx is fluent in newtspeak. Sorry, they did not offer a course in that when I was in school.

Now, concerning them pesky "engineering, blueprints, floorplans(sic), schematics" , maybe I am blind or need new glasses but I cannot find any reference to transverse anything in that document newton. Mind locating that for me? Face it you cannot show any evidence that such (ok I'll say it for you) transverse truss joist was a permanent component of the floor system. Not that it particularly matters since as I point out, the ends of it would have to extend the length of the floor as opposed to the width from perimeter to core and would be only adding weight and little or no additional support to the floor's ability to carry a load.

Foxx writes, " I keep mentioning TRANSVERSE and he posts an essay on vertical 'BEAMS' ".
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else Foxx. I have never posted anything on vertical beams in response to your use of the term transverse. I believe I ONCE referred to a beam when I meant a column. Once, about a year ago.

This from the guy who needed it pointed out to him that the Adobe page number does not necessarily match the document's page number.

you definitely have ME confused with 'reasonwhy', yesitdid.

i have one identity here.

cool?

i didn't refer to any pages, k?

while i'm here, i see a transverse beam in the picture, and i doubt it was going to be removed afterward.

you will find it rare for me to post a reference, as everything is out there for those who care to look.

i have admitted to be wrong, twice, now. it doesn't phase me to be wrong.

i just want the truth. NOBODY has it, although i dare say people in the conspiracy camp have a MUCH more coherent story, even if it differs on some points.

explosions account for lateral ejection, powderisation, rapidly spreading cauliflower-like clouds(indicating heat expansion. whether 'pyroclastic' is an exact term is beyond me), eyewitness reports of explosions, RADICALLY different siesmic signatures, molten steel, and sound recordings of explosions(recorded by rick siegal on 911eyewitness video), destruction of evidence, subsequent cover-up and 'secret' classification of key data such as blueprints......

i think that concrete core thing is shyte. there was no concrete core. maybe near the bottom, but the towers had to have some sway, and concrete doesn't sway well. everything i've read says they used drywall around the core. in fact, the drywall blocked stairwells, as reported by survivors.

i've NEVER seen concrete around the core in a construction photo or film. the ONLY place i've seen or heard of it is that primitive drawing by 'alogoxy'.

no disrespect to alogoxy, who may be just another slightly confused researcher. it's easy to get confused, apparently. some people don't even know who they're talking to.

here's a clue, yesitdid, read the name beside the post. that is the 'poster'. if you wish to reply to the 'poster', use the name of the 'poster'.

i'm flattered, though, that you're directing your venom at me. i must have pushed a few.

Steve is a con man

19th January 2006 - 07:56 PM

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 19 2006, 05:13 PM)

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 11:42 AM)

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

From the article:

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

...Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too." emphasis added

Read the article. Lasers and microwaves don't work in the lower atmosphere?!? The fantasy is in your mind... Anyone who believes "Mr. Super Scientist/Cold Fusion Creator/Lone Scientist Against the World" needs a Reality Check!

E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

Unknown unknowns

In Beason’s view, Active Denial Technology, the Airborne Laser program, the THEL, as well as supporting technologies, such as relay mirrors—are all works in progress that give reason for added support and priority funding.

"I truly believe that as the airborne laser goes, so goes the rest of the nation’s directed-energy programs. Right now, it’s working on the margin. I believe that there are still ‘unknown unknowns’ out there that are going to occur in science and technology. We think we have the physics defined. We think we have the engineering defined. But something always goes wrong…and we’re working too close at the margin," Beason said.

Step-wise, demonstration programs that spotlight directed-energy weapon systems are needed, Beason noted. Such in-the-field displays could show off greater beam distance-to-target runs, mobility of hardware, ease-of-operation, battlefield utility, and other attributes.

Directed-energy technologies can offer a range of applications, from botching up an enemy’s electronics to performing "dial up" surgical, destructive strikes at the speed of light with little or no collateral damage.

Relay mirrors

Regarding use of directed-energy space weapons, Beason advised that "we’ll eventually see it."

However, present-day systems are far too messy. Most high-powered chemical lasers -- in the megawatt-class -- require onboard fuels and oxidizers to crank out the amount of energy useful for strategic applications. Stability of such a laser system rooted in space is also wanting.

On the other hand, look to advances in more efficient lasers—especially solid state laser systems—Beason advised. "What breakthroughs are needed…I’m not sure. But, eventually, I think it’s going to happen, but it is going to be a generation after the battlefield lasers."

Yet, having the directed-energy source "in space" contrasted to shooting beams "through space" is another matter, Beason quickly added. Space-based relay mirrors—even high-altitude airships equipped with relay mirrors—can direct ground-based or air-based laser beams nearly around the world, he said.

Why did you lie about how far this technology is? Don't answer that, I know the answer..

RC is still right. Nothing here suggests these technologies are a done deal and THAT WAS WRITTEN IN 2006!

adoucette

19th January 2006 - 08:05 PM

Of course RC is right.

The problem with all these weapons is they are quite inefficient at turning input energy into a directed output. Thus power supplies prevent easy deployment.

Second, our typical solid state electronics aren't built for this sorta stuff, in fact the issues are closer to the ones that ultra high end high power audio deals with.

Can you say MEGASIZE Capacitor?

The other area is on the ability to Focus the weapon. Still an iffy area and inability to focus precisely results in rapid energy drop off with distance.

There is no hope for a battlefield scale weapon of these types for some time.

There was no chance one big enough to have any impact on the WTC towers was around 5 years ago.

The

newton

19th January 2006 - 08:16 PM

QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 19 2006, 05:15 AM)

QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 18 2006, 10:47 PM)

Does the poster in the foreground look like it has been affected by a 1000 degree 'pyroclastic flow'? does the police car? does the Coke truck in the background? They are all very close to the remains of one tower as witnessed by the perimeter columns in the picture. Surely if the 'pyroclastic flow' was at 1000 degrees then it would have scorched these objects. Hoffman, debunked yet again!

not so hot

Look, partial slabs of concrete that wasn't turned to powder!

slabs

No way for oxygen to get to the underground fires? Well maybe via the subway system, ya think!

subway station

So far the only comment on these TIME magazine pictures has come from a few of us 'government shills'.

To borrow a phrase, "things that make you go , hmmmm".

let me.

it is not the anomolous big chunks of concrete(which, frankly, i don't see that many of in your example), it's the extreme volume of ultrafine dust(you know, inches deep for BLOCKS around ground zero) that is VERY hard to account for.

i have pictures of cars with all the paint burned off and the windows blown out. i got them off the web. they're still out there.

wanna know something interesting i noticed on the picture of the 'big chunks' of concrete? what's left standing of the perimeter columns is from higher up. as i'm quite sure you know, the bottom floors had a much wider spacing of perimeter columns.

you realise there was like 40, 000 square ft of four inch thick concrete per floor, right?

if the pancake theory were true, WHERE ARE THE PANCAKES?

another thing? sure. no problem.

look at what's left of the core. see how it holds together despite EXTREME deformation?

what's it all MEAN? OMG!

in this picture, the old flipparoo, how is it that these beams are UPSIDE DOWN? the trident beams, i think i'll call them, were the main supports for the towers. they are clearly on a slope facing down, as attested to by my 'star witness', Gravity.

keep posting pics. you're really helping.

Guest_Sensable

19th January 2006 - 08:40 PM

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 05:19 PM)

QUOTE (Wink+Jan 19 2000, 02:18 PM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 10:27 AM)

QUOTE (newton+Jan 19 2006, 01:28 AM)

i can't wait for the nist report on seven.

you people realise this is the biggest event since christ, right?

every single thought you put down into the physically impossible(indetectable) web of cognisance/consciousness has a great likelihood of being carved in eternal stone.

i'm alright with that, personally, HAHAHAHA!

happy circle squared, everyone.

In spite of NIST's 'expertise' (wink, wink), they are looking to farm out the work. No doubt this will lead to a delay of years(wink, wink) - I'm expecting whoever gets the contract to "have to" start from scratch(wink, wink). One way that this psycho-drama may play out is that NIST rejects the conclusion(wink, wink) (which eventually takes, say, another 4 years(wink, wink)), but that after all that time, they "honestly"(wink, wink) feel that no good purpose would be served by wasting yet more of the tax payers' hard earned money on this project(wink, wink), as building codes have changed slightly, blah, blah, blah. Wink, wink and wink.

Did I forget any nods? Oh, well!

There's generally 1 truth about things, but myriad ways to lie about it.

Because if the hundreds of people who worked on the report from the NIST weren't in on this mass murder of 3000 American citizens you'd be wrong. (Wink, wink) They all have to be co-conspirators to this massive conspiracy or your a fool. (Wink, wink)

No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. And that all Republicans were involved in the rigging of electronic voting machines in 2004 in the Republican's favor. Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?

Your straw man argument is a pathetic one - even a child could see through it .....

Nice, don't address the fact that you still need the people I said. Here's how I would do it if I were you...

QUOTE

"No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion."

Wrong, the intel was handled by a few people on the top. It was a group in Cheney's office to be exact.

Actors

Powell
Cheney
Scooter Libby
Rove
Tenant
Bush
Wolfowitz
Rumsfeld
Rice

Hears how it works

Cheney sees an opportunity to attack Iraq and get American support using 9/11 as the reason.

Cheney tell Bush of the opportunity and he agrees. Gotta get even for daddy... He wags his finger at tenet just as he did with Richard Clark and says "Iraq! Al Qaeda! I want intel! Tenet doesn't handle it like Richard Clark. He gives the president everything. Even bad info.

Cheney creates an office to look over WMD intel. He kicks Richard Clark to the curb. He enlists the help of Iran Contra buddy Scooter Libby to dig up whatever he can to make it look like Saddam has WMD.

Rove schools the rest of the players I mentioned in the fine art of dissembly. Rove says "Mushroom Cloud... now GO!" and the lap dogs run to the cameras suckering the masses. (Much like the CT sites)

Libby gives a list of evidence to Powell who says "This is [expletive]" and spends hours redoing it. The evidence goes from from fantasy to poorly checked. Some CAD rendering and high altitudes shots later and Powell is ready to go to the UN.

Weither Bush flew planes into the buildings or not that's what happened. No MASS CONSPIRACY NEEDED.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion."

Wrong, the intel was handled by a few people on the top. It was a group in Cheney's office to be exact.

Actors

Powell
Cheney
Scooter Libby
Rove
Tenant
Bush
Wolfowitz
Rumsfeld
Rice

Hears how it works

Cheney sees an opportunity to attack Iraq and get American support using 9/11 as the reason.

Cheney tell Bush of the opportunity and he agrees. Gotta get even for daddy... He wags his finger at tenet just as he did with Richard Clark and says "Iraq! Al Qaeda! I want intel! Tenet doesn't handle it like Richard Clark. He gives the president everything. Even bad info.

Cheney creates an office to look over WMD intel. He kicks Richard Clark to the curb. He enlists the help of Iran Contra buddy Scooter Libby to dig up whatever he can to make it look like Saddam has WMD.

Rove schools the rest of the players I mentioned in the fine art of dissembly. Rove says "Mushroom Cloud... now GO!" and the lap dogs run to the cameras suckering the masses. (Much like the CT sites)

Libby gives a list of evidence to Powell who says "This is [expletive]" and spends hours redoing it. The evidence goes from from fantasy to poorly checked. Some CAD rendering and high altitudes shots later and Powell is ready to go to the UN.

Weither Bush flew planes into the buildings or not that's what happened. No MASS CONSPIRACY NEEDED.

"And that all Republicans were involved in the rigging of electronic voting machines in 2004 in the Republican's favor"

Only the owner of Diebold and maybe an accomplice in key areas. Blackbox Votting says this could be done easily. No mass conspiracy needed...

QUOTE

"Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?"

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire. I could go on.

I'll leave it to others to tell if it's a straw man or not.

Guest_Steve

19th January 2006 - 08:49 PM

QUOTE (Steve is a con man+Jan 19 2006, 07:56 PM)

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 19 2006, 05:13 PM)

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 11:42 AM)

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

From the article:

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

...Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too." emphasis added

Read the article. Lasers and microwaves don't work in the lower atmosphere?!? The fantasy is in your mind... Anyone who believes "Mr. Super Scientist/Cold Fusion Creator/Lone Scientist Against the World" needs a Reality Check!

E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

Unknown unknowns

In Beason’s view, Active Denial Technology, the Airborne Laser program, the THEL, as well as supporting technologies, such as relay mirrors—are all works in progress that give reason for added support and priority funding.

"I truly believe that as the airborne laser goes, so goes the rest of the nation’s directed-energy programs. Right now, it’s working on the margin. I believe that there are still ‘unknown unknowns’ out there that are going to occur in science and technology. We think we have the physics defined. We think we have the engineering defined. But something always goes wrong…and we’re working too close at the margin," Beason said.

Step-wise, demonstration programs that spotlight directed-energy weapon systems are needed, Beason noted. Such in-the-field displays could show off greater beam distance-to-target runs, mobility of hardware, ease-of-operation, battlefield utility, and other attributes.

Directed-energy technologies can offer a range of applications, from botching up an enemy’s electronics to performing "dial up" surgical, destructive strikes at the speed of light with little or no collateral damage.

Relay mirrors

Regarding use of directed-energy space weapons, Beason advised that "we’ll eventually see it."

However, present-day systems are far too messy. Most high-powered chemical lasers -- in the megawatt-class -- require onboard fuels and oxidizers to crank out the amount of energy useful for strategic applications. Stability of such a laser system rooted in space is also wanting.

On the other hand, look to advances in more efficient lasers—especially solid state laser systems—Beason advised. "What breakthroughs are needed…I’m not sure. But, eventually, I think it’s going to happen, but it is going to be a generation after the battlefield lasers."

