QUOTE (Coastal+Feb 14 2006, 08:30 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 14 2006, 08:18 AM)
Now why don't you tell us how Schniebster attached the video clip to a 'respectable' urology site there... Holmes?
Are you really that dense?
Whoever used that domain to host the file did it the same way you host your blatherings on Homestead.
Why did they post it here under the IP instead of the domain name??
Elementary, my dear Watson......
Somebody was borrowing themselves a little bandwidth.
I know that you'd much rather it be a nest of urological spooks but I'm afraid it's just a little mundane bandwidth theft.
Kind of puts me in mind of your famous spooks behind the cameras debacle.
Complete and utter bullshit, Quack. I can not 'borrow' bandwidth from anyone elses IP address. If ANYONE says that is possible, kindly show us how. A person must register a domain name (or names) and THEN they can post anything they want from those domains (which will be the truncated address).
Unless Schneibster IS one of the 'urology' doctors OR their webmaster who has access to that domain name, it can't be done. My domain names are registered, BUT it would be impossible for me to post something having an address different from my own domains such as ...
http://forum.physorg.com/911columns.wmv
...to 'borrow' bandwidth (as you call it).
QUOTE (Temp+Feb 14 2006, 11:26 AM)
If (and I mean IF) the jet fuel ran down the lift shafts and the "hollow core" - why did the building start collapsing [exploding] from the top? Why didnt the jet fuel cause the steel at the base of the building to soften and buckle causing it to become unstable and topple over? Why the "top down" collapse?
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Temp+Feb 14 2006, 11:26 AM)
If (and I mean IF) the jet fuel ran down the lift shafts and the "hollow core" - why did the building start collapsing [exploding] from the top? Why didnt the jet fuel cause the steel at the base of the building to soften and buckle causing it to become unstable and topple over? Why the "top down" collapse?
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
It just so happened that the survivors from these levels, evidenced by pictures and testimony, were immune to the steel compromising heat. The same steel compromising heat NIST failed to find any evidence for.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
It just so happened that the survivors from these levels, evidenced by pictures and testimony, were immune to the steel compromising heat. The same steel compromising heat NIST failed to find any evidence for.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell
Note; This is a recent post that has been edited. The lower half has been rewritten for clarity of content. Excuse the apparent redundancy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...&q=loose+change
If you scroll through the time code, to about the 30:40 (min./sec.) point, you'll be just in front of a section; which shows the collapse of the south tower, from a south-westerly perspective. Not surprisingly, you see the upper section listing to the south. You'll also see, the inwardly tensiled, horizontal band, effecting the south face, along the impact zone. NIST established its' newest theory around this phenomenon. Based on the rotation of the upper section, around a compromised core , how could this section; NOT be pulled in? From the perspective of the camera, the upper section is rotating clockwise to the south (to the right). The lower part (of the upper section) has no choice but to move north or in to the building. It has to pull the local peripheral support with it, hence, creating that horizontal band of deformity. It's not primarily the heat of the fires that's doing this, it's the angular momentum of the upper section. Yet, from observing the inevitable consequences of the listing sector, just before collapse, NIST tries to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Explain away the rotational trajectory, by using the observed effect as a cause of systemic core destruction. Just in the nick of time, the floor joists tension the core against the periphery causing the lower section to fail, before and almost as fast, as the upper section is descending. The rotation is arrested, because, it's encountering reduced deceleration. The lower section isn't pushing back, because it's under-going complete, systematic, structural failure from below. It would take time to neutralize the integrity of such a steel core. The initiation of compromise would have to be significantly out in front of the descending wave of destruction. As Gordon might say, 'what available mechanism could cause this'? That's the 64k question. Accepting, for the sake of argument, the theory of joist tensioning; how does that mechanism get far enough ahead, in order to present to the face of the collapsing event, a significantly reduced structural impedance? Yesitdid, put forth a concept of a hammer being welded to the nail head, immediately after impact. This I assume, implied a momentary window of collision, as the 2 objects would then immediately share a coupled, downward inertia. This also implies failure, well before and below, the impact site. It's as if a work bench, in pre failure mode, then fails completely, at the same moment, or just before, you hit the nail into the wood, that resting on its' surface. The hammer would follow the nail, into the collapse, for as long as the stroke would permit. How could that happen to the lower section? If it pushed back, the hammer and nail interface point, would be destroyed as a consequence of deceleration. Why didn't it push back?
In the first 2 seconds, there is explosive plumage, upwardly trajecting. This would imply, at least, immediate, massive, concussive deceleration. Yet the building fell like butter from beneath the impact site. The building can't fall, almost, unopposed and yet indicate voluminous evidence of profound opposition. This doesn't make sense unless there was another mechanism involved.
The great NIST has spoken. Ignore the agency behind the curtain.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...&q=loose+change
If you scroll through the time code, to about the 30:40 (min./sec.) point, you'll be just in front of a section; which shows the collapse of the south tower, from a south-westerly perspective. Not surprisingly, you see the upper section listing to the south. You'll also see, the inwardly tensiled, horizontal band, effecting the south face, along the impact zone. NIST established its' newest theory around this phenomenon. Based on the rotation of the upper section, around a compromised core , how could this section; NOT be pulled in? From the perspective of the camera, the upper section is rotating clockwise to the south (to the right). The lower part (of the upper section) has no choice but to move north or in to the building. It has to pull the local peripheral support with it, hence, creating that horizontal band of deformity. It's not primarily the heat of the fires that's doing this, it's the angular momentum of the upper section. Yet, from observing the inevitable consequences of the listing sector, just before collapse, NIST tries to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Explain away the rotational trajectory, by using the observed effect as a cause of systemic core destruction. Just in the nick of time, the floor joists tension the core against the periphery causing the lower section to fail, before and almost as fast, as the upper section is descending. The rotation is arrested, because, it's encountering reduced deceleration. The lower section isn't pushing back, because it's under-going complete, systematic, structural failure from below. It would take time to neutralize the integrity of such a steel core. The initiation of compromise would have to be significantly out in front of the descending wave of destruction. As Gordon might say, 'what available mechanism could cause this'? That's the 64k question. Accepting, for the sake of argument, the theory of joist tensioning; how does that mechanism get far enough ahead, in order to present to the face of the collapsing event, a significantly reduced structural impedance? Yesitdid, put forth a concept of a hammer being welded to the nail head, immediately after impact. This I assume, implied a momentary window of collision, as the 2 objects would then immediately share a coupled, downward inertia. This also implies failure, well before and below, the impact site. It's as if a work bench, in pre failure mode, then fails completely, at the same moment, or just before, you hit the nail into the wood, that resting on its' surface. The hammer would follow the nail, into the collapse, for as long as the stroke would permit. How could that happen to the lower section? If it pushed back, the hammer and nail interface point, would be destroyed as a consequence of deceleration. Why didn't it push back?
In the first 2 seconds, there is explosive plumage, upwardly trajecting. This would imply, at least, immediate, massive, concussive deceleration. Yet the building fell like butter from beneath the impact site. The building can't fall, almost, unopposed and yet indicate voluminous evidence of profound opposition. This doesn't make sense unless there was another mechanism involved.
The great NIST has spoken. Ignore the agency behind the curtain.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Temp+Feb 14 2006, 11:26 AM)
If (and I mean IF) the jet fuel ran down the lift shafts and the "hollow core" - why did the building start collapsing [exploding] from the top? Why didnt the jet fuel cause the steel at the base of the building to soften and buckle causing it to become unstable and topple over? Why the "top down" collapse?
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
Arthur.
Using your fairy tale scenario, how did the fires at the 77th floor, cause the building to "collapse" into the basement levels? Floor after floor turned to dust until it hit bedrock.
I take it you had a hand in writing the report.
19 Muslim zombies with plastic knives, being co-ordinated from a cave in Afghanistan, no less, defeated the USA, striking its 50 trillion dollar military nerve center, evading a 50 trillion dollar radar defense and a 50 trillion dollar air force!!
And I'm a conspiracy theorist??
Oh, by the way the Pentagon wants more money to protect US citizens - no prizes for guessing where they are taking it from?
What next?
An attack by invisible "Eskimoes" using dogsleds (owned by WilmingtonTrust) under the cover of a huge snowfall on the East coast?
No offence to my Inuit pals.
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
Arthur.
Using your fairy tale scenario, how did the fires at the 77th floor, cause the building to "collapse" into the basement levels? Floor after floor turned to dust until it hit bedrock.
I take it you had a hand in writing the report.
19 Muslim zombies with plastic knives, being co-ordinated from a cave in Afghanistan, no less, defeated the USA, striking its 50 trillion dollar military nerve center, evading a 50 trillion dollar radar defense and a 50 trillion dollar air force!!
And I'm a conspiracy theorist??
Oh, by the way the Pentagon wants more money to protect US citizens - no prizes for guessing where they are taking it from?
What next?
An attack by invisible "Eskimoes" using dogsleds (owned by WilmingtonTrust) under the cover of a huge snowfall on the East coast?
No offence to my Inuit pals.
QUOTE (Temp+Feb 14 2006, 05:51 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Temp+Feb 14 2006, 11:26 AM)
If (and I mean IF) the jet fuel ran down the lift shafts and the "hollow core" - why did the building start collapsing [exploding] from the top? Why didnt the jet fuel cause the steel at the base of the building to soften and buckle causing it to become unstable and topple over? Why the "top down" collapse?
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
Arthur.
Using your fairy tale scenario, how did the fires at the 77th floor, cause the building to "collapse" into the basement levels? Floor after floor turned to dust until it hit bedrock.
I take it you had a hand in writing the report.
19 Muslim zombies with plastic knives, being co-ordinated from a cave in Afghanistan, no less, defeated the USA, striking its 50 trillion dollar military nerve center, evading a 50 trillion dollar radar defense and a 50 trillion dollar air force!!
And I'm a conspiracy theorist??
Oh, by the way the Pentagon wants more money to protect US citizens - no prizes for guessing where they are taking it from?
What next?
An attack by invisible "Eskimoes" using dogsleds (owned by WilmingtonTrust) under the cover of a huge snowfall on the East coast?
No offence to my Inuit pals.
Given that fires on the 77th floor were not as severe as those a few floors up, your statement is ridiculous to start with.
Floors did NOT all turn to dust. The gyprock certainly did and a portion of the conrete did. The steel remained steel and not steel dust as so many try to say but provide no evidence of.
Not 19 Muslim zombies but 19 fanatic Muslim hijackers. Do you wish to suggest that Arabs or Muslims are all of lesser intelligence and ability than you for instance?
Plastic knives?? NO, box cutters! Ever see one, ever hold one? The blade is not large but it is steel and razor sharp.
Co-ordinated from a cave in Afghanistan? Not likely and not necessary. Unlike gov't central military establishments, terror groups can send off groups to act autonomously. All that need be set up is a way of financing their action.
Did they 'evade' a radar defense system? What radar defense system is that? The one designed to detect and send intercepts against unidentified aircraft entering NORAD coverage? They did not have to 'evade' this since they were already within in the USA and thus would not be of any concern to NORAD until asked by civilian ATC. Similar for the Air Force(which is of course part of the American contribution to NORAD, not a separate entity).
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
Arthur.
Using your fairy tale scenario, how did the fires at the 77th floor, cause the building to "collapse" into the basement levels? Floor after floor turned to dust until it hit bedrock.
I take it you had a hand in writing the report.
19 Muslim zombies with plastic knives, being co-ordinated from a cave in Afghanistan, no less, defeated the USA, striking its 50 trillion dollar military nerve center, evading a 50 trillion dollar radar defense and a 50 trillion dollar air force!!
And I'm a conspiracy theorist??
Oh, by the way the Pentagon wants more money to protect US citizens - no prizes for guessing where they are taking it from?
What next?
An attack by invisible "Eskimoes" using dogsleds (owned by WilmingtonTrust) under the cover of a huge snowfall on the East coast?
No offence to my Inuit pals.
Given that fires on the 77th floor were not as severe as those a few floors up, your statement is ridiculous to start with.
Floors did NOT all turn to dust. The gyprock certainly did and a portion of the conrete did. The steel remained steel and not steel dust as so many try to say but provide no evidence of.
Not 19 Muslim zombies but 19 fanatic Muslim hijackers. Do you wish to suggest that Arabs or Muslims are all of lesser intelligence and ability than you for instance?
Plastic knives?? NO, box cutters! Ever see one, ever hold one? The blade is not large but it is steel and razor sharp.
Co-ordinated from a cave in Afghanistan? Not likely and not necessary. Unlike gov't central military establishments, terror groups can send off groups to act autonomously. All that need be set up is a way of financing their action.
Did they 'evade' a radar defense system? What radar defense system is that? The one designed to detect and send intercepts against unidentified aircraft entering NORAD coverage? They did not have to 'evade' this since they were already within in the USA and thus would not be of any concern to NORAD until asked by civilian ATC. Similar for the Air Force(which is of course part of the American contribution to NORAD, not a separate entity).
QUOTE (brian+Feb 14 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Temp+Feb 14 2006, 11:26 AM)
If (and I mean IF) the jet fuel ran down the lift shafts and the "hollow core" - why did the building start collapsing [exploding] from the top? Why didnt the jet fuel cause the steel at the base of the building to soften and buckle causing it to become unstable and topple over? Why the "top down" collapse?
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
It just so happened that the survivors from these levels, evidenced by pictures and testimony, were immune to the steel compromising heat. The same steel compromising heat NIST failed to find any evidence for.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell
Read the NIST report. The fires progressed through the fire floors. The workspace area of one tower floor was 4020 square meters(1 acre). Although large areas were ignited all at once the entire floor was not. The area ignited was different on each of the several floors affected by each plane. All persons in the areas that were impacted by debris and ignited immediatly by the fireball, died immediatly. Survivors on impact floors were those who were not in line with the aircraft.
Dozens of people waiting for the elevator on the 78th floor of WTC2 died or were severely burned when the plane hit and the impact was centered on the 81st floor.
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
It just so happened that the survivors from these levels, evidenced by pictures and testimony, were immune to the steel compromising heat. The same steel compromising heat NIST failed to find any evidence for.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell
Read the NIST report. The fires progressed through the fire floors. The workspace area of one tower floor was 4020 square meters(1 acre). Although large areas were ignited all at once the entire floor was not. The area ignited was different on each of the several floors affected by each plane. All persons in the areas that were impacted by debris and ignited immediatly by the fireball, died immediatly. Survivors on impact floors were those who were not in line with the aircraft.
Dozens of people waiting for the elevator on the 78th floor of WTC2 died or were severely burned when the plane hit and the impact was centered on the 81st floor.
QUOTE (Temp+Feb 14 2006, 01:51 PM)
I take it you had a hand in writing the report.
19 Muslim zombies with plastic knives, being co-ordinated from a cave in Afghanistan, no less, defeated the USA, striking its 50 trillion dollar military nerve center, evading a 50 trillion dollar radar defense and a 50 trillion dollar air force!!
And I'm a conspiracy theorist??
I had no hand in writing the report and I do not work for NIST or the Govt.
But thanks, that's quite a compliment.
Back to reality, which I'm sure is a concept you are only marginally aware of, but ...
They didn't defeat the USA.
On each plane 4 or 5 armed men, trained in martial arts and holding RAZOR sharp box cutters killed 2 unarmed men who were belted into their seats with shoulder straps and thus pretty much unable to easily defend themselves.
Then they steered those planes into targets before the US military could react.
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
If you want to talk about the aviation aspect go to www.airdisaster.com and numberous aviation experts, including fighter pilots, will explain why your strawman arguments are not valid.
And yes, you are a conspiracy theorist.
Arthur
19 Muslim zombies with plastic knives, being co-ordinated from a cave in Afghanistan, no less, defeated the USA, striking its 50 trillion dollar military nerve center, evading a 50 trillion dollar radar defense and a 50 trillion dollar air force!!
And I'm a conspiracy theorist??
I had no hand in writing the report and I do not work for NIST or the Govt.
But thanks, that's quite a compliment.
Back to reality, which I'm sure is a concept you are only marginally aware of, but ...
They didn't defeat the USA.
On each plane 4 or 5 armed men, trained in martial arts and holding RAZOR sharp box cutters killed 2 unarmed men who were belted into their seats with shoulder straps and thus pretty much unable to easily defend themselves.
Then they steered those planes into targets before the US military could react.
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
If you want to talk about the aviation aspect go to www.airdisaster.com and numberous aviation experts, including fighter pilots, will explain why your strawman arguments are not valid.
And yes, you are a conspiracy theorist.
Arthur
I Liken the collapse to opening up a can of juice. If you got one of a gallon cans of juice that had to be opened with a can opener, you have to open it on both side to get a consistant flow of juice. The towers seen to collapse along the same principal. There had to be a chimney type of condition for air to flow consistanly from the bottom where the large explosions were heared to the top where all the smoke was escaping from simmular to a chimney. This provided the vaccum for the building to fall faster than gravity.
Sentinel
Sentinel
Is it just me or are the CT'ers, on average, getting more and more stupid as time goes by?
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 14 2006, 06:55 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 14 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (Temp+Feb 14 2006, 11:26 AM)
If (and I mean IF) the jet fuel ran down the lift shafts and the "hollow core" - why did the building start collapsing [exploding] from the top? Why didnt the jet fuel cause the steel at the base of the building to soften and buckle causing it to become unstable and topple over? Why the "top down" collapse?
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
It just so happened that the survivors from these levels, evidenced by pictures and testimony, were immune to the steel compromising heat. The same steel compromising heat NIST failed to find any evidence for.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell
Read the NIST report. The fires progressed through the fire floors. The workspace area of one tower floor was 4020 square meters(1 acre). Although large areas were ignited all at once the entire floor was not. The area ignited was different on each of the several floors affected by each plane. All persons in the areas that were impacted by debris and ignited immediatly by the fireball, died immediatly. Survivors on impact floors were those who were not in line with the aircraft.
Dozens of people waiting for the elevator on the 78th floor of WTC2 died or were severely burned when the plane hit and the impact was centered on the 81st floor.
What has your reply to do with the above?
Where in he NIST report does it give evidence of steel being compromised by heat?
What has people being killed or burnt by the initial inferno have to do with the above?
Prattling on about a "fireball" and people being burnt or killed will not change the fact that there is nothing to support he heat compromising steel baloney.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell
"An account by Stanley Praimnath, a survivor from the 81st floor of WTC 2:
As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department.
Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere."
--------
The office of Euro Brokers on the 84th floor:
Most of the company's trading floor there was annihilated. Yet even there — at the bull's-eye of the airplane's impact — other people were alive. [New York Times]
An account by Brian Clark, an 84th floor survivor:
"You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall." [BBC Horizon]
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_fire.html
Did you happen to read to the post above yours before you wrote this?
Did you happen to read to the post above yours before you wrote this?
I Liken the collapse to opening up a can of juice. If you got one of a gallon cans of juice that had to be opened with a can opener, you have to open it on both side to get a consistant flow of juice. The towers seen to collapse along the same principal. There had to be a chimney type of condition for air to flow consistanly from the bottom where the large explosions were heared to the top where all the smoke was escaping from simmular to a chimney. This provided the vaccum for the building to fall faster than gravity.
What the hell have you been smoking? Looks like we have wonderful new "theory" to add to the list. Foxx should have a blast with this. What should this one be called?
I gotta get back to work, this crap is giving me a headache.
Did you happen to read to the post above yours before you wrote this?
Did you happen to read to the post above yours before you wrote this?
I Liken the collapse to opening up a can of juice. If you got one of a gallon cans of juice that had to be opened with a can opener, you have to open it on both side to get a consistant flow of juice. The towers seen to collapse along the same principal. There had to be a chimney type of condition for air to flow consistanly from the bottom where the large explosions were heared to the top where all the smoke was escaping from simmular to a chimney. This provided the vaccum for the building to fall faster than gravity.
What the hell have you been smoking? Looks like we have wonderful new "theory" to add to the list. Foxx should have a blast with this. What should this one be called?
I gotta get back to work, this crap is giving me a headache.
Yeah, I read it, which is why I made the comment.
He's competing with newton to see who can come up with the dumbest explanation.
I thought newt had it sewn up, but damn if Sinclair didn't come up with an even dumber one.
Arthur
Arthur
He's competing with newton to see who can come up with the dumbest explanation.
I'd say the US Government has already claimed that award....
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
"NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" -USA Today
"NORAD exercise had jet crashing into building" -CNN
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke chairs a tabletop exercise at the White House, involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend, and are asked how they would stop such a threat. Pentagon officials say they could launch fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, but would need authorization from the president to shoot the plane down, and currently there is no system to do this. The 9/11 Commission later states: “There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.” [Slate, 7/22/04; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, pp. 345 & 457-458]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...tehouseexercise
Interesting then, that the 9/11 Commission Report states:
"The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."
The Report also states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states:
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION
The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of...mmission_Report
It's pretty clear who the real liars are.
Really newton,
You thought of that ALL by yourself?????
Friggin amazing.
Arthur
my theory about shoulder fired missiles from that helicopter is to try and explain,
a. why a helicopter would fly in the smoke plume on a blue sky day,
b. very bright flashes coming from a helicopter which is enveloped in a thick layer of smoke, and,
c. how the north tower falls IMMEDIATELY after these flashes are observed.
it IS strange that no one in the conspiracy camp came up with it, UNTIL the 911eyewitness video became the first publically available RAW FOOTAGE of the burning towers. it IS the first thing that pops into your head after viewing the footage, unless you are desperately trying to keep your head stuck in the sand.
on this same video, you will be able to hear a huge explosion 17 seconds before the south tower begins to fall. an explosion greater in sound energy than the first few seconds of the actual collapse.
at the end of the collapse, the 'spire'(still a HUGE MASS) can be seen swaying, and then collapsing, without registering hardly a RIPPLE on the sound meters.
as i said, you can get the video by using bittorrent. (you can also buy a DVD from 911eyewitness.com, but i don't like being accused of trying to sell anything, so i say download it for free, and buy it or not depending on how you feel. either way, it is the MOST HONEST footage you will see of that day.)
it is a homemade two hour documentary, made by the guy who actually videotaped the towers burning using a simple home market video recorder on a tripod.
i hear he moved to spain for fear for his life.
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
"NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" -USA Today
"NORAD exercise had jet crashing into building" -CNN
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke chairs a tabletop exercise at the White House, involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend, and are asked how they would stop such a threat. Pentagon officials say they could launch fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, but would need authorization from the president to shoot the plane down, and currently there is no system to do this. The 9/11 Commission later states: “There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.” [Slate, 7/22/04; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, pp. 345 & 457-458]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...tehouseexercise
Interesting then, that the 9/11 Commission Report states:
"The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."