Yet, having the directed-energy source "in space" contrasted to shooting beams "through space" is another matter, Beason quickly added. Space-based relay mirrors—even high-altitude airships equipped with relay mirrors—can direct ground-based or air-based laser beams nearly around the world, he said.

Why did you lie about how far this technology is? Don't answer that, I know the answer..

RC is still right. Nothing here suggests these technologies are a done deal and THAT WAS WRITTEN IN 2006!

So, "Mr. I Got Caught Spouting Bullsh**, But I'd Never Admit It", lasers and microwaves DON'T work in the lower atmosphere???!!!???!!!??? ANSWER THE QUESTION!

I'm so stupid..but I'm not a liar; I just pointed out your unwillingness to answer any questions that don't have the answer you're looking for. So THAT's how SCIENCE works?!? I'll never cease to be amazed at your collective brilliance.

Guest

19th January 2006 - 08:52 PM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 19 2006, 08:05 PM)

...There was no chance one big enough to have any impact on the WTC towers was around 5 years ago.

Never said there were (ie. no lies); just pointing out your BS... (And you know it.)

newton

19th January 2006 - 08:52 PM

geez, guest sensible. please DO go on. ad some physics every once in a while though, too. it's good to paint as many clear dots as possible on the truth map. the truth is not 'either or'. there is nothing in the truth you posted that declares it immpossible for 911 to have been engineered by the military industrial complex.
in fact, what you posted fits nicely with foreknowledge and complicity.

have they ever thrown something out of court for TOO MUCH EVIDENCE? that seems to be the stance you're taking.

almost like you'd like all the evidence to be seperated into different knowledge silos.

Guest

19th January 2006 - 10:10 PM

QUOTE (newton+Jan 19 2006, 08:52 PM)

geez, guest sensible. please DO go on. ad some physics every once in a while though, too. it's good to paint as many clear dots as possible on the truth map. the truth is not 'either or'. there is nothing in the truth you posted that declares it immpossible for 911 to have been engineered by the military industrial complex.
in fact, what you posted fits nicely with foreknowledge and complicity.

have they ever thrown something out of court for TOO MUCH EVIDENCE? that seems to be the stance you're taking.

almost like you'd like all the evidence to be seperated into different knowledge silos.

Thanks, I'm using the same amount of physics you are. I thought you would appreciate it.

No, I guess the it's theoretically possible for the MASSIVE CONSPIRACY to go without ONE whistleblower... It just gets exponentially more unlikely as you add people. You see they all have family like husbands, wives and friends. I guess the sun may not come up tomorrow but that's equally unlikely. Heh!

The only evidence we have to much of is your cognitive dissonance. We have about 200 pages. You can stop now.

Guest

19th January 2006 - 10:20 PM

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 19 2006, 08:49 PM)

QUOTE (Steve is a con man+Jan 19 2006, 07:56 PM)

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 19 2006, 05:13 PM)

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 11:42 AM)

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

From the article:

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

...Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too." emphasis added

Read the article. Lasers and microwaves don't work in the lower atmosphere?!? The fantasy is in your mind... Anyone who believes "Mr. Super Scientist/Cold Fusion Creator/Lone Scientist Against the World" needs a Reality Check!

E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

Unknown unknowns

In Beason’s view, Active Denial Technology, the Airborne Laser program, the THEL, as well as supporting technologies, such as relay mirrors—are all works in progress that give reason for added support and priority funding.

"I truly believe that as the airborne laser goes, so goes the rest of the nation’s directed-energy programs. Right now, it’s working on the margin. I believe that there are still ‘unknown unknowns’ out there that are going to occur in science and technology. We think we have the physics defined. We think we have the engineering defined. But something always goes wrong…and we’re working too close at the margin," Beason said.

Step-wise, demonstration programs that spotlight directed-energy weapon systems are needed, Beason noted. Such in-the-field displays could show off greater beam distance-to-target runs, mobility of hardware, ease-of-operation, battlefield utility, and other attributes.

Directed-energy technologies can offer a range of applications, from botching up an enemy’s electronics to performing "dial up" surgical, destructive strikes at the speed of light with little or no collateral damage.

Relay mirrors

Regarding use of directed-energy space weapons, Beason advised that "we’ll eventually see it."

However, present-day systems are far too messy. Most high-powered chemical lasers -- in the megawatt-class -- require onboard fuels and oxidizers to crank out the amount of energy useful for strategic applications. Stability of such a laser system rooted in space is also wanting.

On the other hand, look to advances in more efficient lasers—especially solid state laser systems—Beason advised. "What breakthroughs are needed…I’m not sure. But, eventually, I think it’s going to happen, but it is going to be a generation after the battlefield lasers."

Yet, having the directed-energy source "in space" contrasted to shooting beams "through space" is another matter, Beason quickly added. Space-based relay mirrors—even high-altitude airships equipped with relay mirrors—can direct ground-based or air-based laser beams nearly around the world, he said.

Why did you lie about how far this technology is? Don't answer that, I know the answer..

RC is still right. Nothing here suggests these technologies are a done deal and THAT WAS WRITTEN IN 2006!

So, "Mr. I Got Caught Spouting Bullsh**, But I'd Never Admit It", lasers and microwaves DON'T work in the lower atmosphere???!!!???!!!??? ANSWER THE QUESTION!

I'm so stupid..but I'm not a liar; I just pointed out your unwillingness to answer any questions that don't have the answer you're looking for. So THAT's how SCIENCE works?!? I'll never cease to be amazed at your collective brilliance.

Moron I did answer you... that's the same article you cut and pasted from. If you continue reading it it exposes your lies. and I quote...

"...eventually see it."

However, present-day systems are far too messy. Most high-powered chemical lasers -- in the megawatt-class -- require onboard fuels and oxidizers to crank out the amount of energy useful for strategic applications. Stability of such a laser system rooted in space is also wanting.

But, eventually, I think it’s going to happen, but it is going to be a generation after the battlefield lasers."

Tell me idiot... Are we a generation after battle field lasers? Are we? HUH! HEHEHE

Now why did you leave that part out? Because your a lying moron. Buy a clue, I'd give you one but I''m afraid you'd hurt yourself.

Guest

19th January 2006 - 10:39 PM

QUOTE (Steve is a con man+Jan 19 2006, 07:56 PM)

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 19 2006, 05:13 PM)

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 11:42 AM)

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

From the article:

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

...Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too." emphasis added

Read the article. Lasers and microwaves don't work in the lower atmosphere?!? The fantasy is in your mind... Anyone who believes "Mr. Super Scientist/Cold Fusion Creator/Lone Scientist Against the World" needs a Reality Check!

E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

Directed-energy technologies can offer a range of applications, from botching up an enemy’s electronics to performing "dial up" surgical, destructive strikes at the speed of light with little or no collateral damage.

From the "quoting out of context" department comes this bit from the Leonard David article. It sounds like some are saying "dialed up surgical, destructive strike at the speed of light with little or no collateral damage" fits the WTC collapses. Not saying I agree with that at all, bit it does seem to fit the discussion.

metamars

19th January 2006 - 10:57 PM

QUOTE (Guest_Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 08:40 PM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 05:19 PM)

QUOTE (Wink+Jan 19 2000, 02:18 PM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 10:27 AM)

QUOTE (newton+Jan 19 2006, 01:28 AM)

i can't wait for the nist report on seven.

you people realise this is the biggest event since christ, right?

every single thought you put down into the physically impossible(indetectable) web of cognisance/consciousness has a great likelihood of being carved in eternal stone.

i'm alright with that, personally, HAHAHAHA!

happy circle squared, everyone.

In spite of NIST's 'expertise' (wink, wink), they are looking to farm out the work. No doubt this will lead to a delay of years(wink, wink) - I'm expecting whoever gets the contract to "have to" start from scratch(wink, wink). One way that this psycho-drama may play out is that NIST rejects the conclusion(wink, wink) (which eventually takes, say, another 4 years(wink, wink)), but that after all that time, they "honestly"(wink, wink) feel that no good purpose would be served by wasting yet more of the tax payers' hard earned money on this project(wink, wink), as building codes have changed slightly, blah, blah, blah. Wink, wink and wink.

Did I forget any nods? Oh, well!

There's generally 1 truth about things, but myriad ways to lie about it.

Because if the hundreds of people who worked on the report from the NIST weren't in on this mass murder of 3000 American citizens you'd be wrong. (Wink, wink) They all have to be co-conspirators to this massive conspiracy or your a fool. (Wink, wink)

No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. And that all Republicans were involved in the rigging of electronic voting machines in 2004 in the Republican's favor. Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?

Your straw man argument is a pathetic one - even a child could see through it .....

Nice, don't address the fact that you still need the people I said. Here's how I would do it if I were you...

QUOTE

"No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion."

Wrong, the intel was handled by a few people on the top. It was a group in Cheney's office to be exact.

Actors

Powell
Cheney
Scooter Libby
Rove
Tenant
Bush
Wolfowitz
Rumsfeld
Rice

Hears how it works

Cheney sees an opportunity to attack Iraq and get American support using 9/11 as the reason.

Cheney tell Bush of the opportunity and he agrees. Gotta get even for daddy... He wags his finger at tenet just as he did with Richard Clark and says "Iraq! Al Qaeda! I want intel! Tenet doesn't handle it like Richard Clark. He gives the president everything. Even bad info.

Cheney creates an office to look over WMD intel. He kicks Richard Clark to the curb. He enlists the help of Iran Contra buddy Scooter Libby to dig up whatever he can to make it look like Saddam has WMD.

Rove schools the rest of the players I mentioned in the fine art of dissembly. Rove says "Mushroom Cloud... now GO!" and the lap dogs run to the cameras suckering the masses. (Much like the CT sites)

Libby gives a list of evidence to Powell who says "This is [expletive]" and spends hours redoing it. The evidence goes from from fantasy to poorly checked. Some CAD rendering and high altitudes shots later and Powell is ready to go to the UN.

Weither Bush flew planes into the buildings or not that's what happened. No MASS CONSPIRACY NEEDED.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion."

Wrong, the intel was handled by a few people on the top. It was a group in Cheney's office to be exact.

Actors

Powell
Cheney
Scooter Libby
Rove
Tenant
Bush
Wolfowitz
Rumsfeld
Rice

Hears how it works

Cheney sees an opportunity to attack Iraq and get American support using 9/11 as the reason.

Cheney tell Bush of the opportunity and he agrees. Gotta get even for daddy... He wags his finger at tenet just as he did with Richard Clark and says "Iraq! Al Qaeda! I want intel! Tenet doesn't handle it like Richard Clark. He gives the president everything. Even bad info.

Cheney creates an office to look over WMD intel. He kicks Richard Clark to the curb. He enlists the help of Iran Contra buddy Scooter Libby to dig up whatever he can to make it look like Saddam has WMD.

Rove schools the rest of the players I mentioned in the fine art of dissembly. Rove says "Mushroom Cloud... now GO!" and the lap dogs run to the cameras suckering the masses. (Much like the CT sites)

Libby gives a list of evidence to Powell who says "This is [expletive]" and spends hours redoing it. The evidence goes from from fantasy to poorly checked. Some CAD rendering and high altitudes shots later and Powell is ready to go to the UN.

Weither Bush flew planes into the buildings or not that's what happened. No MASS CONSPIRACY NEEDED.

"And that all Republicans were involved in the rigging of electronic voting machines in 2004 in the Republican's favor"

Only the owner of Diebold and maybe an accomplice in key areas. Blackbox Votting says this could be done easily. No mass conspiracy needed...

QUOTE

"Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?"

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire. I could go on.

I'll leave it to others to tell if it's a straw man or not.

This post shows that you can think more clearly when you want to.

The statement that ALL of the CIA had to be "in on it" is particularly silly. I heard program once regarding CIA trainees who were in the same class who wouldn't be told the real name of their fellow students. Does the word "compartmentalization" mean anything to you? What about the phrase "need to know"?

Just in case anybody missed it, the key point (though not the only one) where "Guest_Sensable" takes leave of his "sensableness" is right between

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?"

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire. I could go on.

I'll leave it to others to tell if it's a straw man or not.

This post shows that you can think more clearly when you want to.

The statement that ALL of the CIA had to be "in on it" is particularly silly. I heard program once regarding CIA trainees who were in the same class who wouldn't be told the real name of their fellow students. Does the word "compartmentalization" mean anything to you? What about the phrase "need to know"?

Just in case anybody missed it, the key point (though not the only one) where "Guest_Sensable" takes leave of his "sensableness" is right between

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

AND

QUOTE

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire.

adoucette

19th January 2006 - 11:00 PM

QUOTE (newton+Jan 19 2006, 04:16 PM)

it is not the anomolous big chunks of concrete(which, frankly, i don't see that many of in your example), it's the extreme volume of ultrafine dust(you know, inches deep for BLOCKS around ground zero) that is VERY hard to account for.

What do you think would happen to all that gypsum, spray on fire retardant, flooring and light concrete?

Turns out most of that dust is GYPSUM and FIBER. Right near the WTC its ~30% concrete but the concrete percent drops quickly even a short distance away.

QUOTE

i have pictures of cars with all the paint burned off and the windows blown out. i got them off the web. they're still out there.

Yeah, if they caught on fire (there was flaming debris) there surprisingly (not) was no one to PUT THEM OUT. The point is there are PLENTY of papers, vehicles etc right by ground zero who were not toasted. Thus no pyroclastic flow, not even 100C, let alone Huffman's 1000 degree madness.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

i have pictures of cars with all the paint burned off and the windows blown out. i got them off the web. they're still out there.