The Report also states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states:
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION
The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of...mmission_Report
It's pretty clear who the real liars are.
I see you couldn't come up with any proof that NORAD had any way to intercept a US aircraft within the continental US in a short time frame.
The fact is on 9/11 there was NO POSSIBLE WAY to stop the FIRST jet. Only the remotest possibility of being able to stop the second jet and even this would have required the military to disregard the established rules of engagement, something that was not likely, considering identification of the aircraft was so imprecise.
With 20/20 hindsight we could have stopped the 3rd jet, but the chances of doing it on that day would involve a lot more luck, not more skill.
The 4th plane we possibly would have stopped, but even it would have been a toss up.
And this is with EVERYONE DOING THEIR JOBS.
Look, it took OVER AN HOUR to find Payne Stewart's plane and it was on a straight course, its transponder on and at high altitude, i.e. sticking out like a sore thumb. These jets, (after the first 2) had their transponders off and were flying at low altitude. The FAA couldn't track either of them very well in real time and the only way NORAD could vector their pilots towards them was by a cumbersome process where the NEADs Controllers would talk to the Military controllers so they could identify which of the many blips was which. The military controllers would then have to relay this changing scenario to the jet pilots who would then have to visually identify the targets.
This was NOT something that the pilots who were flying that day had EVER practiced.
As to your 'excersises'
In BOTH of the articles referenced
They emphasize it involved an airliner being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad
And then the third:
So the First two involve NORAD and hijackings BUT NOT OF A PLANE ALREADY WITHIN US AIRSPACE.
The second doesn't involve either hijacking or NORAD.
Arthur
This again comes down to a factor on which we disagree.
This thread discussed the yield load of the bolts in shear as being of the order of a few tonnes. Given that the connections were also welded and set in we can increase this figure, and given that there was one floor connection for every two perimeter columns we can compare the loads on the perimeter column.
Mass of upper section producing vertical load is 56000 tonnes, (BZ)
Magnitude of horizontal load through floors is limited to a few tonnes multiplied by about 120. Several thousand tonnes???
Without downward movement of the core the maximum horizontal load through the floors would be supplied only by the floor mass, distributed among what remained of the the about 250 connections. Further, the mass would act as a vertical force so only a proportion would act horizontally and this proportion would involve the sine of the angle of incidence of floor and column. Even at 30 degrees only half of the force would act horizontally.
So without downward core movement, the source of the force, could only supply a few tonnes through the floors
Both of these forces would act with the same moment on the buckle points. (BZ)
So what would be the result of applying forces of this magnitude to the column?
Without core movement the floor load of a few tonnes would be inconsequential when compared with the mass of the upper section at 56000 tonnes.
With core movement the floor load, of itself, would be insufficient to cause buckling before the connections failed. It could however act as the impulse which caused inward buckling of the columns, but the major buckling failure load would have as its source, the upper mass.
Without the removal of the core's load carrying abilities the failure load of the perimeter columns would not have been reached. It was only when the full load of the upper section acted on these alone rather than on both core and perimeter that the visible failure occurred.
We know that the antennae moved vertically immediately prior to visible collapse initiation, so we know that there was a core movement immediately prior to visible collapse initiation.
You say that pulling on the floors would shatter the windows. But there would previously have been continual pushing and pulling of the floors due to thermal expansion and differential expansion of core and column and if NIST are correct, throughout the period of the fire, they pulled inwards on the perimeter columns producing an ever increasing deflection. Why should a core induced pull be characterised by smashing of windows any more than any other inducement.
The reason for the collapse at or about the aircraft impact point is that, of the remaining load carrying columns in the perimeter one section has a big hole in it at that point, and since the failure inducing load is the upper mass and not the floors pulling in, it is the action of that mass induced force which should be primarily considered. It will act firstly and with most destruction at areas of stress concentration - the impact damage site.
Gordon.
Gordon,
Pictures taken prior to the collapse show both the sagging floors and the pulled in columns. So we know it happened.
Your analysis is off where you compare the VERTICAL LOAD the columns are designed to support and the BENDING force imposed by the sagging floors on the columns that they WEREN'T designed to WITHSTAND.
The force required to BEND the columns is related to but certainly can not be compared in MAGNITUDE to the vertical load the columns were carrying.
What's more, as the sagging floors induce a bend in the columns then a portion of the immense Vertical load now acts to INCREASE the bending force, since its force vector is no longer perpendicular.
Arthur
Edited to correct "sagging column" reference.
Come on newton, tell us the truth, you're really a 13 year old girl, right?
Arthur
you wish.
you can tell, because even a two dimensional picture has perspective.
it was not one flash. there were at least three very bright ones, and perhaps two others which are fainter, perhaps because of thicker smoke obscuration.
i don't BELIEVE they were missiles. it is just a 'quantum cat'.
and, no i'm not a 13 yr. old girl. i'm a seventy-eight yr. old crazy cat lady, with many boxes full of indecisive cats.
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
"NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" -USA Today
"NORAD exercise had jet crashing into building" -CNN
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke chairs a tabletop exercise at the White House, involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend, and are asked how they would stop such a threat. Pentagon officials say they could launch fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, but would need authorization from the president to shoot the plane down, and currently there is no system to do this. The 9/11 Commission later states: “There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.” [Slate, 7/22/04; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, pp. 345 & 457-458]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...tehouseexercise
Interesting then, that the 9/11 Commission Report states:
"The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."
The Report also states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states:
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION
The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of...mmission_Report
It's pretty clear who the real liars are.
I see you couldn't come up with any proof that NORAD had any way to intercept a US aircraft within the continental US in a short time frame.
The fact is on 9/11 there was NO POSSIBLE WAY to stop the FIRST jet. Only the remotest possibility of being able to stop the second jet and even this would have required the military to disregard the established rules of engagement, something that was not likely, considering identification of the aircraft was so imprecise.
With 20/20 hindsight we could have stopped the 3rd jet, but the chances of doing it on that day would involve a lot more luck, not more skill.
The 4th plane we possibly would have stopped, but even it would have been a toss up.
And this is with EVERYONE DOING THEIR JOBS.
Look, it took OVER AN HOUR to find Payne Stewart's plane and it was on a straight course, its transponder on and at high altitude, i.e. sticking out like a sore thumb. These jets, (after the first 2) had their transponders off and were flying at low altitude. The FAA couldn't track either of them very well in real time and the only way NORAD could vector their pilots towards them was by a cumbersome process where the NEADs Controllers would talk to the Military controllers so they could identify which of the many blips was which. The military controllers would then have to relay this changing scenario to the jet pilots who would then have to visually identify the targets.
This was NOT something that the pilots who were flying that day had EVER practiced.
As to your 'excersises'
In BOTH of the articles referenced
They emphasize it involved an airliner being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad
And then the third:
So the First two involve NORAD and hijackings BUT NOT OF A PLANE ALREADY WITHIN US AIRSPACE.
The second doesn't involve either hijacking or NORAD.
Arthur
Nice hair splitting job Adoucette.
So let's see. We have NORAD drills of hijacked planes being flown into U.S. airspace. These drills involve "hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties...One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center"
Then we have drills involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend.
The 9/11 Commission, the government, and YOU would have us beleive that it was a stretch for them to put all this together. Who could have imagined airliners hijacked from within the U.S.?
Nice try moron.
You also overlooked this paragraph, where they did manage to put these unimaginable scenarios together.
[B]But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." [/B]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-18-norad_x.htm
I gotta give it to you, Arthur, you are an expert bullsh1tter.
You should ask for a raise.
It wasn't the burning of the fuel that caused the heat that affected the steel, the fuel STARTED the fires on multiple floors in the towers and up/down the elevator shafts, but it was the already present office furniture and material in the towers which provided the bulk of fuel for the fires.
Arthur
It just so happened that the survivors from these levels, evidenced by pictures and testimony, were immune to the steel compromising heat. The same steel compromising heat NIST failed to find any evidence for.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell
Read the NIST report. The fires progressed through the fire floors. The workspace area of one tower floor was 4020 square meters(1 acre). Although large areas were ignited all at once the entire floor was not. The area ignited was different on each of the several floors affected by each plane. All persons in the areas that were impacted by debris and ignited immediatly by the fireball, died immediatly. Survivors on impact floors were those who were not in line with the aircraft.
Dozens of people waiting for the elevator on the 78th floor of WTC2 died or were severely burned when the plane hit and the impact was centered on the 81st floor.
What has your reply to do with the above?
Where in he NIST report does it give evidence of steel being compromised by heat?
What has people being killed or burnt by the initial inferno have to do with the above?
Prattling on about a "fireball" and people being burnt or killed will not change the fact that there is nothing to support he heat compromising steel baloney.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell
"An account by Stanley Praimnath, a survivor from the 81st floor of WTC 2:
As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department.
Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere."
--------
The office of Euro Brokers on the 84th floor:
Most of the company's trading floor there was annihilated. Yet even there — at the bull's-eye of the airplane's impact — other people were alive. [New York Times]
An account by Brian Clark, an 84th floor survivor:
"You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall." [BBC Horizon]
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_fire.html
QUOTE (gordon)
However, and remembering that I am no expert on controlled demolition, I would take out a lower section of the core, maybe with a relatively slow acting thermite-like agent.
This would first be evidenced from outside the building by a downward movement of the antennae on the top.
Load would shift onto the perimeter columns caused by this induced failure and downward movement of the core, and this increased loading, combined with the same downward movement of the core causing the floors to pull in on the perimeter columns. would induce a buckling failure of the perimeter columns.
This failure would almost certainly take place firstly at the area previously weakened by aircraft impact as you say
Arthur said,
Don't agree with this conclusion at all.
You cut the lower section of the core and you would pull ALL the floors down, which would shatter windows throughout the towers, I think that it would be VERY visible from the outside, yet we don't see evidence of it.
Secondly there is little reason to think that this would cause failure at the impact floors. Intact floor trusses that had not been heated being in better shape to distort their associated perimeter columns as they were pulled down by the collapsing center columns.
Seems you are GRASPING for a solution that fits, even though the facts point to a much more mundane set of factors.
Arthur
This again comes down to a factor on which we disagree.
This thread discussed the yield load of the bolts in shear as being of the order of a few tonnes. Given that the connections were also welded and set in we can increase this figure, and given that there was one floor connection for every two perimeter columns we can compare the loads on the perimeter column.
Mass of upper section producing vertical load is 56000 tonnes, (BZ)
Magnitude of horizontal load through floors is limited to a few tonnes multiplied by about 120. Several thousand tonnes???
Without downward movement of the core the maximum horizontal load through the floors would be supplied only by the floor mass, distributed among what remained of the the about 250 connections. Further, the mass would act as a vertical force so only a proportion would act horizontally and this proportion would involve the sine of the angle of incidence of floor and column. Even at 30 degrees only half of the force would act horizontally.
So without downward core movement, the source of the force, could only supply a few tonnes through the floors
Both of these forces would act with the same moment on the buckle points. (BZ)
So what would be the result of applying forces of this magnitude to the column?
Without core movement the floor load of a few tonnes would be inconsequential when compared with the mass of the upper section at 56000 tonnes.
With core movement the floor load, of itself, would be insufficient to cause buckling before the connections failed. It could however act as the impulse which caused inward buckling of the columns, but the major buckling failure load would have as its source, the upper mass.
Without the removal of the core's load carrying abilities the failure load of the perimeter columns would not have been reached. It was only when the full load of the upper section acted on these alone rather than on both core and perimeter that the visible failure occurred.
We know that the antennae moved vertically immediately prior to visible collapse initiation, so we know that there was a core movement immediately prior to visible collapse initiation.
You say that pulling on the floors would shatter the windows. But there would previously have been continual pushing and pulling of the floors due to thermal expansion and differential expansion of core and column and if NIST are correct, throughout the period of the fire, they pulled inwards on the perimeter columns producing an ever increasing deflection. Why should a core induced pull be characterised by smashing of windows any more than any other inducement.
The reason for the collapse at or about the aircraft impact point is that, of the remaining load carrying columns in the perimeter one section has a big hole in it at that point, and since the failure inducing load is the upper mass and not the floors pulling in, it is the action of that mass induced force which should be primarily considered. It will act firstly and with most destruction at areas of stress concentration - the impact damage site.
Gordon.
However, and remembering that I am no expert on controlled demolition, I would take out a lower section of the core, maybe with a relatively slow acting thermite-like agent.
This would first be evidenced from outside the building by a downward movement of the antennae on the top.
Load would shift onto the perimeter columns caused by this induced failure and downward movement of the core, and this increased loading, combined with the same downward movement of the core causing the floors to pull in on the perimeter columns. would induce a buckling failure of the perimeter columns.
This failure would almost certainly take place firstly at the area previously weakened by aircraft impact as you say
Arthur said,
Don't agree with this conclusion at all.
You cut the lower section of the core and you would pull ALL the floors down, which would shatter windows throughout the towers, I think that it would be VERY visible from the outside, yet we don't see evidence of it.
Secondly there is little reason to think that this would cause failure at the impact floors. Intact floor trusses that had not been heated being in better shape to distort their associated perimeter columns as they were pulled down by the collapsing center columns.
Seems you are GRASPING for a solution that fits, even though the facts point to a much more mundane set of factors.
Arthur
This again comes down to a factor on which we disagree.
This thread discussed the yield load of the bolts in shear as being of the order of a few tonnes. Given that the connections were also welded and set in we can increase this figure, and given that there was one floor connection for every two perimeter columns we can compare the loads on the perimeter column.
Mass of upper section producing vertical load is 56000 tonnes, (BZ)
Magnitude of horizontal load through floors is limited to a few tonnes multiplied by about 120. Several thousand tonnes???
Without downward movement of the core the maximum horizontal load through the floors would be supplied only by the floor mass, distributed among what remained of the the about 250 connections. Further, the mass would act as a vertical force so only a proportion would act horizontally and this proportion would involve the sine of the angle of incidence of floor and column. Even at 30 degrees only half of the force would act horizontally.
So without downward core movement, the source of the force, could only supply a few tonnes through the floors
Both of these forces would act with the same moment on the buckle points. (BZ)
So what would be the result of applying forces of this magnitude to the column?
Without core movement the floor load of a few tonnes would be inconsequential when compared with the mass of the upper section at 56000 tonnes.
With core movement the floor load, of itself, would be insufficient to cause buckling before the connections failed. It could however act as the impulse which caused inward buckling of the columns, but the major buckling failure load would have as its source, the upper mass.
Without the removal of the core's load carrying abilities the failure load of the perimeter columns would not have been reached. It was only when the full load of the upper section acted on these alone rather than on both core and perimeter that the visible failure occurred.
We know that the antennae moved vertically immediately prior to visible collapse initiation, so we know that there was a core movement immediately prior to visible collapse initiation.
You say that pulling on the floors would shatter the windows. But there would previously have been continual pushing and pulling of the floors due to thermal expansion and differential expansion of core and column and if NIST are correct, throughout the period of the fire, they pulled inwards on the perimeter columns producing an ever increasing deflection. Why should a core induced pull be characterised by smashing of windows any more than any other inducement.
The reason for the collapse at or about the aircraft impact point is that, of the remaining load carrying columns in the perimeter one section has a big hole in it at that point, and since the failure inducing load is the upper mass and not the floors pulling in, it is the action of that mass induced force which should be primarily considered. It will act firstly and with most destruction at areas of stress concentration - the impact damage site.
Gordon.
QUOTE
Is it just me or are the CT'ers, on average, getting more and more stupid as time goes by?
Arthur
Arthur
Did you happen to read to the post above yours before you wrote this?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it just me or are the CT'ers, on average, getting more and more stupid as time goes by? Arthur |
Did you happen to read to the post above yours before you wrote this?
I Liken the collapse to opening up a can of juice. If you got one of a gallon cans of juice that had to be opened with a can opener, you have to open it on both side to get a consistant flow of juice. The towers seen to collapse along the same principal. There had to be a chimney type of condition for air to flow consistanly from the bottom where the large explosions were heared to the top where all the smoke was escaping from simmular to a chimney. This provided the vaccum for the building to fall faster than gravity.
What the hell have you been smoking? Looks like we have wonderful new "theory" to add to the list. Foxx should have a blast with this. What should this one be called?
I gotta get back to work, this crap is giving me a headache.
What are you prattling on about Brian, only 18 people at or above the impact point of WTC 2 survived.
The fires were not necessarily intense everywhere immediately after the impact, thus the reports from these survivors, the point being if they were on these floors and didn't leave immediately, they didn't make it.
But, what IS clear from the visual evidence, the fires spread and intensified.
Arthur
The fires were not necessarily intense everywhere immediately after the impact, thus the reports from these survivors, the point being if they were on these floors and didn't leave immediately, they didn't make it.
But, what IS clear from the visual evidence, the fires spread and intensified.
Arthur
QUOTE (cosmo+Feb 14 2006, 03:59 PM)
QUOTE
Is it just me or are the CT'ers, on average, getting more and more stupid as time goes by?
Arthur
Arthur
Did you happen to read to the post above yours before you wrote this?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it just me or are the CT'ers, on average, getting more and more stupid as time goes by? Arthur |
Did you happen to read to the post above yours before you wrote this?
I Liken the collapse to opening up a can of juice. If you got one of a gallon cans of juice that had to be opened with a can opener, you have to open it on both side to get a consistant flow of juice. The towers seen to collapse along the same principal. There had to be a chimney type of condition for air to flow consistanly from the bottom where the large explosions were heared to the top where all the smoke was escaping from simmular to a chimney. This provided the vaccum for the building to fall faster than gravity.
What the hell have you been smoking? Looks like we have wonderful new "theory" to add to the list. Foxx should have a blast with this. What should this one be called?
I gotta get back to work, this crap is giving me a headache.
Yeah, I read it, which is why I made the comment.
He's competing with newton to see who can come up with the dumbest explanation.
I thought newt had it sewn up, but damn if Sinclair didn't come up with an even dumber one.
Arthur
Hey authur,
I can asure you that you're a pussy who would only say things like this over a computar because I can bet if you have met me on the street I can bet you'd have nothing to say on that level because I'd kick the living *** out of you.
*** pussy.
Have a nice day.
Sentinel
I can asure you that you're a pussy who would only say things like this over a computar because I can bet if you have met me on the street I can bet you'd have nothing to say on that level because I'd kick the living *** out of you.
*** pussy.
Have a nice day.
Sentinel
Arthur
QUOTE
He's competing with newton to see who can come up with the dumbest explanation.
I'd say the US Government has already claimed that award....
For those who didn't understand what was writen its an explaination on the even flow of air having to travel through the towers during collapse.
If there had not been an even flow of air then there wopuld not have been the symetrical straight down collapse as was seen by everyone.
How else would the building which were hermiticly sealed on all the levels of the building have been controlled if this facter had not been considered?
Because you're all so smart
Sentinel
If there had not been an even flow of air then there wopuld not have been the symetrical straight down collapse as was seen by everyone.
How else would the building which were hermiticly sealed on all the levels of the building have been controlled if this facter had not been considered?
Because you're all so smart
Sentinel
Think about it...
I you smashed a soda can, how does the air flow through the can. Think of the towers for a moment and remember that they were basically square cans which hermetically sealed seperations on the MER Floors.
How would you demolish three square practically empty cans stacked on top off one another?
Remember the towers were 208 ft 1 sqare acre across. The KEYSPAN/ENRON Maspeth Holder tanks which were demolised two months before by CDI were 252FT across.
Have a nice day
Sentinel
I you smashed a soda can, how does the air flow through the can. Think of the towers for a moment and remember that they were basically square cans which hermetically sealed seperations on the MER Floors.
How would you demolish three square practically empty cans stacked on top off one another?
Remember the towers were 208 ft 1 sqare acre across. The KEYSPAN/ENRON Maspeth Holder tanks which were demolised two months before by CDI were 252FT across.
Have a nice day
Sentinel
QUOTE (andoucette+)
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Soda can theory?
Airflow strong enough to affect the whole structure...?
It seems like stretching the imagination a little bit, but I'm not an engineer.
Empirically, airflow would be orders of magnitude too weak to do that, but some calculations would be in order, to quantify the issue.
Airflow strong enough to affect the whole structure...?
It seems like stretching the imagination a little bit, but I'm not an engineer.
Empirically, airflow would be orders of magnitude too weak to do that, but some calculations would be in order, to quantify the issue.
Sentinel,
I apologize, I misunderstood you.
When I read
I thought you were saying something to the effect that billowing smoke created a vacuum which allowed the building to collapse at near free-fall speed.
Thank you for clearing that up. My mistake.
I apologize, I misunderstood you.
When I read
QUOTE
I Liken the collapse to opening up a can of juice. If you got one of a gallon cans of juice that had to be opened with a can opener, you have to open it on both side to get a consistant flow of juice. The towers seen to collapse along the same principal. There had to be a chimney type of condition for air to flow consistanly from the bottom where the large explosions were heared to the top where all the smoke was escaping from simmular to a chimney. This provided the vaccum for the building to fall faster than gravity.
I thought you were saying something to the effect that billowing smoke created a vacuum which allowed the building to collapse at near free-fall speed.
Thank you for clearing that up. My mistake.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 14 2006, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (andoucette+)
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
QUOTE (Sentinel+Feb 14 2006, 04:22 PM)
For those who didn't understand what was writen its an explaination on the even flow of air having to travel through the towers during collapse.
If there had not been an even flow of air then there wopuld not have been the symetrical straight down collapse as was seen by everyone.
How else would the building which were hermiticly sealed on all the levels of the building have been controlled if this facter had not been considered?
Because you're all so smart
Sentinel
So people worked in a hermetically sealed building?
Wonder how they got in and out?
Wonder what they breathed?
And the afternoon after the Chili Special in the cafeteria would be NO FUN at all.
It just keeps getting dumber and dumber.
Arthur
If there had not been an even flow of air then there wopuld not have been the symetrical straight down collapse as was seen by everyone.
How else would the building which were hermiticly sealed on all the levels of the building have been controlled if this facter had not been considered?
Because you're all so smart
Sentinel
So people worked in a hermetically sealed building?
Wonder how they got in and out?
Wonder what they breathed?
And the afternoon after the Chili Special in the cafeteria would be NO FUN at all.
It just keeps getting dumber and dumber.
Arthur
QUOTE (Sentinel+Feb 14 2006, 08:30 PM)
Think about it...
I you smashed a soda can, how does the air flow through the can. Think of the towers for a moment and remember that they were basically square cans which hermetically sealed seperations on the MER Floors.