Yeah, if they caught on fire (there was flaming debris) there surprisingly (not) was no one to PUT THEM OUT. The point is there are PLENTY of papers, vehicles etc right by ground zero who were not toasted. Thus no pyroclastic flow, not even 100C, let alone Huffman's 1000 degree madness.

wanna know something interesting i noticed on the picture of the 'big chunks' of concrete? what's left standing of the perimeter columns is from higher up. as i'm quite sure you know, the bottom floors had a much wider spacing of perimeter columns.

Yeah, they forked in, there ARE pictures of the wider spaced columns standing upright however. You KNOW you've seen them. Admit it or do I have to hunt them down to prove it to you?

QUOTE

you realise there was like 40, 000 square ft of four inch thick concrete per floor, right?

if the pancake theory were true, WHERE ARE THE PANCAKES?

You realize 110 stories of concrete at 6" per is just 50ft right. And you realize the pile was ~100 feet, right?

Wanna go over that again?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

you realise there was like 40, 000 square ft of four inch thick concrete per floor, right?

if the pancake theory were true, WHERE ARE THE PANCAKES?

You realize 110 stories of concrete at 6" per is just 50ft right. And you realize the pile was ~100 feet, right?

Wanna go over that again?

in this picture, the old flipparoo, how is it that these beams are UPSIDE DOWN? the trident beams, i think i'll call them, were the main supports for the towers. they are clearly on a slope facing down, as attested to by my 'star witness', Gravity.

Notice the DATE of the picture.

Late NOVEMBER. They have been digging at this pile for months. The orientation of stuff in the pile will change as stuff is removed.

OMG!

Wonder what this means?

You're a MORON?.

Could be.

Keep posting before thinking and you will continue to prove it.

Arthur

RealityCheck

19th January 2006 - 11:09 PM

Hi metamars!

About your being stumped re: "Why the NEED to "powderise" that remnant "spire" after the towers had ALREADY been demolished?"

I frankly have to now ponder why and how you CAN manage to imagine all sorts of "possible" exotic weapons/conspiracies, but CANNOT manage to theorise about any "possible" CONSISTENT reason for anyone doing what you describe was allegedly done to that "spire" after the destruction of the towers was virtually complete.

I merely make that straightforward observation without comment, mate. Ciao.

RC.
.

RealityCheck

20th January 2006 - 12:02 AM

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 19 2006, 05:13 PM)

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 11:42 AM)

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

From the article:

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

...Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too." emphasis added

Read the article. Lasers and microwaves don't work in the lower atmosphere?!? The fantasy is in your mind... Anyone who believes "Mr. Super Scientist/Cold Fusion Creator/Lone Scientist Against the World" needs a Reality Check!

Hi Guest_Steve !

Who's this "Cold Fusion Creator" you allude to, mate? It certainly isn't yours truly! MY system is plenty HOT and nothing to do with any currently-discussed/existing conventional/alternative systems. You'll have to wait until the patent examiners are done with my application to find out more; sorry. But if I can afford the extra fees, I will most assuredly request "expedited" examination so that I can satisfy your apparently burning curiosity, mate! But please in future get whatever facts you DO currently have straight...I and all here would appreciate it.

And you seem to be under similar cloud of incomprehension as to the "directed energy/kinetic-weapons" systems current "development" status and "absolute" capabilities. Let me enlighten you.

The following is all from memory of my research into (NOT development of) "battle systems" in the 21st Century-----which I carried out a few years back (during my Rockets & Missiles CURIOSITY phase, hehehe)

HIGH POWER THROUGH-AIR SYSTEMS: All directed energy weapons suffer from the problem of putting/getting enough energy-density to the target WITHOUT IONISING THE MEDIUM (air in this case) through which that POWERFUL 'beam' must propagate....which ionisation BLEEDS and DIFFUSES the energy the more powerful the beam. Some 'phased-array' type and 'parabolic-dish' type 'focusing' systems using many LOW(ER)-POWER beams (which thus can travel further and lose less energy owing to less ionisation of the medium) which only CONVERGE into a high-power beam nearer the target will REQUIRE LARGE SURFACE AREA ARRAYS/REFLECTORS which are unwieldy and unstable and inconvenient for precise long-distance pin-pointing (especially if they are AIRSHIP/AIRPLANE TYPE platforms. With a space-based array/reflector, there is the problem of ERROR OVER LONG DISTANCE ATTACK TO GROUND which is UNACCEPTABLE except in TOTAL WAR SCENARIOS WHERE 'COLATERAL DAMAGE' IS considered (by the military/politicians) to be less disastrous/unacceptable than LOSING.

LOW-POWER THROUGH-AIR SYSTEMS: The most immediately likely applications of the research into the high-power weapons is the LOW-POWER use of less expensive/problem-ridden, smaller versions of these for ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES AND COMMUNICATIONS DENIAL. These roles do NOT depend on POWER so much as WAVELENGTHS AND VERSATILITY/MOBILTY for battlefield situations. Which is why these LOWER-POWERED versions are being considered for airborne relay systems: that is, the beams CAN go LONG distances BEAUSE OF THE LOW ENERGY DENSITIES of the beams in question. These systems are NOT "killing/destroying" systems, but "denial" systems. Hence the increased possibility/feasibility (eventually, heh?) of within-atmosphere deployment. BUT....such system could NOT help demolish the WTC towers.

SPACE WARFARE: As this implies, these weapons are for SPACE-TO-SPACE delivery, NOT for space-to-GROUND delivery, of high-power "killing" energy-densities. So whenever anyone hears "space Lasers" etc., it CANNOT be ASSUMED they are capable of "GROUND KILLING" through IONISABLE atmosphere between orbit and ground.

EVEN the geo-stationary MICRO-WAVE POWER proposals cannot deliver CONCENTRATED "DESTRUCTION" POWER microwave beams to RECTENNAS on the Ground. Planes and birds may fly THROUGH/ACROSS such space-to-ground microwave radiation with no ill effects UNLESS they LOITER within those beam paths for a long time. And any attempt to FOCUS these microwave radiations will require, AGAIN, "large" and "unmistakable" ARRAYS/REFLECTORS in orbit, which NO-ONE COULD POSSIBLY MISS....especially INTERNATIONAL RIVALS (political/industrial etc).

I cannot remember more than that at the moment, mate; but I think you get the picture. I hope it helps dispel some of the obvious confusion where the term HIGH-POWER "space-based" weapons are mistakenly believed to mean "space-to-ground" weapons (although LOW POWER space-to-ground---and vice versa----weapons for "denial" and "diversion" etc purposes ARE likely SOON in my opinion).

It's also worth pointing out that any such HIGH-POWER BEAM attack on the WTC would have been 'BETRAYED' by the tell-tale IONISATION/LIGHTNING-LIKE "STREAK/TRAIL" LEADING TO THE TOWERS for (I some time ago estimated) one kilometer at least. So it could not have been missed by witnesses.

Ciao Guest_Steve.

RC.
.

Guest

20th January 2006 - 02:02 AM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2006, 12:02 AM)

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 19 2006, 05:13 PM)

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 11:42 AM)

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

From the article:

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

...Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too." emphasis added

Read the article. Lasers and microwaves don't work in the lower atmosphere?!? The fantasy is in your mind... Anyone who believes "Mr. Super Scientist/Cold Fusion Creator/Lone Scientist Against the World" needs a Reality Check!

Hi Guest_Steve !

Who's this "Cold Fusion Creator" you allude to, mate? It certainly isn't yours truly! MY system is plenty HOT and nothing to do with any currently-discussed/existing conventional/alternative systems. You'll have to wait until the patent examiners are done with my application to find out more; sorry. But if I can afford the extra fees, I will most assuredly request "expedited" examination so that I can satisfy your apparently burning curiosity, mate! But please in future get whatever facts you DO currently have straight...I and all here would appreciate it.

And you seem to be under similar cloud of incomprehension as to the "directed energy/kinetic-weapons" systems current "development" status and "absolute" capabilities. Let me enlighten you.

The following is all from memory of my research into (NOT development of) "battle systems" in the 21st Century-----which I carried out a few years back (during my Rockets & Missiles CURIOSITY phase, hehehe)

HIGH POWER THROUGH-AIR SYSTEMS: All directed energy weapons suffer from the problem of putting/getting enough energy-density to the target WITHOUT IONISING THE MEDIUM (air in this case) through which that POWERFUL 'beam' must propagate....which ionisation BLEEDS and DIFFUSES the energy the more powerful the beam. Some 'phased-array' type and 'parabolic-dish' type 'focusing' systems using many LOW(ER)-POWER beams (which thus can travel further and lose less energy owing to less ionisation of the medium) which only CONVERGE into a high-power beam nearer the target will REQUIRE LARGE SURFACE AREA ARRAYS/REFLECTORS which are unwieldy and unstable and inconvenient for precise long-distance pin-pointing (especially if they are AIRSHIP/AIRPLANE TYPE platforms. With a space-based array/reflector, there is the problem of ERROR OVER LONG DISTANCE ATTACK TO GROUND which is UNACCEPTABLE except in TOTAL WAR SCENARIOS WHERE 'COLATERAL DAMAGE' IS considered (by the military/politicians) to be less disastrous/unacceptable than LOSING.

LOW-POWER THROUGH-AIR SYSTEMS: The most immediately likely applications of the research into the high-power weapons is the LOW-POWER use of less expensive/problem-ridden, smaller versions of these for ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES AND COMMUNICATIONS DENIAL. These roles do NOT depend on POWER so much as WAVELENGTHS AND VERSATILITY/MOBILTY for battlefield situations. Which is why these LOWER-POWERED versions are being considered for airborne relay systems: that is, the beams CAN go LONG distances BEAUSE OF THE LOW ENERGY DENSITIES of the beams in question. These systems are NOT "killing/destroying" systems, but "denial" systems. Hence the increased possibility/feasibility (eventually, heh?) of within-atmosphere deployment. BUT....such system could NOT help demolish the WTC towers.

SPACE WARFARE: As this implies, these weapons are for SPACE-TO-SPACE delivery, NOT for space-to-GROUND delivery, of high-power "killing" energy-densities. So whenever anyone hears "space Lasers" etc., it CANNOT be ASSUMED they are capable of "GROUND KILLING" through IONISABLE atmosphere between orbit and ground.

EVEN the geo-stationary MICRO-WAVE POWER proposals cannot deliver CONCENTRATED "DESTRUCTION" POWER microwave beams to RECTENNAS on the Ground. Planes and birds may fly THROUGH/ACROSS such space-to-ground microwave radiation with no ill effects UNLESS they LOITER within those beam paths for a long time. And any attempt to FOCUS these microwave radiations will require, AGAIN, "large" and "unmistakable" ARRAYS/REFLECTORS in orbit, which NO-ONE COULD POSSIBLY MISS....especially INTERNATIONAL RIVALS (political/industrial etc).

I cannot remember more than that at the moment, mate; but I think you get the picture. I hope it helps dispel some of the obvious confusion where the term HIGH-POWER "space-based" weapons are mistakenly believed to mean "space-to-ground" weapons (although LOW POWER space-to-ground---and vice versa----weapons for "denial" and "diversion" etc purposes ARE likely SOON in my opinion).

It's also worth pointing out that any such HIGH-POWER BEAM attack on the WTC would have been 'BETRAYED' by the tell-tale IONISATION/LIGHTNING-LIKE "STREAK/TRAIL" LEADING TO THE TOWERS for (I some time ago estimated) one kilometer at least. So it could not have been missed by witnesses.

Ciao Guest_Steve.

RC.
.

Well researched, you must have read the same Popular Mechanics article I did.

RealityCheck

20th January 2006 - 02:19 AM

QUOTE (Guest+Jan 20 2006, 02:02 AM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2006, 12:02 AM)

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 19 2006, 05:13 PM)

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 11:42 AM)

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

From the article:

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

...Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too." emphasis added

Read the article. Lasers and microwaves don't work in the lower atmosphere?!? The fantasy is in your mind... Anyone who believes "Mr. Super Scientist/Cold Fusion Creator/Lone Scientist Against the World" needs a Reality Check!

Hi Guest_Steve !

Who's this "Cold Fusion Creator" you allude to, mate? It certainly isn't yours truly! MY system is plenty HOT and nothing to do with any currently-discussed/existing conventional/alternative systems. You'll have to wait until the patent examiners are done with my application to find out more; sorry. But if I can afford the extra fees, I will most assuredly request "expedited" examination so that I can satisfy your apparently burning curiosity, mate! But please in future get whatever facts you DO currently have straight...I and all here would appreciate it.

And you seem to be under similar cloud of incomprehension as to the "directed energy/kinetic-weapons" systems current "development" status and "absolute" capabilities. Let me enlighten you.

The following is all from memory of my research into (NOT development of) "battle systems" in the 21st Century-----which I carried out a few years back (during my Rockets & Missiles CURIOSITY phase, hehehe)

HIGH POWER THROUGH-AIR SYSTEMS: All directed energy weapons suffer from the problem of putting/getting enough energy-density to the target WITHOUT IONISING THE MEDIUM (air in this case) through which that POWERFUL 'beam' must propagate....which ionisation BLEEDS and DIFFUSES the energy the more powerful the beam. Some 'phased-array' type and 'parabolic-dish' type 'focusing' systems using many LOW(ER)-POWER beams (which thus can travel further and lose less energy owing to less ionisation of the medium) which only CONVERGE into a high-power beam nearer the target will REQUIRE LARGE SURFACE AREA ARRAYS/REFLECTORS which are unwieldy and unstable and inconvenient for precise long-distance pin-pointing (especially if they are AIRSHIP/AIRPLANE TYPE platforms. With a space-based array/reflector, there is the problem of ERROR OVER LONG DISTANCE ATTACK TO GROUND which is UNACCEPTABLE except in TOTAL WAR SCENARIOS WHERE 'COLATERAL DAMAGE' IS considered (by the military/politicians) to be less disastrous/unacceptable than LOSING.