How would you demolish three square practically empty cans stacked on top off one another?
Remember the towers were 208 ft 1 sqare acre across. The KEYSPAN/ENRON Maspeth Holder tanks which were demolised two months before by CDI were 252FT across.
Have a nice day
Sentinel
Where do you get this hermetically sealed B.S.? The windows were sealed and there would be some fire stop/smoke stop measures in place but nothing that would preclude high pressure air from moving through the building.
However what do you think would happen first, an elevator door or fire escape door buckling due to air pressure or, air pressure being high enough to float the falling mass of upper floor debris?
If your answer is the later then we need to know where those fire doors were manufactured 'cause damn, they are strong!!
I you smashed a soda can, how does the air flow through the can. Think of the towers for a moment and remember that they were basically square cans which hermetically sealed seperations on the MER Floors.
How would you demolish three square practically empty cans stacked on top off one another?
Remember the towers were 208 ft 1 sqare acre across. The KEYSPAN/ENRON Maspeth Holder tanks which were demolised two months before by CDI were 252FT across.
Have a nice day
Sentinel
Where do you get this hermetically sealed B.S.? The windows were sealed and there would be some fire stop/smoke stop measures in place but nothing that would preclude high pressure air from moving through the building.
However what do you think would happen first, an elevator door or fire escape door buckling due to air pressure or, air pressure being high enough to float the falling mass of upper floor debris?
If your answer is the later then we need to know where those fire doors were manufactured 'cause damn, they are strong!!
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 11:01 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 14 2006, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (andoucette+)
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
"NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" -USA Today
"NORAD exercise had jet crashing into building" -CNN
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke chairs a tabletop exercise at the White House, involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend, and are asked how they would stop such a threat. Pentagon officials say they could launch fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, but would need authorization from the president to shoot the plane down, and currently there is no system to do this. The 9/11 Commission later states: “There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.” [Slate, 7/22/04; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, pp. 345 & 457-458]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...tehouseexercise
Interesting then, that the 9/11 Commission Report states:
"The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."
The Report also states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states:
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION
The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of...mmission_Report
It's pretty clear who the real liars are.
Bin Laden tapes are as phony as Sept. 11's connection to Islam
By Kevin Barrett
As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape.
It's a tough thing to admit because I know on which side my bread is buttered and dropping Islam from the 9/11 equation is dropping my slice of bread butter-side-down. The myth that 9/11 had something to do with Muslims has poured millions, if not billions, into Arabic and Islamic studies. I finished my Ph.D. last year, so all I have to do is keep my eyes in my pocket and my nose on the ground, parrot the party line, and I'll be on the fast track to tenure track.
The trouble is, it's all based on a Big Lie. Take the recent "bin Laden" tape please! That voice was no more bin Laden than it was Rodney Dangerfield channeling my late Aunt Corinne from Peoria. I recently helped translate a previously unknown bin Laden tape, a real one from the early '90s, back when he was still alive. I know the guy's flowery religious rhetoric. The recent tape wasn't him.
The top American bin Laden expert agrees. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's religious studies department, has just published a book of translations of bin Laden's speeches. He says that the recent tape is a fake and that it is possible bin Laden is not even alive.
Fake bin Laden tapes, "verified" by the CIA, are nothing new. Every supposed bin Laden statement since 2001 has been blatantly bogus. The last we heard from the real bin Laden came in his post-9/11 statements to Pakistani journalists: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation. ... I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. ... I had no knowledge of these attacks."
Then on Dec. 13, 2001, as George Bush was whining about the "outrageous conspiracy theories" that were spreading like wildfire, the first and shoddiest of the "bin Laden speaks from beyond the grave" tapes appeared. The video's sound and picture quality were horrible. It showed a big guy with a black beard, doing a passable imitation of bin Laden's voice, claiming foreknowledge, if not responsibility, for the 9/11 attacks, and chortling over their success. The trouble was, the big guy clearly was not bin Laden. He was at least 40 or 50 pounds heavier, and his facial features were obviously different.
The "Fatty bin Laden" tape was widely ridiculed, and I have yet to meet an informed observer who considers it authentic. (If you haven't figured this out yet, go back and look at the images from the tape and compare them to other images of bin Laden.) But the media let the fraud pass without asking the hard questions: Why was the U.S. government waving this blatantly fake "confession" video in our faces?
Perhaps due to the widespread hilarity evoked by "Fatty bin Laden," the next Osama from beyond the grave message had no images it was an audiotape delivered to al-Jazeera in fall 2002. The CIA verified it as authentic and then got a rotten egg in the face when the world's foremost voice identification experts in Switzerland reported that "the message was recorded by an impostor."
Every bin Laden message since then has been equally phony. They are released at moments when the Bush regime needs a boost and the American media go along with the fraud. Remember the bogus bin Laden tape that made headlines right before the 2004 presidential election? If you didn't figure out that it was a CIA-produced commercial for George Bush, I have some great bridges to sell you. Walter Cronkite, bless his heart, opined that Karl Rove was behind that tape. But the rest of the media just kept pretending that the emperor was clothed.
And the fraud continues. The most recent alleged bin Laden tape has been ridiculed by America's top bin Laden expert, yet the U.S. media keep right on holding a transparent fig leaf in front of the emperor! Professor Lawrence believes that this phony tape was designed to distract world opinion from the horrific massacre of Pakistani civilians by an errant CIA drone. But it may have another, more sinister purpose: to prepare public opinion for another false 9/11-style attack designed to trigger a U.S.-Israeli nuclear attack on Iran.
The real bin Laden, who insisted that he had nothing to do with 9/11, has been dead since late 2001 or early 2002. The fake messages have been fabricated by "al-CIA-duh" to support the Bush regime and its phony "war on terror." It is time for Americans to rise up in revolt against the fake terror masters who are looting U.S. taxpayers, torching our Constitution, destroying our economy, and threatening nuclear Armageddon.
The Capital Times
By Kevin Barrett
As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape.
It's a tough thing to admit because I know on which side my bread is buttered and dropping Islam from the 9/11 equation is dropping my slice of bread butter-side-down. The myth that 9/11 had something to do with Muslims has poured millions, if not billions, into Arabic and Islamic studies. I finished my Ph.D. last year, so all I have to do is keep my eyes in my pocket and my nose on the ground, parrot the party line, and I'll be on the fast track to tenure track.
The trouble is, it's all based on a Big Lie. Take the recent "bin Laden" tape please! That voice was no more bin Laden than it was Rodney Dangerfield channeling my late Aunt Corinne from Peoria. I recently helped translate a previously unknown bin Laden tape, a real one from the early '90s, back when he was still alive. I know the guy's flowery religious rhetoric. The recent tape wasn't him.
The top American bin Laden expert agrees. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's religious studies department, has just published a book of translations of bin Laden's speeches. He says that the recent tape is a fake and that it is possible bin Laden is not even alive.
Fake bin Laden tapes, "verified" by the CIA, are nothing new. Every supposed bin Laden statement since 2001 has been blatantly bogus. The last we heard from the real bin Laden came in his post-9/11 statements to Pakistani journalists: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation. ... I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. ... I had no knowledge of these attacks."
Then on Dec. 13, 2001, as George Bush was whining about the "outrageous conspiracy theories" that were spreading like wildfire, the first and shoddiest of the "bin Laden speaks from beyond the grave" tapes appeared. The video's sound and picture quality were horrible. It showed a big guy with a black beard, doing a passable imitation of bin Laden's voice, claiming foreknowledge, if not responsibility, for the 9/11 attacks, and chortling over their success. The trouble was, the big guy clearly was not bin Laden. He was at least 40 or 50 pounds heavier, and his facial features were obviously different.
The "Fatty bin Laden" tape was widely ridiculed, and I have yet to meet an informed observer who considers it authentic. (If you haven't figured this out yet, go back and look at the images from the tape and compare them to other images of bin Laden.) But the media let the fraud pass without asking the hard questions: Why was the U.S. government waving this blatantly fake "confession" video in our faces?
Perhaps due to the widespread hilarity evoked by "Fatty bin Laden," the next Osama from beyond the grave message had no images it was an audiotape delivered to al-Jazeera in fall 2002. The CIA verified it as authentic and then got a rotten egg in the face when the world's foremost voice identification experts in Switzerland reported that "the message was recorded by an impostor."
Every bin Laden message since then has been equally phony. They are released at moments when the Bush regime needs a boost and the American media go along with the fraud. Remember the bogus bin Laden tape that made headlines right before the 2004 presidential election? If you didn't figure out that it was a CIA-produced commercial for George Bush, I have some great bridges to sell you. Walter Cronkite, bless his heart, opined that Karl Rove was behind that tape. But the rest of the media just kept pretending that the emperor was clothed.
And the fraud continues. The most recent alleged bin Laden tape has been ridiculed by America's top bin Laden expert, yet the U.S. media keep right on holding a transparent fig leaf in front of the emperor! Professor Lawrence believes that this phony tape was designed to distract world opinion from the horrific massacre of Pakistani civilians by an errant CIA drone. But it may have another, more sinister purpose: to prepare public opinion for another false 9/11-style attack designed to trigger a U.S.-Israeli nuclear attack on Iran.
The real bin Laden, who insisted that he had nothing to do with 9/11, has been dead since late 2001 or early 2002. The fake messages have been fabricated by "al-CIA-duh" to support the Bush regime and its phony "war on terror." It is time for Americans to rise up in revolt against the fake terror masters who are looting U.S. taxpayers, torching our Constitution, destroying our economy, and threatening nuclear Armageddon.
The Capital Times
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 02:50 PM)
Really newton,
You thought of that ALL by yourself?????
Friggin amazing.
Arthur
my theory about shoulder fired missiles from that helicopter is to try and explain,
a. why a helicopter would fly in the smoke plume on a blue sky day,
b. very bright flashes coming from a helicopter which is enveloped in a thick layer of smoke, and,
c. how the north tower falls IMMEDIATELY after these flashes are observed.
it IS strange that no one in the conspiracy camp came up with it, UNTIL the 911eyewitness video became the first publically available RAW FOOTAGE of the burning towers. it IS the first thing that pops into your head after viewing the footage, unless you are desperately trying to keep your head stuck in the sand.
on this same video, you will be able to hear a huge explosion 17 seconds before the south tower begins to fall. an explosion greater in sound energy than the first few seconds of the actual collapse.
at the end of the collapse, the 'spire'(still a HUGE MASS) can be seen swaying, and then collapsing, without registering hardly a RIPPLE on the sound meters.
as i said, you can get the video by using bittorrent. (you can also buy a DVD from 911eyewitness.com, but i don't like being accused of trying to sell anything, so i say download it for free, and buy it or not depending on how you feel. either way, it is the MOST HONEST footage you will see of that day.)
it is a homemade two hour documentary, made by the guy who actually videotaped the towers burning using a simple home market video recorder on a tripod.
i hear he moved to spain for fear for his life.
QUOTE (cosmo+Feb 14 2006, 07:33 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 11:01 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 14 2006, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (andoucette+)
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
"NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" -USA Today
"NORAD exercise had jet crashing into building" -CNN
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke chairs a tabletop exercise at the White House, involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend, and are asked how they would stop such a threat. Pentagon officials say they could launch fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, but would need authorization from the president to shoot the plane down, and currently there is no system to do this. The 9/11 Commission later states: “There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.” [Slate, 7/22/04; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, pp. 345 & 457-458]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...tehouseexercise
Interesting then, that the 9/11 Commission Report states:
"The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."
The Report also states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states:
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION
The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of...mmission_Report
It's pretty clear who the real liars are.
I see you couldn't come up with any proof that NORAD had any way to intercept a US aircraft within the continental US in a short time frame.
The fact is on 9/11 there was NO POSSIBLE WAY to stop the FIRST jet. Only the remotest possibility of being able to stop the second jet and even this would have required the military to disregard the established rules of engagement, something that was not likely, considering identification of the aircraft was so imprecise.
With 20/20 hindsight we could have stopped the 3rd jet, but the chances of doing it on that day would involve a lot more luck, not more skill.
The 4th plane we possibly would have stopped, but even it would have been a toss up.
And this is with EVERYONE DOING THEIR JOBS.
Look, it took OVER AN HOUR to find Payne Stewart's plane and it was on a straight course, its transponder on and at high altitude, i.e. sticking out like a sore thumb. These jets, (after the first 2) had their transponders off and were flying at low altitude. The FAA couldn't track either of them very well in real time and the only way NORAD could vector their pilots towards them was by a cumbersome process where the NEADs Controllers would talk to the Military controllers so they could identify which of the many blips was which. The military controllers would then have to relay this changing scenario to the jet pilots who would then have to visually identify the targets.
This was NOT something that the pilots who were flying that day had EVER practiced.
As to your 'excersises'
In BOTH of the articles referenced
QUOTE
The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.
Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.
Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country. Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries. |
They emphasize it involved an airliner being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad
And then the third:
QUOTE
a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend, and are asked how they would stop such a threat. Pentagon officials say they could launch fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, but would need authorization from the president to shoot the plane down, and currently there is no system to do this. The 9/11 Commission later states: “There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.”
So the First two involve NORAD and hijackings BUT NOT OF A PLANE ALREADY WITHIN US AIRSPACE.
The second doesn't involve either hijacking or NORAD.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Feb 14 2006, 09:09 PM)
my theory about shoulder fired missiles from that helicopter is to try and explain,
a. why a helicopter would fly in the smoke plume on a blue sky day,
b. very bright flashes coming from a helicopter which is enveloped in a thick layer of smoke, and,
c. how the north tower falls IMMEDIATELY after these flashes are observed.
it IS strange that no one in the conspiracy camp came up with it, UNTIL the 911eyewitness video became the first publically available RAW FOOTAGE of the burning towers. it IS the first thing that pops into your head after viewing the footage, unless you are desperately trying to keep your head stuck in the sand.
on this same video, you will be able to hear a huge explosion 17 seconds before the south tower begins to fall. an explosion greater in sound energy than the first few seconds of the actual collapse.
at the end of the collapse, the 'spire'(still a HUGE MASS) can be seen swaying, and then collapsing, without registering hardly a RIPPLE on the sound meters.
as i said, you can get the video by using bittorrent. (you can also buy a DVD from 911eyewitness.com, but i don't like being accused of trying to sell anything, so i say download it for free, and buy it or not depending on how you feel. either way, it is the MOST HONEST footage you will see of that day.)
it is a homemade two hour documentary, made by the guy who actually videotaped the towers burning using a simple home market video recorder on a tripod.
i hear he moved to spain for fear for his life.
So newton,
Your claim is the US has a shoulder fired missile capable of taking down a structure the size of the WTC towers?
What's more, when fired at the top (or side) of the tower, the missile is sufficiently powerful enough to penetrate the precise distance into the WTC tower and cause the collapse to begin at the EXACT floor that the planes impacted it, and do this without a TELLTALE explosion.
You also think one could FIRE a shoulder fired missile with this miracle warhead from WITHIN a helicopter and not TORCH it.
The question is quite simple, if we HAD a missile this powerful, why bother with the unreliable hijackers and planes?
Your a real hoot, newt.
Now this video, its two dimensional right?
I mean I'm curious, how you tell the difference between a helicopter flying behind the smoke and disapearing within it?
Come on newton, tell us the truth, you're really a 13 year old girl, right?
Arthur
a. why a helicopter would fly in the smoke plume on a blue sky day,
b. very bright flashes coming from a helicopter which is enveloped in a thick layer of smoke, and,
c. how the north tower falls IMMEDIATELY after these flashes are observed.
it IS strange that no one in the conspiracy camp came up with it, UNTIL the 911eyewitness video became the first publically available RAW FOOTAGE of the burning towers. it IS the first thing that pops into your head after viewing the footage, unless you are desperately trying to keep your head stuck in the sand.
on this same video, you will be able to hear a huge explosion 17 seconds before the south tower begins to fall. an explosion greater in sound energy than the first few seconds of the actual collapse.
at the end of the collapse, the 'spire'(still a HUGE MASS) can be seen swaying, and then collapsing, without registering hardly a RIPPLE on the sound meters.
as i said, you can get the video by using bittorrent. (you can also buy a DVD from 911eyewitness.com, but i don't like being accused of trying to sell anything, so i say download it for free, and buy it or not depending on how you feel. either way, it is the MOST HONEST footage you will see of that day.)
it is a homemade two hour documentary, made by the guy who actually videotaped the towers burning using a simple home market video recorder on a tripod.
i hear he moved to spain for fear for his life.
So newton,
Your claim is the US has a shoulder fired missile capable of taking down a structure the size of the WTC towers?
What's more, when fired at the top (or side) of the tower, the missile is sufficiently powerful enough to penetrate the precise distance into the WTC tower and cause the collapse to begin at the EXACT floor that the planes impacted it, and do this without a TELLTALE explosion.
You also think one could FIRE a shoulder fired missile with this miracle warhead from WITHIN a helicopter and not TORCH it.
The question is quite simple, if we HAD a missile this powerful, why bother with the unreliable hijackers and planes?
Your a real hoot, newt.
Now this video, its two dimensional right?
I mean I'm curious, how you tell the difference between a helicopter flying behind the smoke and disapearing within it?
Come on newton, tell us the truth, you're really a 13 year old girl, right?
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Feb 14 2006, 03:57 PM)
This again comes down to a factor on which we disagree.
This thread discussed the yield load of the bolts in shear as being of the order of a few tonnes. Given that the connections were also welded and set in we can increase this figure, and given that there was one floor connection for every two perimeter columns we can compare the loads on the perimeter column.
Mass of upper section producing vertical load is 56000 tonnes, (BZ)
Magnitude of horizontal load through floors is limited to a few tonnes multiplied by about 120. Several thousand tonnes???
Without downward movement of the core the maximum horizontal load through the floors would be supplied only by the floor mass, distributed among what remained of the the about 250 connections. Further, the mass would act as a vertical force so only a proportion would act horizontally and this proportion would involve the sine of the angle of incidence of floor and column. Even at 30 degrees only half of the force would act horizontally.
So without downward core movement, the source of the force, could only supply a few tonnes through the floors
Both of these forces would act with the same moment on the buckle points. (BZ)
So what would be the result of applying forces of this magnitude to the column?
Without core movement the floor load of a few tonnes would be inconsequential when compared with the mass of the upper section at 56000 tonnes.
With core movement the floor load, of itself, would be insufficient to cause buckling before the connections failed. It could however act as the impulse which caused inward buckling of the columns, but the major buckling failure load would have as its source, the upper mass.
Without the removal of the core's load carrying abilities the failure load of the perimeter columns would not have been reached. It was only when the full load of the upper section acted on these alone rather than on both core and perimeter that the visible failure occurred.
We know that the antennae moved vertically immediately prior to visible collapse initiation, so we know that there was a core movement immediately prior to visible collapse initiation.
You say that pulling on the floors would shatter the windows. But there would previously have been continual pushing and pulling of the floors due to thermal expansion and differential expansion of core and column and if NIST are correct, throughout the period of the fire, they pulled inwards on the perimeter columns producing an ever increasing deflection. Why should a core induced pull be characterised by smashing of windows any more than any other inducement.
The reason for the collapse at or about the aircraft impact point is that, of the remaining load carrying columns in the perimeter one section has a big hole in it at that point, and since the failure inducing load is the upper mass and not the floors pulling in, it is the action of that mass induced force which should be primarily considered. It will act firstly and with most destruction at areas of stress concentration - the impact damage site.
Gordon.
Gordon,
Pictures taken prior to the collapse show both the sagging floors and the pulled in columns. So we know it happened.
Your analysis is off where you compare the VERTICAL LOAD the columns are designed to support and the BENDING force imposed by the sagging floors on the columns that they WEREN'T designed to WITHSTAND.
The force required to BEND the columns is related to but certainly can not be compared in MAGNITUDE to the vertical load the columns were carrying.
What's more, as the sagging floors induce a bend in the columns then a portion of the immense Vertical load now acts to INCREASE the bending force, since its force vector is no longer perpendicular.
Arthur
Edited to correct "sagging column" reference.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 15 2006, 01:54 AM)
Come on newton, tell us the truth, you're really a 13 year old girl, right?
Arthur
you wish.
you can tell, because even a two dimensional picture has perspective.
it was not one flash. there were at least three very bright ones, and perhaps two others which are fainter, perhaps because of thicker smoke obscuration.
i don't BELIEVE they were missiles. it is just a 'quantum cat'.
and, no i'm not a 13 yr. old girl. i'm a seventy-eight yr. old crazy cat lady, with many boxes full of indecisive cats.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 14 2006, 10:39 PM)
i'm a seventy-eight yr. old crazy cat lady, with many boxes full of indecisive cats.
Yeah,
Then who thought J. Jorden was a queer?
Arthur
Yeah,
Then who thought J. Jorden was a queer?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 15 2006, 01:45 AM)
QUOTE (cosmo+Feb 14 2006, 07:33 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 11:01 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 14 2006, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (andoucette+)
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
"NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" -USA Today
"NORAD exercise had jet crashing into building" -CNN
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke chairs a tabletop exercise at the White House, involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend, and are asked how they would stop such a threat. Pentagon officials say they could launch fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, but would need authorization from the president to shoot the plane down, and currently there is no system to do this. The 9/11 Commission later states: “There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.” [Slate, 7/22/04; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, pp. 345 & 457-458]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...tehouseexercise
Interesting then, that the 9/11 Commission Report states:
"The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."
The Report also states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states:
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION
The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of...mmission_Report
It's pretty clear who the real liars are.
I see you couldn't come up with any proof that NORAD had any way to intercept a US aircraft within the continental US in a short time frame.
The fact is on 9/11 there was NO POSSIBLE WAY to stop the FIRST jet. Only the remotest possibility of being able to stop the second jet and even this would have required the military to disregard the established rules of engagement, something that was not likely, considering identification of the aircraft was so imprecise.
With 20/20 hindsight we could have stopped the 3rd jet, but the chances of doing it on that day would involve a lot more luck, not more skill.
The 4th plane we possibly would have stopped, but even it would have been a toss up.
And this is with EVERYONE DOING THEIR JOBS.
Look, it took OVER AN HOUR to find Payne Stewart's plane and it was on a straight course, its transponder on and at high altitude, i.e. sticking out like a sore thumb. These jets, (after the first 2) had their transponders off and were flying at low altitude. The FAA couldn't track either of them very well in real time and the only way NORAD could vector their pilots towards them was by a cumbersome process where the NEADs Controllers would talk to the Military controllers so they could identify which of the many blips was which. The military controllers would then have to relay this changing scenario to the jet pilots who would then have to visually identify the targets.