LOW-POWER THROUGH-AIR SYSTEMS: The most immediately likely applications of the research into the high-power weapons is the LOW-POWER use of less expensive/problem-ridden, smaller versions of these for ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES AND COMMUNICATIONS DENIAL. These roles do NOT depend on POWER so much as WAVELENGTHS AND VERSATILITY/MOBILTY for battlefield situations. Which is why these LOWER-POWERED versions are being considered for airborne relay systems: that is, the beams CAN go LONG distances BEAUSE OF THE LOW ENERGY DENSITIES of the beams in question. These systems are NOT "killing/destroying" systems, but "denial" systems. Hence the increased possibility/feasibility (eventually, heh?) of within-atmosphere deployment. BUT....such system could NOT help demolish the WTC towers.

SPACE WARFARE: As this implies, these weapons are for SPACE-TO-SPACE delivery, NOT for space-to-GROUND delivery, of high-power "killing" energy-densities. So whenever anyone hears "space Lasers" etc., it CANNOT be ASSUMED they are capable of "GROUND KILLING" through IONISABLE atmosphere between orbit and ground.

EVEN the geo-stationary MICRO-WAVE POWER proposals cannot deliver CONCENTRATED "DESTRUCTION" POWER microwave beams to RECTENNAS on the Ground. Planes and birds may fly THROUGH/ACROSS such space-to-ground microwave radiation with no ill effects UNLESS they LOITER within those beam paths for a long time. And any attempt to FOCUS these microwave radiations will require, AGAIN, "large" and "unmistakable" ARRAYS/REFLECTORS in orbit, which NO-ONE COULD POSSIBLY MISS....especially INTERNATIONAL RIVALS (political/industrial etc).

I cannot remember more than that at the moment, mate; but I think you get the picture. I hope it helps dispel some of the obvious confusion where the term HIGH-POWER "space-based" weapons are mistakenly believed to mean "space-to-ground" weapons (although LOW POWER space-to-ground---and vice versa----weapons for "denial" and "diversion" etc purposes ARE likely SOON in my opinion).

It's also worth pointing out that any such HIGH-POWER BEAM attack on the WTC would have been 'BETRAYED' by the tell-tale IONISATION/LIGHTNING-LIKE "STREAK/TRAIL" LEADING TO THE TOWERS for (I some time ago estimated) one kilometer at least. So it could not have been missed by witnesses.

Ciao Guest_Steve.

RC.
.

Well researched, you must have read the same Popular Mechanics article I did.

Hi Guest!

Actually, I have noticed a 'pattern' regarding the so-called 'advances' being published in the 'popular' magazines. They are invariably 3-5 YEARS behind the scientific papers/research from which such 'popular' INFOTAINMENT 'articles' are drawn.

It is now, and always has been since my early years, my modus operandii, to use the diverse scientific and technical results of years of GENERAL study/ research done out of SHEER CURIOSITY, and then apply same as necessary to "problem-solving" situations/exercises of all types in all fields...I was "cross-disciplinarian" and "multi-skilled" LONG BEFORE these two terms became the "buzzwords" of the 80's and 90's, hehehe. I like to think THAT was why I was so popular with my employers that they classified me as 'Essential; Retain' when it came to handing out redundancies left right and centre during the 80's (a little 'ego' there, hehehe; but I like to think I earned the right to my fair share of same!).

Cheers and good luck with your 'popular reading', Guest! Ciao.

RC.
.

newton

20th January 2006 - 02:27 AM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 19 2006, 11:00 PM)

QUOTE (newton+Jan 19 2006, 04:16 PM)

it is not the anomolous big chunks of concrete(which, frankly, i don't see that many of in your example), it's the extreme volume of ultrafine dust(you know, inches deep for BLOCKS around ground zero) that is VERY hard to account for.

What do you think would happen to all that gypsum, spray on fire retardant, flooring and light concrete?

Turns out most of that dust is GYPSUM and FIBER. Right near the WTC its ~30% concrete but the concrete percent drops quickly even a short distance away.

QUOTE

i have pictures of cars with all the paint burned off and the windows blown out. i got them off the web. they're still out there.

Yeah, if they caught on fire (there was flaming debris) there surprisingly (not) was no one to PUT THEM OUT. The point is there are PLENTY of papers, vehicles etc right by ground zero who were not toasted. Thus no pyroclastic flow, not even 100C, let alone Huffman's 1000 degree madness.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

i have pictures of cars with all the paint burned off and the windows blown out. i got them off the web. they're still out there.

Yeah, if they caught on fire (there was flaming debris) there surprisingly (not) was no one to PUT THEM OUT. The point is there are PLENTY of papers, vehicles etc right by ground zero who were not toasted. Thus no pyroclastic flow, not even 100C, let alone Huffman's 1000 degree madness.

wanna know something interesting i noticed on the picture of the 'big chunks' of concrete? what's left standing of the perimeter columns is from higher up. as i'm quite sure you know, the bottom floors had a much wider spacing of perimeter columns.

Yeah, they forked in, there ARE pictures of the wider spaced columns standing upright however. You KNOW you've seen them. Admit it or do I have to hunt them down to prove it to you?

QUOTE

you realise there was like 40, 000 square ft of four inch thick concrete per floor, right?

if the pancake theory were true, WHERE ARE THE PANCAKES?

You realize 110 stories of concrete at 6" per is just 50ft right. And you realize the pile was ~100 feet, right?

Wanna go over that again?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

you realise there was like 40, 000 square ft of four inch thick concrete per floor, right?

if the pancake theory were true, WHERE ARE THE PANCAKES?

You realize 110 stories of concrete at 6" per is just 50ft right. And you realize the pile was ~100 feet, right?

Wanna go over that again?

in this picture, the old flipparoo, how is it that these beams are UPSIDE DOWN? the trident beams, i think i'll call them, were the main supports for the towers. they are clearly on a slope facing down, as attested to by my 'star witness', Gravity.

Notice the DATE of the picture.

Late NOVEMBER. They have been digging at this pile for months. The orientation of stuff in the pile will change as stuff is removed.

OMG!

Wonder what this means?

You're a MORON?.

Could be.

Keep posting before thinking and you will continue to prove it.

Arthur

well, arthur/shniebster, you've certainly spent a lot of time arguing with a 'moron'. what does that make you? a class clown? an idiot? a submoron? pitiful?

it's funny, because three yrs. ago people(government shills back when you didn't need a phd to be a shill) were saying the same thing about me and my arguments.

now, i see, they're all over steven jones' paper. i suppose he's a 'moron' because you disagree with him, too?

i stopped being abusive(if you can call calling a shill a shill abusive) quite awhile ago.

why can't you grow up a little there, chief.

remember, if i'm a moron, you're someone who spends his time 'proving' morons to be wrong.

see?

HAHAHAHA!

very lame dance on the pictures. you point out stuff that's not there(the base of the perimeter), and ignore what is there(perimeter columns from higher up). and to top it off, you get mad at me and call me a moron because i made some commentary on physical evidence, and even left the conclusions for the reader to come to. i guess you don't like the conclusions people will reach if they read what i posted.

i love this, too...

QUOTE

Late NOVEMBER. They have been digging at this pile for months. The orientation of stuff in the pile will change as stuff is removed.

...

yeah, those guys just picked up that mass of perimeter columns, and threw it down an embankment. i've worked sites before, and that simply makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. they would need a crane to move those, and they are not going to put them on a pile where they are inaccessable, nor would there likely be a crane big enough to carry that much steel at a distance. those men are likely there to cut that steel up, so that a crane CAN clean it away.

metamars

20th January 2006 - 02:40 AM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 19 2006, 11:09 PM)

Hi metamars!

About your being stumped re: "Why the NEED to "powderise" that remnant "spire" after the towers had ALREADY been demolished?"

I frankly have to now ponder why and how you CAN manage to imagine all sorts of "possible" exotic weapons/conspiracies, but CANNOT manage to theorise about any "possible" CONSISTENT reason for anyone doing what you describe was allegedly done to that "spire" after the destruction of the towers was virtually complete.

I merely make that straightforward observation without comment, mate. Ciao.

RC.
.

When you suggest a realistic theory for how the spire disintegrated into powder in the space of 3 seconds, then I will suggest not 1 but 2 plausible motive/reasons for the destruction of the spire, regardless of modality.

The amazing thing about the collapse of the spire is surely the former, not the latter. The implications as to the nature of the perpetrators is also highly significant.

BTW, I am not interested in speculating as to why the spire was 60-70 stories tall as opposed to 80-90 or 40-50, either, or most any other matter of secondary importance. Focus, please.

Sensable

20th January 2006 - 03:14 AM

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 02:40 AM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 19 2006, 11:09 PM)

Hi metamars!

About your being stumped re: "Why the NEED to "powderise" that remnant "spire" after the towers had ALREADY been demolished?"

I frankly have to now ponder why and how you CAN manage to imagine all sorts of "possible" exotic weapons/conspiracies, but CANNOT manage to theorise about any "possible" CONSISTENT reason for anyone doing what you describe was allegedly done to that "spire" after the destruction of the towers was virtually complete.

I merely make that straightforward observation without comment, mate. Ciao.

RC.
.

When you suggest a realistic theory for how the spire disintegrated into powder in the space of 3 seconds, then I will suggest not 1 but 2 plausible motive/reasons for the destruction of the spire, regardless of modality.

The amazing thing about the collapse of the spire is surely the former, not the latter. The implications as to the nature of the perpetrators is also highly significant.

BTW, I am not interested in speculating as to why the spire was 60-70 stories tall as opposed to 80-90 or 40-50, either, or most any other matter of secondary importance. Focus, please.

Other than you misreading photographs there is no evidence of spires turning into poweder. Why would he have to explain something which didn't happen?

Sensable

20th January 2006 - 03:17 AM

QUOTE (Guest+Jan 19 2006, 10:39 PM)

QUOTE (Steve is a con man+Jan 19 2006, 07:56 PM)

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 19 2006, 05:13 PM)

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 11:42 AM)

One that works in the lower atmosphere? As RC pointed out the physics are different. It's fantasy.

From the article:

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

...Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too." emphasis added

Read the article. Lasers and microwaves don't work in the lower atmosphere?!? The fantasy is in your mind... Anyone who believes "Mr. Super Scientist/Cold Fusion Creator/Lone Scientist Against the World" needs a Reality Check!

E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 11 January 2006
07:01 am ET

Directed-energy technologies can offer a range of applications, from botching up an enemy’s electronics to performing "dial up" surgical, destructive strikes at the speed of light with little or no collateral damage.

From the "quoting out of context" department comes this bit from the Leonard David article. It sounds like some are saying "dialed up surgical, destructive strike at the speed of light with little or no collateral damage" fits the WTC collapses. Not saying I agree with that at all, bit it does seem to fit the discussion.

"...eventually see it."

However, present-day systems are far too messy. Most high-powered chemical lasers -- in the megawatt-class -- require onboard fuels and oxidizers to crank out the amount of energy useful for strategic applications. Stability of such a laser system rooted in space is also wanting.

But, eventually, I think it’s going to happen, but it is going to be a generation after the battlefield lasers."

Tell me idiot... Are we a generation after battle field lasers? Are we? HUH! HEHEHE

Now why did you leave that part out? Because your a lying moron. Buy a clue, I'd give you one but I''m afraid you'd hurt yourself.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/06..._e-weapons.html

Stop lying about what the article says and read it..

Sensable

20th January 2006 - 03:28 AM

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 10:57 PM)

QUOTE (Guest_Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 08:40 PM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 05:19 PM)

QUOTE (Wink+Jan 19 2000, 02:18 PM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 10:27 AM)

QUOTE (newton+Jan 19 2006, 01:28 AM)

i can't wait for the nist report on seven.

you people realise this is the biggest event since christ, right?

every single thought you put down into the physically impossible(indetectable) web of cognisance/consciousness has a great likelihood of being carved in eternal stone.

i'm alright with that, personally, HAHAHAHA!

happy circle squared, everyone.

In spite of NIST's 'expertise' (wink, wink), they are looking to farm out the work. No doubt this will lead to a delay of years(wink, wink) - I'm expecting whoever gets the contract to "have to" start from scratch(wink, wink). One way that this psycho-drama may play out is that NIST rejects the conclusion(wink, wink) (which eventually takes, say, another 4 years(wink, wink)), but that after all that time, they "honestly"(wink, wink) feel that no good purpose would be served by wasting yet more of the tax payers' hard earned money on this project(wink, wink), as building codes have changed slightly, blah, blah, blah. Wink, wink and wink.

Did I forget any nods? Oh, well!

There's generally 1 truth about things, but myriad ways to lie about it.

Because if the hundreds of people who worked on the report from the NIST weren't in on this mass murder of 3000 American citizens you'd be wrong. (Wink, wink) They all have to be co-conspirators to this massive conspiracy or your a fool. (Wink, wink)

No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. And that all Republicans were involved in the rigging of electronic voting machines in 2004 in the Republican's favor. Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?

Your straw man argument is a pathetic one - even a child could see through it .....

Nice, don't address the fact that you still need the people I said. Here's how I would do it if I were you...

QUOTE

"No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion."

Wrong, the intel was handled by a few people on the top. It was a group in Cheney's office to be exact.

Actors

Powell
Cheney
Scooter Libby
Rove
Tenant
Bush
Wolfowitz
Rumsfeld
Rice

Hears how it works

Cheney sees an opportunity to attack Iraq and get American support using 9/11 as the reason.

Cheney tell Bush of the opportunity and he agrees. Gotta get even for daddy... He wags his finger at tenet just as he did with Richard Clark and says "Iraq! Al Qaeda! I want intel! Tenet doesn't handle it like Richard Clark. He gives the president everything. Even bad info.

Cheney creates an office to look over WMD intel. He kicks Richard Clark to the curb. He enlists the help of Iran Contra buddy Scooter Libby to dig up whatever he can to make it look like Saddam has WMD.

Rove schools the rest of the players I mentioned in the fine art of dissembly. Rove says "Mushroom Cloud... now GO!" and the lap dogs run to the cameras suckering the masses. (Much like the CT sites)

Libby gives a list of evidence to Powell who says "This is [expletive]" and spends hours redoing it. The evidence goes from from fantasy to poorly checked. Some CAD rendering and high altitudes shots later and Powell is ready to go to the UN.

Weither Bush flew planes into the buildings or not that's what happened. No MASS CONSPIRACY NEEDED.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion."

Wrong, the intel was handled by a few people on the top. It was a group in Cheney's office to be exact.

Actors

Powell
Cheney
Scooter Libby
Rove
Tenant
Bush
Wolfowitz
Rumsfeld
Rice

Hears how it works

Cheney sees an opportunity to attack Iraq and get American support using 9/11 as the reason.

Cheney tell Bush of the opportunity and he agrees. Gotta get even for daddy... He wags his finger at tenet just as he did with Richard Clark and says "Iraq! Al Qaeda! I want intel! Tenet doesn't handle it like Richard Clark. He gives the president everything. Even bad info.

Cheney creates an office to look over WMD intel. He kicks Richard Clark to the curb. He enlists the help of Iran Contra buddy Scooter Libby to dig up whatever he can to make it look like Saddam has WMD.

Rove schools the rest of the players I mentioned in the fine art of dissembly. Rove says "Mushroom Cloud... now GO!" and the lap dogs run to the cameras suckering the masses. (Much like the CT sites)

Libby gives a list of evidence to Powell who says "This is [expletive]" and spends hours redoing it. The evidence goes from from fantasy to poorly checked. Some CAD rendering and high altitudes shots later and Powell is ready to go to the UN.

Weither Bush flew planes into the buildings or not that's what happened. No MASS CONSPIRACY NEEDED.

"And that all Republicans were involved in the rigging of electronic voting machines in 2004 in the Republican's favor"

Only the owner of Diebold and maybe an accomplice in key areas. Blackbox Votting says this could be done easily. No mass conspiracy needed...

QUOTE

"Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?"

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire. I could go on.

I'll leave it to others to tell if it's a straw man or not.

This post shows that you can think more clearly when you want to.

The statement that ALL of the CIA had to be "in on it" is particularly silly. I heard program once regarding CIA trainees who were in the same class who wouldn't be told the real name of their fellow students. Does the word "compartmentalization" mean anything to you? What about the phrase "need to know"?

Just in case anybody missed it, the key point (though not the only one) where "Guest_Sensable" takes leave of his "sensableness" is right between

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?"

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire. I could go on.

I'll leave it to others to tell if it's a straw man or not.

This post shows that you can think more clearly when you want to.

The statement that ALL of the CIA had to be "in on it" is particularly silly. I heard program once regarding CIA trainees who were in the same class who wouldn't be told the real name of their fellow students. Does the word "compartmentalization" mean anything to you? What about the phrase "need to know"?

Just in case anybody missed it, the key point (though not the only one) where "Guest_Sensable" takes leave of his "sensableness" is right between

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

AND

QUOTE

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire.

ALL the CIA would have to be in on it because ALL can investigate something which has been so widely disseminated. I am talking about the investigators. Even if they weren't part of the "Master plan" they could investigate on their own. The same way people in the FBI and CIA came out against Bush saying Saddam had WMD. Not all in the pentagon, CIA and FBI went as blindly along with the administration lie. Why didn't some raise flags with this? The only answer which fits your assertion is they ALL went along with the plan. If it sounds absurd it's because it is. I have nothing to do with the absurdity of your position.

RealityCheck

20th January 2006 - 03:31 AM

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 02:40 AM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 19 2006, 11:09 PM)

Hi metamars!

About your being stumped re: "Why the NEED to "powderise" that remnant "spire" after the towers had ALREADY been demolished?"

I frankly have to now ponder why and how you CAN manage to imagine all sorts of "possible" exotic weapons/conspiracies, but CANNOT manage to theorise about any "possible" CONSISTENT reason for anyone doing what you describe was allegedly done to that "spire" after the destruction of the towers was virtually complete.

I merely make that straightforward observation without comment, mate. Ciao.

RC.
.

When you suggest a realistic theory for how the spire disintegrated into powder in the space of 3 seconds, then I will suggest not 1 but 2 plausible motive/reasons for the destruction of the spire, regardless of modality.

The amazing thing about the collapse of the spire is surely the former, not the latter. The implications as to the nature of the perpetrators is also highly significant.

BTW, I am not interested in speculating as to why the spire was 60-70 stories tall as opposed to 80-90 or 40-50, either, or most any other matter of secondary importance. Focus, please.

Hi metamars!

I've just come back from lunch on the beach and saw your post. Thanks for the prompt reply.

It is STILL only YOUR contention that that 'spire' "disintegrated into powder", isn't it? I can hardly be expected to come up with scenarios/reasons how/why such would be done AT ALL, let alone AFTER the towers collapsed already.

I think if anyone maintains that something DID 'happen', and others DISAGREE with that assertion on reasonable grounds, then it is encumbent on the ASSERTER of that 'disputed event' to present some reasonable arguments in support....otherwise there is NO debatable 'point' at all, is there?

Anyway, just a reasonable observation to add: "newton" and others here have pointed out that there were INCHES-THICK layers of asbestos/gypsum/carbonaceous-material/alumina/light-concrete DUST & GRIT all over EVERYTHING at WTC and surrounds. I can imagine that the 'spire' merely fell down and was obscured immediately by the CLOUD of DUST etc which was (not being attached to the metal, and being more susceptable to 'air suspension' and 'updraught involvement') left to float in the breeze while the spire sunk out of clear sight into the rising/suspended cloud comprised of the INCH-THICK LAYERS OF DUST which 'the spire' TOO must have had on it....like everything else there did (again, according to "newton" and others). Does that not sound reasonable to you? If not, would you please explain why not? Just asking, not commenting, mate! Ciao.

RC.
.

Sensable

20th January 2006 - 03:32 AM

QUOTE (newton+Jan 20 2006, 02:27 AM)

well, arthur/shniebster, you've certainly spent a lot of time arguing with a 'moron'.

Finally, something I agree with newton on...

Sensable

20th January 2006 - 03:43 AM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2006, 03:31 AM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 02:40 AM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 19 2006, 11:09 PM)

Hi metamars!

About your being stumped re: "Why the NEED to "powderise" that remnant "spire" after the towers had ALREADY been demolished?"

I frankly have to now ponder why and how you CAN manage to imagine all sorts of "possible" exotic weapons/conspiracies, but CANNOT manage to theorise about any "possible" CONSISTENT reason for anyone doing what you describe was allegedly done to that "spire" after the destruction of the towers was virtually complete.

I merely make that straightforward observation without comment, mate. Ciao.

RC.
.

When you suggest a realistic theory for how the spire disintegrated into powder in the space of 3 seconds, then I will suggest not 1 but 2 plausible motive/reasons for the destruction of the spire, regardless of modality.

The amazing thing about the collapse of the spire is surely the former, not the latter. The implications as to the nature of the perpetrators is also highly significant.

BTW, I am not interested in speculating as to why the spire was 60-70 stories tall as opposed to 80-90 or 40-50, either, or most any other matter of secondary importance. Focus, please.

Hi metamars!

I've just come back from lunch on the beach and saw your post. Thanks for the prompt reply.

It is STILL only YOUR contention that that 'spire' "disintegrated into powder", isn't it? I can hardly be expected to come up with scenarios/reasons how/why such would be done AT ALL, let alone AFTER the towers collapsed already.

I think ii anyone maintains that something DID 'happen', and others DISAGREE with that assertion on reasonable grounds, then it is encumbent on the ASSERTER of that 'disputed event' to present some reasonable arguments in support....otherwise there is NO debatable 'point' at all, is there?

Anyway, just a reasonable observation to add: "newton" and others here have pointed out that there were INCHES-THICK layers of asbestos/gypsum/carbonaceous-material/alumina/light-concrete DUST & GRIT all over EVERYTHING at WTC and surrounds. I can imagine that the 'spire' merely fell down and was obscured immediately by the CLOUD of DUST etc which was (not being attached to the metal, and being more susceptable to 'air suspension' and 'updraught involvement'), left to float in the brezze while the spire sunk out of clear sight into the rising/suspended cloud comprised of the INCH-THICK LAYERS OF DUST which IT TOO must have had on it....like everything else there did (again, according to "newton" and others). Does that not sound reasonable to you? If not, would you please explain why not? Just asking, not commenting, mate! Ciao.

RC.
.

Even after most of the Core fell the bottom was still sticking out of the debris field.

User posted image

Why is the lower Core still standing if the bottom was melted?

metamars

20th January 2006 - 03:52 AM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2006, 03:31 AM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 02:40 AM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 19 2006, 11:09 PM)

Hi metamars!

About your being stumped re: "Why the NEED to "powderise" that remnant "spire" after the towers had ALREADY been demolished?"

I frankly have to now ponder why and how you CAN manage to imagine all sorts of "possible" exotic weapons/conspiracies, but CANNOT manage to theorise about any "possible" CONSISTENT reason for anyone doing what you describe was allegedly done to that "spire" after the destruction of the towers was virtually complete.

I merely make that straightforward observation without comment, mate. Ciao.

RC.
.

When you suggest a realistic theory for how the spire disintegrated into powder in the space of 3 seconds, then I will suggest not 1 but 2 plausible motive/reasons for the destruction of the spire, regardless of modality.

The amazing thing about the collapse of the spire is surely the former, not the latter. The implications as to the nature of the perpetrators is also highly significant.

BTW, I am not interested in speculating as to why the spire was 60-70 stories tall as opposed to 80-90 or 40-50, either, or most any other matter of secondary importance. Focus, please.

Hi metamars!

I've just come back from lunch on the beach and saw your post. Thanks for the prompt reply.

It is STILL only YOUR contention that that 'spire' "disintegrated into powder", isn't it? I can hardly be expected to come up with scenarios/reasons how/why such would be done AT ALL, let alone AFTER the towers collapsed already.

I think if anyone maintains that something DID 'happen', and others DISAGREE with that assertion on reasonable grounds, then it is encumbent on the ASSERTER of that 'disputed event' to present some reasonable arguments in support....otherwise there is NO debatable 'point' at all, is there?

Anyway, just a reasonable observation to add: "newton" and others here have pointed out that there were INCHES-THICK layers of asbestos/gypsum/carbonaceous-material/alumina/light-concrete DUST & GRIT all over EVERYTHING at WTC and surrounds. I can imagine that the 'spire' merely fell down and was obscured immediately by the CLOUD of DUST etc which was (not being attached to the metal, and being more susceptable to 'air suspension' and 'updraught involvement'), left to float in the breeze while the spire sunk out of clear sight into the rising/suspended cloud comprised of the INCH-THICK LAYERS OF DUST which IT TOO must have had on it....like everything else there did (again, according to "newton" and others). Does that not sound reasonable to you? If not, would you please explain why not? Just asking, not commenting, mate! Ciao.

RC.
.

No, there are other people who also see exactly what I see. Not so the popes on this forum, but then again, they wouldn't be popes if they couldn't "explain away" every last hole in their arguments, no matter how absurd.

I have already addressed your idea, earlier in this thread. If memory serves, I calculated that the spire fell abou 46 feet before "shaking off" or "emitting" any significant amount of dust. If you claim this is the case, then you have to explain how the dust managed to cling to the spire for 46 feet, before "letting go".

Besides that, it's clear that the spire dust is generally easy enough to see through. If the spire had truly "just" fallen or been knocked down, you'd certainly be able to keep track of the top.

Please locate for us the top of the spire at each tenth of a second from the onset of it's collapse. At the point just before the top of the spire disappears, we can determine it's angle and get a qualitative idea of how dense the spire's dust remnant is.

Nobody has obliged my request to complete this very basic and obvious analysis......

If you really believe your theory, you should be happy to do this.

metamars

20th January 2006 - 04:16 AM

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 20 2006, 03:28 AM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 10:57 PM)

QUOTE (Guest_Sensable+Jan 19 2006, 08:40 PM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 05:19 PM)

QUOTE (Wink+Jan 19 2000, 02:18 PM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 19 2006, 10:27 AM)

QUOTE (newton+Jan 19 2006, 01:28 AM)

i can't wait for the nist report on seven.

you people realise this is the biggest event since christ, right?

every single thought you put down into the physically impossible(indetectable) web of cognisance/consciousness has a great likelihood of being carved in eternal stone.

i'm alright with that, personally, HAHAHAHA!

happy circle squared, everyone.

In spite of NIST's 'expertise' (wink, wink), they are looking to farm out the work. No doubt this will lead to a delay of years(wink, wink) - I'm expecting whoever gets the contract to "have to" start from scratch(wink, wink). One way that this psycho-drama may play out is that NIST rejects the conclusion(wink, wink) (which eventually takes, say, another 4 years(wink, wink)), but that after all that time, they "honestly"(wink, wink) feel that no good purpose would be served by wasting yet more of the tax payers' hard earned money on this project(wink, wink), as building codes have changed slightly, blah, blah, blah. Wink, wink and wink.

Did I forget any nods? Oh, well!

There's generally 1 truth about things, but myriad ways to lie about it.

Because if the hundreds of people who worked on the report from the NIST weren't in on this mass murder of 3000 American citizens you'd be wrong. (Wink, wink) They all have to be co-conspirators to this massive conspiracy or your a fool. (Wink, wink)

No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. And that all Republicans were involved in the rigging of electronic voting machines in 2004 in the Republican's favor. Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?

Your straw man argument is a pathetic one - even a child could see through it .....

Nice, don't address the fact that you still need the people I said. Here's how I would do it if I were you...