This was NOT something that the pilots who were flying that day had EVER practiced.
As to your 'excersises'
In BOTH of the articles referenced
QUOTE
The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.
Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.
Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country. Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries. |
They emphasize it involved an airliner being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad
And then the third:
QUOTE
a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend, and are asked how they would stop such a threat. Pentagon officials say they could launch fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, but would need authorization from the president to shoot the plane down, and currently there is no system to do this. The 9/11 Commission later states: “There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.”
So the First two involve NORAD and hijackings BUT NOT OF A PLANE ALREADY WITHIN US AIRSPACE.
The second doesn't involve either hijacking or NORAD.
Arthur
Nice hair splitting job Adoucette.
So let's see. We have NORAD drills of hijacked planes being flown into U.S. airspace. These drills involve "hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties...One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center"
Then we have drills involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend.
The 9/11 Commission, the government, and YOU would have us beleive that it was a stretch for them to put all this together. Who could have imagined airliners hijacked from within the U.S.?
Nice try moron.
You also overlooked this paragraph, where they did manage to put these unimaginable scenarios together.
[B]But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." [/B]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-18-norad_x.htm
I gotta give it to you, Arthur, you are an expert bullsh1tter.
You should ask for a raise.
QUOTE (cosmo+Feb 14 2006, 11:10 PM)
Nice hair splitting job Adoucette.
So let's see. We have NORAD drills of hijacked planes being flown into U.S. airspace. These drills involve "hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties...One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center"
Then we have drills involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend.
The 9/11 Commission, the government, and YOU would have us beleive that it was a stretch for them to put all this together. Who could have imagined airliners hijacked from within the U.S.?
Nice try moron.
You also overlooked this paragraph, where they did manage to put these unimaginable scenarios together.
[B]But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." [/B]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-18-norad_x.htm
I gotta give it to you, Arthur, you are an expert bullsh1tter.
You should ask for a raise.
Nice try, I notice you didn't address the REAL issue.
Since you STILL haven't come up with any proof that NORAD had ANY WAY to effectively intercept a US aircraft within the continental US in a short time frame.
Why, if we had this crack interception ability, did it take over an hour to track down Payne Stewarts plane?
Feel free to show how, using PRE 9/11 procedures, we could have stopped the FIRST jet.
Which makes the REST moot.
Our response would have been no different if only one plane had made it to its target then if three did.
And I left the last one out because in that instance the planes were in the relatively unpopulated skys of Utah and Washington, not NYC and DC during "rush hour".
Arthur
So let's see. We have NORAD drills of hijacked planes being flown into U.S. airspace. These drills involve "hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties...One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center"
Then we have drills involving a scenario where anti-American militants fill a Learjet with explosives, and then fly it on a suicide mission toward a target in Washington, DC. Officials from the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA attend.
The 9/11 Commission, the government, and YOU would have us beleive that it was a stretch for them to put all this together. Who could have imagined airliners hijacked from within the U.S.?
Nice try moron.
You also overlooked this paragraph, where they did manage to put these unimaginable scenarios together.
[B]But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." [/B]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-18-norad_x.htm
I gotta give it to you, Arthur, you are an expert bullsh1tter.
You should ask for a raise.
Nice try, I notice you didn't address the REAL issue.
Since you STILL haven't come up with any proof that NORAD had ANY WAY to effectively intercept a US aircraft within the continental US in a short time frame.
Why, if we had this crack interception ability, did it take over an hour to track down Payne Stewarts plane?
Feel free to show how, using PRE 9/11 procedures, we could have stopped the FIRST jet.
Which makes the REST moot.
Our response would have been no different if only one plane had made it to its target then if three did.
And I left the last one out because in that instance the planes were in the relatively unpopulated skys of Utah and Washington, not NYC and DC during "rush hour".
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 14 2006, 10:39 PM)
i'm a seventy-eight yr. old crazy cat lady, with many boxes full of indecisive cats.
Yeah,
Then who thought J. Jorden was a queer?
Arthur
What's a matta newt, pussy got your tongue?
'cuse if you really were a 78 year old woman you would know the answer.
Arthur
Yeah,
Then who thought J. Jorden was a queer?
Arthur
What's a matta newt, pussy got your tongue?
'cuse if you really were a 78 year old woman you would know the answer.
Arthur
Quote;arthur: Feb 14 2006, 05:54 PM
Your claim is the US has a shoulder fired missile capable of taking down a structure the size of the WTC towers? [from a helicopter]
The question is quite simple, if we HAD a missile this powerful, why bother with the unreliable hijackers and planes?
Apache helicopters are used against tanks and hardened targets. With all the private military activity in the world, one can imagine the need to fire a missile from a non-military helicopter. A clamp on motorized platform, along the side door or the under carriage, would allow the missile to stay outside. The targeting system could use laser and/or video monitor. The pilot provides rough alignment; the armament personnel, using a joy stick, dials it in and takes the shot. Sounds reasonable to me.
Uh! The buildings were already highly compromised at this point. Implying that missiles would have to be capable of taking them down from scratch is, of course, disingenuous.
Hmmm. If you dispense with the planes and hijackers you lose the saturation factor of the introductory "shock and awe". You need to brand it on the brain, permanently, with fantastic visual imagery of epic proportions. "Birds of fire" from the east. That'll work!
The hijackers are the convenient patsies. By definition, a "black-op" is always a labyrinth of diversion. Blame it on people, who reside in a region, that you had plans to invade for at least a decade.
Nothing can stand in the way of the New World Order except its' own hubris driven incompetence.
Like shooting your hunting partner in the face? Yeah, kinda' like that.
Your claim is the US has a shoulder fired missile capable of taking down a structure the size of the WTC towers? [from a helicopter]
The question is quite simple, if we HAD a missile this powerful, why bother with the unreliable hijackers and planes?
Apache helicopters are used against tanks and hardened targets. With all the private military activity in the world, one can imagine the need to fire a missile from a non-military helicopter. A clamp on motorized platform, along the side door or the under carriage, would allow the missile to stay outside. The targeting system could use laser and/or video monitor. The pilot provides rough alignment; the armament personnel, using a joy stick, dials it in and takes the shot. Sounds reasonable to me.
Uh! The buildings were already highly compromised at this point. Implying that missiles would have to be capable of taking them down from scratch is, of course, disingenuous.
Hmmm. If you dispense with the planes and hijackers you lose the saturation factor of the introductory "shock and awe". You need to brand it on the brain, permanently, with fantastic visual imagery of epic proportions. "Birds of fire" from the east. That'll work!
The hijackers are the convenient patsies. By definition, a "black-op" is always a labyrinth of diversion. Blame it on people, who reside in a region, that you had plans to invade for at least a decade.
Nothing can stand in the way of the New World Order except its' own hubris driven incompetence.
Like shooting your hunting partner in the face? Yeah, kinda' like that.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 15 2006, 03:39 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 14 2006, 10:39 PM)
i'm a seventy-eight yr. old crazy cat lady, with many boxes full of indecisive cats.
Yeah,
Then who thought J. Jorden was a queer?
Arthur
What's a matta newt, pussy got your tongue?
'cuse if you really were a 78 year old woman you would know the answer.
Arthur
no, you don't have my tongue.
is that a physics argument, or are you for some reason trying to bait me?
what if i'm a GAY 78 yr. old crazy cat lady? does that change the laws of gravity?
if i'm a four yr. old malamute, does it change physical laws and rules of logic?
i mean, if YOU tell me it does, then i will BELIEVE it, because you're 'arthur', the once and future king of the land of complicated BS.
Your analysis is off where you compare the VERTICAL LOAD the columns are designed to support and the BENDING force imposed by the sagging columns that they WEREN'T designed to WITHSTAND.
Arthur
What does this mean? First the floors sagged and now the columns? Is this the new SAGGING COLLUMN THEORY?
Your analysis is off where you compare the VERTICAL LOAD the columns are designed to support and the BENDING force imposed by the sagging columns that they WEREN'T designed to WITHSTAND.
Arthur
What does this mean? First the floors sagged and now the columns? Is this the new SAGGING COLLUMN THEORY?
No, it's not a new theory. This is just more bullsh1t being shoveled by adoucette. He's bringing it in by the truckload.
Your analysis is off where you compare the VERTICAL LOAD the columns are designed to support and the BENDING force imposed by the sagging columns that they WEREN'T designed to WITHSTAND.
Arthur
What does this mean? First the floors sagged and now the columns? Is this the new SAGGING COLLUMN THEORY?
It was a typo.
I've edited the original.
Arthur
Apache helicopters are used against tanks and hardened targets. With all the private military activity in the world, one can imagine the need to fire a missile from a non-military helicopter. A clamp on motorized platform, along the side door or the under carriage, would allow the missile to stay outside. The targeting system could use laser and/or video monitor. The pilot provides rough alignment; the armament personnel, using a joy stick, dials it in and takes the shot. Sounds reasonable to me.
Except nothing is seen clamped onto the helo.
Nor is any massive explosion from a massive warhead seen in the Towers prior to the towers collapse.
TOTAL BS, but what do you know, it sounds REASONABLE to Luketober.
Arthur
Yeah,
Then who thought J. Jorden was a queer?
Arthur
What's a matta newt, pussy got your tongue?
'cuse if you really were a 78 year old woman you would know the answer.
Arthur
no, you don't have my tongue.
is that a physics argument, or are you for some reason trying to bait me?
what if i'm a GAY 78 yr. old crazy cat lady? does that change the laws of gravity?
if i'm a four yr. old malamute, does it change physical laws and rules of logic?
i mean, if YOU tell me it does, then i will BELIEVE it, because you're 'arthur', the once and future king of the land of complicated BS.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 06:18 PM)
Your analysis is off where you compare the VERTICAL LOAD the columns are designed to support and the BENDING force imposed by the sagging columns that they WEREN'T designed to WITHSTAND.
Arthur
What does this mean? First the floors sagged and now the columns? Is this the new SAGGING COLLUMN THEORY?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 15 2006, 07:06 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 06:18 PM)
Your analysis is off where you compare the VERTICAL LOAD the columns are designed to support and the BENDING force imposed by the sagging columns that they WEREN'T designed to WITHSTAND.
Arthur
What does this mean? First the floors sagged and now the columns? Is this the new SAGGING COLLUMN THEORY?
No, it's not a new theory. This is just more bullsh1t being shoveled by adoucette. He's bringing it in by the truckload.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 15 2006, 02:07 AM)
no, you don't have my tongue.
is that a physics argument, or are you for some reason trying to bait me?
what if i'm a GAY 78 yr. old crazy cat lady? does that change the laws of gravity?
if i'm a four yr. old malamute, does it change physical laws and rules of logic?
i mean, if YOU tell me it does, then i will BELIEVE it, because you're 'arthur', the once and future king of the land of complicated BS.
You introduced yourself as a 78 year old lady.
Don't blame me for checking.
Obviously you aren't.
I still think you are pre-pubescent though.
Arthur
is that a physics argument, or are you for some reason trying to bait me?
what if i'm a GAY 78 yr. old crazy cat lady? does that change the laws of gravity?
if i'm a four yr. old malamute, does it change physical laws and rules of logic?
i mean, if YOU tell me it does, then i will BELIEVE it, because you're 'arthur', the once and future king of the land of complicated BS.
You introduced yourself as a 78 year old lady.
Don't blame me for checking.
Obviously you aren't.