QUOTE

"No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion."

Wrong, the intel was handled by a few people on the top. It was a group in Cheney's office to be exact.

Actors

Powell
Cheney
Scooter Libby
Rove
Tenant
Bush
Wolfowitz
Rumsfeld
Rice

Hears how it works

Cheney sees an opportunity to attack Iraq and get American support using 9/11 as the reason.

Cheney tell Bush of the opportunity and he agrees. Gotta get even for daddy... He wags his finger at tenet just as he did with Richard Clark and says "Iraq! Al Qaeda! I want intel! Tenet doesn't handle it like Richard Clark. He gives the president everything. Even bad info.

Cheney creates an office to look over WMD intel. He kicks Richard Clark to the curb. He enlists the help of Iran Contra buddy Scooter Libby to dig up whatever he can to make it look like Saddam has WMD.

Rove schools the rest of the players I mentioned in the fine art of dissembly. Rove says "Mushroom Cloud... now GO!" and the lap dogs run to the cameras suckering the masses. (Much like the CT sites)

Libby gives a list of evidence to Powell who says "This is [expletive]" and spends hours redoing it. The evidence goes from from fantasy to poorly checked. Some CAD rendering and high altitudes shots later and Powell is ready to go to the UN.

Weither Bush flew planes into the buildings or not that's what happened. No MASS CONSPIRACY NEEDED.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"No doubt you believe that all Americans were involved in the manufacture of phoney intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion."

Wrong, the intel was handled by a few people on the top. It was a group in Cheney's office to be exact.

Actors

Powell
Cheney
Scooter Libby
Rove
Tenant
Bush
Wolfowitz
Rumsfeld
Rice

Hears how it works

Cheney sees an opportunity to attack Iraq and get American support using 9/11 as the reason.

Cheney tell Bush of the opportunity and he agrees. Gotta get even for daddy... He wags his finger at tenet just as he did with Richard Clark and says "Iraq! Al Qaeda! I want intel! Tenet doesn't handle it like Richard Clark. He gives the president everything. Even bad info.

Cheney creates an office to look over WMD intel. He kicks Richard Clark to the curb. He enlists the help of Iran Contra buddy Scooter Libby to dig up whatever he can to make it look like Saddam has WMD.

Rove schools the rest of the players I mentioned in the fine art of dissembly. Rove says "Mushroom Cloud... now GO!" and the lap dogs run to the cameras suckering the masses. (Much like the CT sites)

Libby gives a list of evidence to Powell who says "This is [expletive]" and spends hours redoing it. The evidence goes from from fantasy to poorly checked. Some CAD rendering and high altitudes shots later and Powell is ready to go to the UN.

Weither Bush flew planes into the buildings or not that's what happened. No MASS CONSPIRACY NEEDED.

"And that all Republicans were involved in the rigging of electronic voting machines in 2004 in the Republican's favor"

Only the owner of Diebold and maybe an accomplice in key areas. Blackbox Votting says this could be done easily. No mass conspiracy needed...

QUOTE

"Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?"

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire. I could go on.

I'll leave it to others to tell if it's a straw man or not.

This post shows that you can think more clearly when you want to.

The statement that ALL of the CIA had to be "in on it" is particularly silly. I heard program once regarding CIA trainees who were in the same class who wouldn't be told the real name of their fellow students. Does the word "compartmentalization" mean anything to you? What about the phrase "need to know"?

Just in case anybody missed it, the key point (though not the only one) where "Guest_Sensable" takes leave of his "sensableness" is right between

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

"Or that everybody who worked for FEMA was only happy to let New Orleaner's drown instead of helping them as much as possible. Right?"

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire. I could go on.

I'll leave it to others to tell if it's a straw man or not.

This post shows that you can think more clearly when you want to.

The statement that ALL of the CIA had to be "in on it" is particularly silly. I heard program once regarding CIA trainees who were in the same class who wouldn't be told the real name of their fellow students. Does the word "compartmentalization" mean anything to you? What about the phrase "need to know"?

Just in case anybody missed it, the key point (though not the only one) where "Guest_Sensable" takes leave of his "sensableness" is right between

You only need incompitance on Browns part and budget cuts for that mess. Again, no mass conspiracy needed.

AND

QUOTE

YOU on the other hand, can't make WTC7 a controlled demolition without the owner, his insurance company, the fire department, ALL of the media who knew it was going to collapse, ALL of NIST, ALL of the CIA, ALL of the FBI, ALL of the structual engineers in the world because none have written a peer reviewed paper saying the towers couldn't have come down by fire alone, ALL the PHd's who signed onto the PEER REVIEWED paper saying thw twin towers did collapse from fire.

ALL the CIA would have to be in on it because ALL can investigate something which has been so widely disseminated. I am talking about the investigators. Even if they weren't part of the "Master plan" they could investigate on their own. The same way people in the FBI and CIA came out against Bush saying Saddam had WMD. Not all in the pentagon, CIA and FBI went as blindly along with the administration lie. Why didn't some raise flags with this? The only answer which fits your assertion is they ALL went along with the plan. If it sounds absurd it's because it is. I have nothing to do with the absurdity of your position.

So even the CIA "investigator" types who are stationed in Alaska or Congo or Poland who felt it was just fine and dandy to investigate the 911 mass murder, if they felt that there was any chance of it being an inside job, is that it? Since they had to perform their jobs during the week (or whatever work period that spooks observe), the fact that they didn't fly into NYC and Washington every weekend to investigate means that either there was no treason to investigate or not a single one of the CIA dudes felt it had a shred of plausibility, is this what you're trying to say?

If so, don't you think that maybe they'd get fired? (And that's assuming they don't get whacked.) If they get fired, they have to now investigate with no income. Does the CIA pay so well that this is no problem for them? What if they have a family to support, do you think that might make a difference in their calculus?

Do you think that they can just flash a badge (and maybe blow their cover, something they might have spent years developing) and then say to the FBI and Homeland Security "I'll take that steel beam that looks semi-vaporized!. I've got a buddy at Langley who'll take a look at it for me!" In other words, with no jurisdiction, do you think that they can just walk in and do their "investigative" thing, including handle evidence which must satisfy chain of custody requirements to be useful evidence in court?

Obviously, if they "flash a badge" after having been fired, they might end up in the slammer for impersonating a federal agent.

Are you serious? Frankly, it seems like you've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

RealityCheck

20th January 2006 - 04:24 AM

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 03:52 AM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2006, 03:31 AM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 02:40 AM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 19 2006, 11:09 PM)

Hi metamars!

About your being stumped re: "Why the NEED to "powderise" that remnant "spire" after the towers had ALREADY been demolished?"

I frankly have to now ponder why and how you CAN manage to imagine all sorts of "possible" exotic weapons/conspiracies, but CANNOT manage to theorise about any "possible" CONSISTENT reason for anyone doing what you describe was allegedly done to that "spire" after the destruction of the towers was virtually complete.

I merely make that straightforward observation without comment, mate. Ciao.

RC.
.

When you suggest a realistic theory for how the spire disintegrated into powder in the space of 3 seconds, then I will suggest not 1 but 2 plausible motive/reasons for the destruction of the spire, regardless of modality.

The amazing thing about the collapse of the spire is surely the former, not the latter. The implications as to the nature of the perpetrators is also highly significant.

BTW, I am not interested in speculating as to why the spire was 60-70 stories tall as opposed to 80-90 or 40-50, either, or most any other matter of secondary importance. Focus, please.

Hi metamars!

I've just come back from lunch on the beach and saw your post. Thanks for the prompt reply.

It is STILL only YOUR contention that that 'spire' "disintegrated into powder", isn't it? I can hardly be expected to come up with scenarios/reasons how/why such would be done AT ALL, let alone AFTER the towers collapsed already.

I think if anyone maintains that something DID 'happen', and others DISAGREE with that assertion on reasonable grounds, then it is encumbent on the ASSERTER of that 'disputed event' to present some reasonable arguments in support....otherwise there is NO debatable 'point' at all, is there?

Anyway, just a reasonable observation to add: "newton" and others here have pointed out that there were INCHES-THICK layers of asbestos/gypsum/carbonaceous-material/alumina/light-concrete DUST & GRIT all over EVERYTHING at WTC and surrounds. I can imagine that the 'spire' merely fell down and was obscured immediately by the CLOUD of DUST etc which was (not being attached to the metal, and being more susceptable to 'air suspension' and 'updraught involvement'), left to float in the breeze while the spire sunk out of clear sight into the rising/suspended cloud comprised of the INCH-THICK LAYERS OF DUST which IT TOO must have had on it....like everything else there did (again, according to "newton" and others). Does that not sound reasonable to you? If not, would you please explain why not? Just asking, not commenting, mate! Ciao.

RC.
.

No, there are other people who also see exactly what I see. Not so the popes on this forum, but then again, they wouldn't be popes if they couldn't "explain away" every last hole in their arguments, no matter how absurd.

I have already addressed your idea, earlier in this thread. If memory serves, I calculated that the spire fell abou 46 feet before "shaking off" or "emitting" any significant amount of dust. If you claim this is the case, then you have to explain how the dust managed to cling to the spire for 46 feet, before "letting go".

Besides that, it's clear that the spire dust is generally easy enough to see through. If the spire had truly "just" fallen or been knocked down, you'd certainly be able to keep track of the top.

Please locate for us the top of the spire at each tenth of a second from the onset of it's collapse. At the point just before the top of the spire disappears, we can determine it's angle and get a qualitative idea of how dense the spire's dust remnant is.

Nobody has obliged my request to complete this very basic and obvious analysis......

If you really believe your theory, you should be happy to do this.

Hi met.

I merely proferred a reasonable hypothesis. Unlike you and whoever else you say saw what you saw, I have no 'theory' about it one way or the other....as most reasonable people would assume Newtonian Mechanics UNTIL you and those others provide some reasonable hypotheses of your own which does not exclude ordinary phenomena WITHOUT SUBSTANTIABLE EVIDENCE.

As to the 'delay' of dust 'dislodgement: I 'hypothesise' that INERTIA of the dust is INITIALLY 'less effective' than the ELECTROSTATIC forces which made the dust CLING to the 'spire' material in the first place.

Add to this the reasonable further hypothesis that once the spire was moving SUFFICIENTLY QUICKLY, it would eventually and NATURALLY induce a RELATIVE 'draught' across its surfaces sufficient to dislodge the INCHES-THICK layers of dust (which, again, I take is not under dispute by newton and others).

Finally, I would hypothesise that once that dust 'layer' began to dislodge due to relative movement/draught, the DUST LAYER DENSITYITSELF must have 'graduated' from 'thick-to-tenuous' according to changing relative distance between dust and material as the spire fell into the expanding dust cloud. This 'graduated density' of dust etc would make it difficult to judge what was 'spire' and what was 'dust' at any stage in the descent of the spire material. It therefore is a reasonable assumption that what is AT ANY STAGE SEEN TO BE A 'SPIRE', may perhaps be the 'outline left behind in the thicker dust 'outline' left by the material...until of course the whole dust cloud became expanded enough so as to no longer provide such an ILLUSION. So no-one could really be certain WHERE THE ACTUAL POINT OF THE 'SPIRE' WAS at any stage in the movement. You yourself have said that certain 'images' in the dusty/smoky environment are 'clear as mud'.

The last hypothesis harks back to what "adoucette" said: ie., that the CONTINUING LOWER DEBRIS-FIELD INSTABILITIES/COLLAPSES must surely be taken into consideration when attempting to speculate on ACTUAL SPIRE DESCENT RATE into that dust cloud of its own making. The 'domino effect' from MASSIVE ONGOING COLLAPSE SEGMENTS ONTO THE BASE OF THAT 'SPIRE' can be reasonably expected to 'whip-down' the top of that 'spire' much more quickly than would gravity acceleration alone...after all, that's EXACTLY HOW A 'WHIP' WORKS: that is, a relatively SMALL/CONSTRAINED movement of one's wrist at one end of a whip can produce SUPERSONIC VELOCITY DISPLACEMENT of the TIP at the OTHER end. It is therefore not unreasonable to think that the 'tip' of that spire was whipped downwards at faster than normal 'falling' speeds (NOT supersonic, though....I thought I'd get in before some smartaleck starts to accuse me of 'supersonic spires' or the like, heh, mate? hehehe)....and that becuase of this sudden extra stress the already-stressed 'spire' remnant connections failed, and so 'crumbled immediately....which might also contribute to 'uncertainty of position' (shades of Heisenberg!) during that last crumpling movement.

I hope this answers your request for reasonable hypotheses from others who do not 'see' what you 'see', mate. Ciao!

RC.
.

Sensable

20th January 2006 - 04:36 AM

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 04:16 AM)

So even the CIA "investigator" types who are stationed in Alaska or Congo or Poland who felt it was just fine and dandy to investigate the 911 mass murder, if they felt that there was any chance of it being an inside job, is that it? Since they had to perform their jobs during the week (or whatever work period that spooks observe), the fact that they didn't fly into NYC and Washington every weekend to investigate means that either there was no treason to investigate or not a single one of the CIA dudes felt it had a shred of plausibility, is this what you're trying to say?

If so, don't you think that maybe they'd get fired? (And that's assuming they don't get whacked.) If they get fired, they have to now investigate with no income. Does the CIA pay so well that this is no problem for them? What if they have a family to support, do you think that might make a difference in their calculus?

Do you think that they can just flash a badge (and maybe blow their cover, something they might have spent years developing) and then say to the FBI and Homeland Security "I'll take that steel beam that looks semi-vaporized!. I've got a buddy at Langley who'll take a look at it for me!" In other words, with no jurisdiction, do you think that they can just walk in and do their "investigative" thing, including handle evidence which must satisfy chain of custody requirements to be useful evidence in court?

Obviously, if they "flash a badge" after having been fired, they might end up in the slammer for impersonating a federal agent.

Are you serious? Frankly, it seems like you've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

YES!!! It's the MASS MURDER OF THIER COUNTRYMEN!!! Why can't they get on the internet and do from anywhere in the world just as you suggest you are??? Why can YOU investigate this from your home yet the CIA can't use an internet connection anywhere in the world to do the same?

Talk about strawman... As if every CIA or FBI officer was in the congo... You've managed to split the hair on a eukaryote. Great job...

You're saying no one would be willing to lose there job to expose a MASS MURDER!!! People have quit for MUCH MUCH LESS. Need I remind you of the recent spy scandal which a judge quit in protest? What about Richard Clark or Paul O'Neill? General Shinseki, Scott Ritter and many, many others. Your saying for this no one would because they fear losing their job?

People do it all the time. Don't act like it's rare.

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 04:44 AM

Not only is it the mass murder of their countryman, but consider the allies one could get from the monied companies that lost people in the towers, to the NYPD to the NYFD (and their respective unions), to the friends of those in the pentagon, to the employee unions at UA and AA. I mean there is a LOT of potential funding for research IF you had any PROOF at all.

But you don't.

Arthur

RealityCheck

20th January 2006 - 04:57 AM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 04:44 AM)

Not only is it the mass murder of their countryman, but consider the allies one could get from the monied companies that lost people in the towers, to the NYPD to the NYFD (and their respective unions), to the friends of those in the pentagon, to the employee unions at UA and AA. I mean there is a LOT of potential funding for research IF you had any PROOF at all.

But you don't.

Arthur

Hi adoucette, Sensable!

You're right! Even if anyone WERE scared, unconscionable or unpatriotic enough to 'hold their tongue' or 'sit on evidence', can you imagine anyone lying doggo all this time knowing the HUMONGOUS MONEY INCENTIVES to be had from LAWYERS/VICTIMS/BUSINESSES etc for anyone with information to substantiate a CLASS-ACTION DAMAGES SUIT AGAINST THE GOVMT./OFFICIALS etc. ? If nothing else could bring out even ONE 'unconscionable' individual with 'proof', it would be GREED and FAME, I bet!

RC.
.

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 05:02 AM

Just a quick SIMPLE REQUEST to ALL 'Guests'

As I have noted before, I usually skim past 'Guest' posts based upon the first sentence or so (to weed out 'impersonators' who try to bolster their own case by patting themselves on the back)

This causes me to miss some 'valid' GUEST posts. If you have something to say, is it too much of a bother to register?... so that (at least) we can match YOUR statements to some registered name?

Hey, even if you only want to make ONE post. Please register for that ONE.

It is obvious to ALL that many of these 'GUESTS' are merely sock-puppets meant to reinforce the statements of a registered poster.

I would HOPE that NO intelligent rational being from the side of Truth (the ANTI gravity-driven collapse people would play these games with 'puppets' (and that is what your statements WILL be relegated to for ALL those who DO NOT register their own unique 'identity'.

IF you are against the 'official fairy tale', and/or want to be taken seriously, I suggest taking the time (ohhhh... 30 seconds or so) to REGISTER.

Those who are on the right side of Truth, and choose to post under 'Guest- Yada Yada' are actually doing a disservice to others, who are are attempting to put a stop to false sock-puppet phony posts which ONLY waste bandwidth and the reader's time.

Those on OUR side... please cut it out and never degenerate to using 'Guest' posts to re-inforce points. There is NO NEED.

It is obvious the shills are in the VAST minority here, and so NEED to bolster their case with sock-puppets.

None of the rest of us NEED resort to such degenerations.

Thanks for listening, (and hopefully heeding) the above advice.

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 05:11 AM

And from Spookville, let me just add, once you post we know who you are, where your from and if your underwear are clean.

Don't matter if you register or not.

But if you Don't register, it does make us more suspicious than usual

So register.

Mr Big

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 05:16 AM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 20 2006, 04:57 AM)

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 04:44 AM)

Not only is it the mass murder of their countryman, but consider the allies one could get from the monied companies that lost people in the towers, to the NYPD to the NYFD (and their respective unions), to the friends of those in the pentagon, to the employee unions at UA and AA. I mean there is a LOT of potential funding for research IF you had any PROOF at all.

But you don't.

Arthur

Hi adoucette, Sensable!

You're right! Even if anyone WERE scared, unconscionable or unpatriotic enough to 'hold their tongue' or 'sit on evidence', can you imagine anyone lying doggo all this time knowing the HUMONGOUS MONEY INCENTIVES to be had from LAWYERS/VICTIMS/BUSINESSES etc for anyone with information to substantiate a CLASS-ACTION DAMAGES SUIT AGAINST THE GOVMT./OFFICIALS etc. ? If nothing else could bring out even ONE 'unconscionable' individual with 'proof', it would be GREED and FAME, I bet!

RC.
.

Complete and Utter Nonsense... (as is usually expected from RC).

Not even worth the time to address... other than my statement above.

RC...

sorry, but you've been added to my Ignore List, so please forgive me if I fail to respond to ANYTHING VALID you might 'hide' in your posts.

I will just rely on 'quotes from RC' by other posters to see whether I need bother responding to anything you say.

CIA...Ohhh (or is that Ciao)...

Sorry... gotta run, buddy... (just passing through and 'happened' to notice your post).

Hope that answers your questions.

Sensable

20th January 2006 - 05:20 AM

QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 05:16 AM)

sorry, but you've been added to my Ignore List, so please forgive me if I fail to respond to ANYTHING VALID you might 'hide' in your posts.

You're a lucky guy RC

metamars

20th January 2006 - 05:30 AM

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 20 2006, 04:36 AM)

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 04:16 AM)

So even the CIA "investigator" types who are stationed in Alaska or Congo or Poland who felt it was just fine and dandy to investigate the 911 mass murder, if they felt that there was any chance of it being an inside job, is that it? Since they had to perform their jobs during the week (or whatever work period that spooks observe), the fact that they didn't fly into NYC and Washington every weekend to investigate means that either there was no treason to investigate or not a single one of the CIA dudes felt it had a shred of plausibility, is this what you're trying to say?

If so, don't you think that maybe they'd get fired? (And that's assuming they don't get whacked.) If they get fired, they have to now investigate with no income. Does the CIA pay so well that this is no problem for them? What if they have a family to support, do you think that might make a difference in their calculus?

Do you think that they can just flash a badge (and maybe blow their cover, something they might have spent years developing) and then say to the FBI and Homeland Security "I'll take that steel beam that looks semi-vaporized!. I've got a buddy at Langley who'll take a look at it for me!" In other words, with no jurisdiction, do you think that they can just walk in and do their "investigative" thing, including handle evidence which must satisfy chain of custody requirements to be useful evidence in court?

Obviously, if they "flash a badge" after having been fired, they might end up in the slammer for impersonating a federal agent.

Are you serious? Frankly, it seems like you've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

YES!!! It's the MASS MURDER OF THIER COUNTRYMEN!!! Why can't they get on the internet and do from anywhere in the world just as you suggest you are??? Why can YOU investigate this from your home yet the CIA can't use an internet connection anywhere in the world to do the same?

Talk about strawman... As if every CIA or FBI officer was in the congo... You've managed to split the hair on a eukaryote. Great job...

You're saying no one would be willing to lose there job to expose a MASS MURDER!!! People have quit for MUCH MUCH LESS. Need I remind you of the recent spy scandal which a judge quit in protest? What about Richard Clark or Paul O'Neill? General Shinseki, Scott Ritter and many, many others. Your saying for this no one would because they fear losing their job?

People do it all the time. Don't act like it's rare.

I'd assume that there is very little to prevent CIA dudes from jumping on the internet and looking up tons of stuff. This, however, is not the stuff of legal investigations.

So, your question really amounts to asking, "Why doesn't anybody in the CIA say, based on their internet investigations, knowledge of spookdom, etc., etc., it sure looks like treason to them?"

You'd have to perform an exhaustive study of CIA dudes to get a definitive answer to this question. I sure don't know the answer Neither do you, actually.

Even though I don't know the answer to that question, I can easily guess: they are scared to do so, and their fear exceeds whatever sense of patriotism and duty one would hope they have.

But if you asked me a question that I DO know the answer to, viz., "Should not CIA dudes, based on available evidence on the internet, called for a serious legal investigation of the 911 atrocities, and, in doing so, give voice to their conviction that 911 was an inside job?", then the answer is "YES, of course". And I say this well aware that a ruined career if they're lucky, and getting whacked if they're not, are likely outcomes of doing so. Or do you think mass murderers of US citizens would have a problem giving any CIA agent who doesn't toe the line serious retribution?

That no CIA dudes did so is, unfortunately, not terribly surprising. Ray McGovern, a retired CIA analyst, has called for CIA whistleblowers who were in a position to know about phony US "intelligence" wrt Iraq to step forward. Not a single one has done so. I believe this information was conveyed by McGovern himself in an article posted on antiwar.com.

I neither condemn nor excuse any CIA dude or any other government employee who shrunk from doing their duty, due to fear of retribution. As for what their duty is, though, I will not spare anybody's feelings.

The result of collective failure of backbone by people in and out of government is a country flirting with fascism at home, and nuclear war abroad. Should these evils come to pass, they will have to live not only with their flawed characters, but with the knowledge that literally millions may die and other millions live like slaves as a result of such collective failure.

I used to have a roomate who was Air Force ROTC who told me that "There is nothing so great as to die for your country." He was made of better stuff than most of us, and I have to believe that that certainly includes most of the people in the CIA or Air Force.

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 05:31 AM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 05:11 AM)

And from Spookville, let me just add, once you post we know who you are, where your from and if your underwear are clean.

Don't matter if you register or not.

But if you Don't register, it does make us more suspicious than usual

So register.

Mr Big

Well, at LAST... a valid post from adoucette.

Yep, 'spookvlle' will be able to identify YOUR personal IP number and be able to track you down.

If you don't want your ip # recognized... DO NOT post in public internet forums.

Do you REALLY think that IF you don't register, and post under 'GUEST Yada Yada'. the administrators HERE will not be able to identify YOUR IP #.

Paranoia... Will Destroy'ya.

ANYONE who posts ANYTHING on the web (even 'anonymously') CAN be found.

Thanks for your support, adoucette. Even those on the 'gravity-driven-collapse-supporters side SHOULD be somewhat concerned about this issue.

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 05:32 AM

The idea is not to die for your country, its to make the other guy die for his country.

Patton

RealityCheck

20th January 2006 - 05:35 AM

QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 20 2006, 05:20 AM)

QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 05:16 AM)

sorry, but you've been added to my Ignore List, so please forgive me if I fail to respond to ANYTHING VALID you might 'hide' in your posts.

You're a lucky guy RC

Hi Sensable!

I'm beginning to think so!

Hi Foxx!

If my whole Raison D'etre' was to obtain your attentions/approval etc., I would MOST DEFINITELY mourn the loss of my reason for existence!

As it is, though, mate, I neither need nor care what you have to give by way of either. In case you didn't get it the first and second and third time I made it abundantly clear: I RELISH MY SELF-CHOSEN LONER STATUS and the INDEPENDENCE that it affords me in thought and deed. Hence what YOU or ANYONE ELSE on ANY 'SIDE' in ANY debate has to say about me is IRRELEVANT. I post for posterity and the youngsters now who will come across these 'debates'....at least SOMEONE has to stay 'ABOVE THE FRAY' in matters such as these....that's where INDEPENDENT THOUGHT/CONTRIBUTION is the MOST NEEDED...ignore them at your peril; for he who discriminates for reasons of convenience lacks ANY discrimination AT ALL. And yes, mate. It's "Ciao"....from the same place that "Arrivederci" comes from, heh?

How's the temp. where you live?...I hear some bad cold-fronts have moved across some northern regions. Ciao again, Foxx!

RC.
.

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 05:35 AM

QUOTE

Thanks for your support, adoucette. Even those on the 'gravity-driven-collapse-supporters side SHOULD be somewhat concerned about this issue.

No problem.

And by the way, it looks like its time to turn that steak.

Arthur

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 05:56 AM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 05:35 AM)

QUOTE

Thanks for your support, adoucette. Even those on the 'gravity-driven-collapse-supporters side SHOULD be somewhat concerned about this issue.

No problem.

And by the way, it looks like its time to turn that steak.

Arthur

Heh... depends on whether you're using a 'kerosene' BBQ... or a normal one.

Did you get a kerosene Barbie for Christmas?

BBQ time for 'obfuscators' is coming soon.

Do you have your asbestos coveralls handy...

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 06:28 AM

Radionuclides Found in NY Harbour Sedimentary Analysis after 9/11

QUOTE

"...This conclusion is further supported by the unexpected detection of the short-lived, anthropogenically-produced radionuclide I(t=8.04 d) in the surface (0 - 1cm) sediments at both cores sites at activities of 5.5 = 0.8 Bq/kg, corresponding to a total 'I' inventory of about 2mBq/cm3. Although 'I' is a product of nuclear fission, the Indian Point Nuclear Facility, located approximately 65 km upstream from the sampling site, was ruled out."

http://www.wellesley.edu/Geology/Dan/Oktay...002%20(EOS).pdf

Of course... there are always 'alternative' speculations as to what MIGHT have been the cause of these Unexpected results.

There seems to have been a LOT of UNEXPECTED results from scientific studies into this 'normal' gravity-driven collapse incident.

Like... 'rivers of molten metal',

... 'evaporization' of steel (euctectic samples from WTC7 - which NIST NOW claims..."NO STEEL was recovered from WTC 7")'

... 'Amazing Flying Columns',

...etc.

The 'investigation' into these abnormally high levels of radionuclides seems to have fizzled out after this scientific discovery.

Perhaps a NEW INDEPENDANT INVESTIGATION could shed more light on this sedimentary analysis anomaly?

Funding for the original study seems to have disintegrated faster than the towers, (as usual)...

once an anomaly is reported).

Anyone have any updates to this study?

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 06:34 AM

Nope,

But I did get one of these (no kidding, it is just a coincidence)

http://www.aladdinlamps.com/store/dynamicIndex.asp

user posted image

It burns kerosene, but because of its mantle, it burns much cleaner and with a brilliant white light, which is also fully adjustable.

It puts out the equiv of at least a 60 watt bulb.

Arthur

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 06:48 AM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 06:34 AM)

Nope,

But I did get one of these (no kidding, it is just a coincidence)

http://www.aladdinlamps.com/store/dynamicIndex.asp

user posted image

It burns kerosene, but because of its mantle, it burns much cleaner and with a brilliant white light, which is also fully adjustable.

It puts out the equiv of at least a 60 watt bulb.

Arthur

Cool...

Maybe the manufacturer of these was located at the WTC ?

That would probably explain everything

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 07:05 AM

QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 06:28 AM)

Radionuclides Found in NY Harbour Sedimentary Analysis after 9/11

QUOTE

"...This conclusion is further supported by the unexpected detection of the short-lived, anthropogenically-produced radionuclide I(t=8.04 d) in the surface (0 - 1cm) sediments at both cores sites at activities of 5.5 = 0.8 Bq/kg, corresponding to a total 'I' inventory of about 2mBq/cm3. Although 'I' is a product of nuclear fission, the Indian Point Nuclear Facility, located approximately 65 km upstream from the sampling site, was ruled out."

http://www.wellesley.edu/Geology/Dan/Oktay...002%20(EOS).pdf

Of course... there are always 'alternative' speculations as to what MIGHT have been the cause of these Unexpected results.

There seems to have been a LOT of UNEXPECTED results from scientific studies into this 'normal' gravity-driven collapse incident.

Like... 'rivers of molten metal',

... 'evaporization' of steel (euctectic samples from WTC7 - which NIST NOW claims..."NO STEEL was recovered from WTC 7")'

... 'Amazing Flying Columns',

...etc.

The 'investigation' into these abnormally high levels of radionuclides seems to have fizzled out after this scientific discovery.

Perhaps a NEW INDEPENDANT INVESTIGATION could shed more light on this sedimentary analysis anomaly?

Funding for the original study seems to have disintegrated faster than the towers, (as usual)...

once an anomaly is reported).

Anyone have any updates to this study?

metamars...

now these are the type of questions I would be interested to read about in a moderated forum... an honest discussion between un-biased scientists discussing such anomalies in an adult fashion.

I myself certainly wouldn't be able to add any expertise on this question, but I think it would be very interesting to hear a discussion between Jones, Fetzer, Hoffman, Eagar, Zdenek Bazant, and other fully qualified persons regarding such questions.

I suspect 'popes' would be opposed to such open discussions in the scientific community (for one reason or another).

To be quite honest, I'm getting a little tired of sophistry from 'cable guys' and obfuscations from 'computer programmers', and would like to see this discussion moved to the next level.

Please keep me advised of this new 'proposed' forum.

Thanks

bolt

20th January 2006 - 07:28 AM

The official story advocates should try to explain this.......

On Sept.6, 2001, a two week heightened security alert at the WTC is lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs there were abruptly removed and officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against "aerial attacks" by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

Source: Newsday (09/12/01)

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhat...0,6794009.story

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 12:58 PM

QUOTE (bolt+Jan 20 2006, 03:28 AM)

The official story advocates should try to explain this.......

On Sept.6, 2001, a two week heightened security alert at the WTC is lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs there were abruptly removed and officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against "aerial attacks" by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

Source: Newsday (09/12/01)

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhat...0,6794009.story

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

Simple, it means that CD would be impossible because the towers were filled with bomb smelling dogs and extra security patrols almost up to the day the towers were hit leaving not nearly enough time to set all the charges a CD of both towers would take.

Arthur

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 01:58 PM

QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 02:28 AM)

Radionuclides Found in NY Harbour Sedimentary Analysis after 9/11

QUOTE

"...This conclusion is further supported by the unexpected detection of the short-lived, anthropogenically-produced radionuclide I(t=8.04 d) in the surface (0 - 1cm) sediments at both cores sites at activities of 5.5 = 0.8 Bq/kg, corresponding to a total 'I' inventory of about 2mBq/cm3. Although 'I' is a product of nuclear fission, the Indian Point Nuclear Facility, located approximately 65 km upstream from the sampling site, was ruled out."

http://www.wellesley.edu/Geology/Dan/Oktay...002%20(EOS).pdf

Of course... there are always 'alternative' speculations as to what MIGHT have been the cause of these Unexpected results.

There seems to have been a LOT of UNEXPECTED results from scientific studies into this 'normal' gravity-driven collapse incident.

Like... 'rivers of molten metal',

... 'evaporization' of steel (euctectic samples from WTC7 - which NIST NOW claims..."NO STEEL was recovered from WTC 7")'

... 'Amazing Flying Columns',

...etc.

The 'investigation' into these abnormally high levels of radionuclides seems to have fizzled out after this scientific discovery.

Perhaps a NEW INDEPENDANT INVESTIGATION could shed more light on this sedimentary analysis anomaly?

Funding for the original study seems to have disintegrated faster than the towers, (as usual)...

once an anomaly is reported).

Anyone have any updates to this study?

They said it was unexpected.

Which means it shouldn't be there.

Not that it was abnormally high.

Anything > 0 is "abnormally high".

However the amounts are in fact, exceedingly tiny.

They put it at 5.5 + or - 0.8 Bq/kg

A Bq is ONE decay.

It takes 3.7 * 10^10 decays to get 1 curie of radiation.

Or in this case, 74 million tons of sediment.

Which is of course tricky since the radionuclide has a 8 day half life.

They excluded IPNF, which leaves medical as the most likely source.

Which is why they didn't put in their article any hysteria about finding this.

Arthur

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 02:36 PM

I only recall the final NIST report saying that no steel was CONCLUSIVELY identified as coming from WTC-7

Where does your quote "NO STEEL was recovered from WTC 7" come from?

Or is this another one of your contrived statements like NIST having examined 80% of the steel from the towers, which was patently false and misleading?

Arthur

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 03:17 PM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 02:36 PM)

I only recall the final NIST report saying that no steel was CONCLUSIVELY identified as coming from WTC-7

Where does your quote "NO STEEL was recovered from WTC 7" come from?

Or is this another one of your contrived statements like NIST having examined 80% of the steel from the towers, which was patently false and misleading?

Third paragraph down...

Section E.6...

1st sentence (amongst many other places)...

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/NIST_1_3_008.html

Clear enough?

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 03:39 PM

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 12:58 PM)

QUOTE (bolt+Jan 20 2006, 03:28 AM)

The official story advocates should try to explain this.......

On Sept.6, 2001, a two week heightened security alert at the WTC is lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs there were abruptly removed and officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against "aerial attacks" by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

Source: Newsday (09/12/01)

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhat...0,6794009.story

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

Simple, it means that CD would be impossible because the towers were filled with bomb smelling dogs and extra security patrols almost up to the day the towers were hit leaving not nearly enough time to set all the charges a CD of both towers would take.

Arthur

I doubt that the buildings could have been 'wired' in a day or even a week. This presetting operation could have taken months (or even years).

However, just add the curious removal of bomb-smelling dogs to the list of unexplained circumstances. I've never heard an explaination from the authorities regarding this removal of a security precaution. Sounds a little suspicious to me, as I can't see a valid reason for it, and then .... so coincidentally the buildings explode in demolition fashion.

Just more things which make you go ... hmmmm ?

Of course, a blind (or sleeping) person probably wouldn't see anything suspicious in this at all.

It has been shown repeatedly in this thread, that blind and sleeping persons do not see anything suspicious in ANY of the thousands of anomalies that day which don't fit their gravity-driven collapse theory... merely thousands of coincidences.

"Nothing to see here folks, move along now, Go home and turn on Jerry Springer or the next episode of Survivor."

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 03:57 PM

QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 11:17 AM)

QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2006, 02:36 PM)

I only recall the final NIST report saying that no steel was CONCLUSIVELY identified as coming from WTC-7

Where does your quote "NO STEEL was recovered from WTC 7" come from?

Or is this another one of your contrived statements like NIST having examined 80% of the steel from the towers, which was patently false and misleading?

Third paragraph down...

Section E.6...

1st sentence (amongst many other places)...

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/NIST_1_3_008.html

Clear enough?

The only thing CLEAR are the words

DRAFT for Public Comment.

What document (date & version) was this from since this doesn't match up with my FINAL version of the NCSTAR 1-3C on the WTC TOWERS.

My report does have the line though:

WTC 7 Steel was not evaluated in this study of damage to the towers. (Chap 1, pg 2)

Arthur

Guest

20th January 2006 - 04:05 PM

QUOTE (metamars+Jan 20 2006, 05:30 AM)

Not a single one has done so.

Wrong again...

A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The claims came as the Bush administration was fighting to shore up its credibility among a series of anonymous government leaks over its distortion of US intelligence to manufacture a case against Saddam.

This was the first time an administration official has put his name to specific claims. The whistleblower, Gregory Thielmann, served as a director in the state department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam, spelled out by President Bush and his aides.

Mr Thielmannn said yesterday: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."

He conceded that part of the problem lay with US intelligence, but added: "Most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html

Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and her husband exposed the niger lie.

But few could help notice last week that the 'Bird' omitted an opinion piece distributed by the Knight-Ridder news agency by a senior Pentagon Middle East specialist, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith until her retirement in April.

"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline," Kwiatkowski wrote. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence" (OSD).

Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith's office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress".

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080803B.shtml

A Timeline of Secrecy

SEPT. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack the U.S., killing 3,000 in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.

FALL 2001: Sibel Edmonds is hired by the FBI as a contract translator.

FALL 2001 - MARCH 2002: Edmonds discovers and reports several problems inside the FBI, including shoddy translation work, a large backlog of untranslated documents and employees with questionable alliances.

MARCH 2002: Edmonds is fired from the FBI.

JUNE 2002: The FBI acknowledges the truth of some of Edmonds' allegations.

JUNE 2002: Senators Grassley and Leahy write the Justice Department Inspector General a letter asking specific questions about Edmonds' allegations and write that the FBI has confirmed many of her allegations in unclassified briefings. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004.

JULY 2002: Edmonds files a lawsuit to challenge the FBI's retaliatory actions.

AUGUST 2002: Senator Leahy writes Attorney General John Ashcroft a letter asking for a speedy and thorough investigation of Edmonds' case. This letter is later retroactively classified in May 2004. The investigation is not completed for another two years, and then is classified.

FEBRUARY 2004: Edmonds testifies to the 9-11 Commission about problems at the FBI.

MAY 2004: The Justice Department retroactively classifies Edmonds' briefings to Senators Grassley and Leahy in 2002, as well as FBI briefings regarding her allegations.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html

During the 9/11 commission hearings you heard more than one come out hammering the administration. Like Ashcroft telling two peole in the CIA (I think it was) that he didn't want to hear about terrorist anymore. The point is you're wrong again. The FBI and CIA (Some retired, some still working) have had moral people who have blown the whistle on this administrations. Anyone who has seen F9/11 knows that.

Foxx

20th January 2006 - 04:09 PM

QUOTE

Originally posted by adoucette
What document (date & version) was this from since this doesn't match up with my FINAL version of the NCSTAR 1-3C on the WTC TOWERS.

Look at the top of that page...

Does it say 'Executive Summary'

Why, yes it does.

It comes from the Final Report Draft. The same words are in the Final Document...in numerous places.

There is no way around it adoucette. This is an outright lie on the part of NIST. They are caught dead-to-rights, in light of numerous other federal documents and studies commissioned by the government to study this steel from WTC 7.

Just another 'coincidence'.

We can hardly wait for the final report on WTC 7... although metamars may be right, and it may just disappear into the sunset (like the WTC 7 steel has done).

adoucette

20th January 2006 - 04:09 PM

QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 20 2006, 11:39 AM)

I doubt that the buildings could have been 'wired' in a day or even a week. This presetting operation could have taken months (or even years).

However, just add the curious removal of bomb-smelling dogs to the list of unexplained circumstances. I've never heard an explaination from the authorities regarding this removal of a security precaution. Sounds a little suspicious to me, as I can't see a valid reason for it, and then .... so coincidentally the buildings explode in demolition fashion.

Just more things which make you go ... hmmmm ?

Of course, a blind (or sleeping) person probably wouldn't see anything suspicious in this at all.

It has been shown repeatedly in this thread, that blind and sleeping persons do not see anything suspicious in ANY of the thousands of anomalies that day which don't fit their gravity-driven collapse theory... merely thousands of coincidences.

"Nothing to see here folks, move along now, Go home and turn on Jerry Springer or the next episode of Survivor."

So how were the explosives missed by these dogs for the weeks they were there?

What's suspicious that a level of heightened security came to an end? One would expect it to eventually. Oh, it was within a week of the towers being hit by a hijacked plane. The only thing coincidental is your assertion that CD was involved, but even though you ADMIT that it couldn't be rigged in the short time available you don't find it ODD that these dogs don't detect the explosives.

Face it, you have NO evidence of any explosives at all.

None, Nada, Zip and Zilch

Not only that you have:

Not one picture of molten streams of metal or their cooled remenants.

Not one picture of solidified slag from tons of thermite.

Not one picture of columns ripped by explosives or cut by thermite.

Nothing to indicate a "pyroclastic" flow.

Nothing that doesn't fit the official story.

NOTHING

Over 200 pages in this one thread and still NOTHING.

Arthur

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.