I still think you are pre-pubescent though.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 15 2006, 03:06 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 06:18 PM)
Your analysis is off where you compare the VERTICAL LOAD the columns are designed to support and the BENDING force imposed by the sagging columns that they WEREN'T designed to WITHSTAND.
Arthur
What does this mean? First the floors sagged and now the columns? Is this the new SAGGING COLLUMN THEORY?
It was a typo.
I've edited the original.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 15 2006, 12:58 AM)
Apache helicopters are used against tanks and hardened targets. With all the private military activity in the world, one can imagine the need to fire a missile from a non-military helicopter. A clamp on motorized platform, along the side door or the under carriage, would allow the missile to stay outside. The targeting system could use laser and/or video monitor. The pilot provides rough alignment; the armament personnel, using a joy stick, dials it in and takes the shot. Sounds reasonable to me.
Except nothing is seen clamped onto the helo.
Nor is any massive explosion from a massive warhead seen in the Towers prior to the towers collapse.
TOTAL BS, but what do you know, it sounds REASONABLE to Luketober.
Arthur
“Newton” and “Sentinel” are further proof that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. It’s all soooo f*cking obvious!!!
1) Obviously, no one could propose such incredibly stupid theories seriously.
2) Obviously, they must be “disinfo” agents working for the CIA to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is a classic PsyOps tactic. I have seen this on other forums. They are probably working in the same room in Langley as “Arthur” and the others. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were all the same person.
3) Obviously, the CIA would not bother using “disinfo” agents to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement unless they had something to hide.
4) Obviously, therefore 9/11 was an inside job!!
Newton and Sentinel you sleazy pseudo-truthseekers CIA covert agents f*ck off!! We’re wise you!! You are just as guilty for the murder of those 3000 people and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as Bush and Chenney and Rumsfeld and the assholes who carried out the attacks and demolition.
Stop the NWO before it is too late!!! TIME is running short!!!
1) Obviously, no one could propose such incredibly stupid theories seriously.
2) Obviously, they must be “disinfo” agents working for the CIA to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is a classic PsyOps tactic. I have seen this on other forums. They are probably working in the same room in Langley as “Arthur” and the others. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were all the same person.
3) Obviously, the CIA would not bother using “disinfo” agents to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement unless they had something to hide.
4) Obviously, therefore 9/11 was an inside job!!
Newton and Sentinel you sleazy pseudo-truthseekers CIA covert agents f*ck off!! We’re wise you!! You are just as guilty for the murder of those 3000 people and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as Bush and Chenney and Rumsfeld and the assholes who carried out the attacks and demolition.
Stop the NWO before it is too late!!! TIME is running short!!!
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 11:39 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 14 2006, 10:39 PM)
i'm a seventy-eight yr. old crazy cat lady, with many boxes full of indecisive cats.
Yeah,
Then who thought J. Jorden was a queer?
Arthur
What's a matta newt, pussy got your tongue?
'cuse if you really were a 78 year old woman you would know the answer.
Arthur
Any 78 year old woman would know the answer is Billy.
And that back in 1945 when Billy B. accused Miss J. Jorden of being 'queer' the term didn't have anything to do with sexual orientation
Arthur
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
The US Military did not have the ability to defend our Nation's capitol and other major cities against threats from private/commercial aircraft?!? If not, this is a crime in itself, as our Military is commissioned to protect against all threats, "foreign and domestic". It's not like they didn't have plenty of warnings...
From “The Washington Post”, Dec 25, 1975
Probe of Mock Air Attacks Set
FAA Chief Wants New Look at Reports on Military Jets
“John L. McLucas, the new administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, has ordered his agency to investigate persistent reports from air traffic controllers that military fighter pilots use commercial, passenger carrying jets as targets in mock intercept runs…”
From “The Washington Post”, Sep 13, 1994
Crashing the `Peoples' House`
“How is it that a light aircraft could take off from an obscure airfield miles from Washington and fly undetected or at least unchallenged through the restricted zone surrounding the executive mansion, only to end up below the White House portico? Where was the White House's elaborate security system that is supposed to be able to head off breaches of the airspace over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? This is a fair question, especially since Monday's fatal crash isn't the first case of an unauthorized aircraft successfully penetrating White House security. Ten years ago, the South Lawn played host to another illegal landing, then with a serviceman at the controls. This week's pilot reportedly is Frank Corder, a truck driver and holder of a student pilot's license…”
From “The New York Times”, Sep 13, 1994
CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE DEFENSES; Pilot's Exploit Rattles White House Officials
“Rattled security officials acknowledged today that they could not account for how a small Cessna airplane breached the closely guarded White House compound early this morning…”
From “The Washington Post”, Sep 14, 1994
Radar at National Airport Probably Was Not Watched
Tape Apparently Shows Plane's Path Toward White House
“Why wouldn't the FAA have seen this plane and notified the Secret Service?" asked Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.). DeConcini, who is chairman of a subcommittee that oversees the Secret Service, said he may hold hearings to get an answer…
Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee on public works, was briefed by the head of the FAA yesterday on the radar tracking of the plane. "There's an actual graph of how the aircraft flew in and approached," Oberstar said.
The plane, which had been stolen from an airfield north of Baltimore, was picked up on National Airport radar flying south along 17th Street NW, sources said. The plane flew near the National Zoo and continued southward. In a few minutes, the tiny plane flew directly past Blair House, where President [Bill Clinton] and his family were staying because of renovations to the White House.”
From “The Washington Post”, Dec 26, 1994
Analysts Urge FAA to Close National, Citing Need to Protect White House
Agency Dismisses Proposal, Says Airport's Proximity Not an Issue
“An FAA spokesman said agency officials will not comment on [David S. Stempler]'s proposal or anything else related to the possible closing of National. James A. Wilding, general manager of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs National and Dulles, said the proximity of National does not make much difference; a pilot determined to attack the White House could do so from almost anywhere, he said.
In September, Frank Corder, 38, of Aberdeen, Md., stole a single-engine Cessna from an airfield north of Baltimore. Under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, he flew south to Washington and slammed into the South Lawn of the White House before the plane slid into the west side of the mansion below the president's living quarters. Corder, an unemployed truck driver, was killed.
Flights are banned over the White House; the restricted area extends between the Lincoln Memorial and the Capitol. Planes landing at National usually fly along the Potomac River at the edge of the restricted area. Pilots are supposed to contact air traffic controllers and follow their instructions. Radar picked up Corder's plane in September, but controllers did not notice it until it was too late. The FAA has since taken steps to ensure that that doesn't happen again…”
From “The New York Times”, February , 1997
Military Pilots' Mission: To Intercept the Enemy
“Their mission is to protect vast stretches of airspace off the New Jersey coastline, and almost daily, members of the Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing climb into sleek military jets and practice maneuvers up and down the shore. Most are commercial airline pilots who served in the Air Force…”
From “The Washington Post”, February 9, 1997
Navy, Civilian Controllers' Discourse Traces Planes' Coastal Encounter
“Two F-16 fighter jets were advised of other aircraft traffic in a restricted military area as they began maneuvers off the New Jersey coast Wednesday, but were not told specifically that a civilian airliner had been given permission to transit the zone, according to air traffic control voice tapes. A Navy air traffic controller authorized the two military planes to begin their training exercise before the Nations Air Express flight had cleared the restricted zone, leading a civilian controller to demand that the F-16s stay away from the civilian airliner.
Part of the confusion was over whether the military pilots -- one an instructor, the other a student -- were fully informed of the presence of the civilian plane. The transcript shows they were told of "working traffic" in the restricted zone shortly after they entered the area, but were not told that the traffic included the Nations Air Boeing 727, where it was located or where it was going until after the F-16 instructor -- who had identified the plane on his own radar -- had begun closing on the airliner…”
From “The Washington Post”, September 21, 1998
White House Overflights Breach Strict Security Zone
FAA Warns Pilots, Traffic Controllers
“But it was one of a rapidly increasing number of White House airspace violations, which have more than doubled each year since fiscal 1996, despite precautions taken after a small plane struck the White House in 1994. The trend has concerned the Secret Service and the Federal Aviation Administration, leading to new warnings to pilots and a recommendation by a task force to update maps and make other changes at National. The American Airlines incident alone apparently has prompted the FAA to consider changes in procedures for one National landing pattern.
Nevertheless, the issue is considered extremely sensitive by the FAA and the Secret Service, even though at the moment no one will officially label the overflights either a safety issue or a security problem. Neither the FAA nor the Secret Service will discuss any aspect of the protected airspace other than to confirm its boundaries, which are printed on publicly available maps. Neither agency would offer an explanation for the increase in intrusions.
The FAA has become sufficiently worried about continuing violations that it has sent memos reminding various aviation groups to avoid the area. The agency also has admonished controllers at National to do more to ensure that planes do not stray into the restricted area. This, in turn, has fueled a bitter labor dispute in which National's traditionally combative air traffic controllers union has claimed that local management is ignoring a union plan to solve the problem because it would cost money…”
From “Air and Space Magazine”, November 1999
“In 1927, there was no piece of sky that was off limits to aviators. Today, everywhere you look there is airspace that is for one reason or another forbidden to pilots who fly by eye and choose not to have their routing defined by radio and air traffic controllers. There are also no--excuses, absolute--exclusion prohibited areas, the airspace above the White House perhaps the best known of them. There are military restricted areas where practicing dogfighters don't want to run into a Bonanza. There are air defense zones where, if you enter without notice, it's assumed you're a terrorist. There are vast blocks of restricted airspace over many big cities to provide freedom for airliners to maneuver during arrival and departure. There are routes where bombers practice very-low-altitude missions--not strictly forbidden airspace, but you're warned that you might be sharing it with a B-52 on fast--forward down in the weeds. Sectionals show all of these as well.”
From “CNN”, January 16, 1999
Small plane veers into White House airspace
January 16, 1999
“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A private plane strayed near restricted airspace around the White House Friday afternoon, triggering the firing of a small flare by security officials from the White House roof to warn the pilot to leave the area.
White House officials said the plane, which took off from Washington's Reagan National Airport, was told to turn because President Clinton's helicopter was expected to land at the White House shortly. When the plane turned as instructed by air traffic controllers, the pilot apparently got too close to the restricted airspace.
Security officials said they do not consider the incident a threat, and a Secret Service officer put part of the blame on high winds that pushed the pilot off course.
Reporters awaiting the president's return saw a small red flare fired from the White House roof as the plane passed by. The flare landed on the White House South Lawn.
Secret Service Officer John Tomlinson said the flare was fired simply to help the pilot correct his course.
Tomlinson said the pilot apparently had problems with wind and weather that caused him to wander off course. The pilot was in contact with the air traffic controllers at all times, Tomlinson said.
He added that the FAA and Secret Service were also in contact.
The presidential chopper, Marine One, was not yet on final approach when the incident occurred. The plane landed later without incident…”
What you see is the PARANOID rantings from a complete IDIOT.
newton, the MATRIX was NOT a documentary.
Arthur
Yeah,
Then who thought J. Jorden was a queer?
Arthur
What's a matta newt, pussy got your tongue?
'cuse if you really were a 78 year old woman you would know the answer.
Arthur
Any 78 year old woman would know the answer is Billy.
And that back in 1945 when Billy B. accused Miss J. Jorden of being 'queer' the term didn't have anything to do with sexual orientation
Arthur
Three unique events take place -
One explanation put forward for these events cannot provide evidence to substantiate it, it is an explanation that does not square with the evidence, it appears to contradict the laws of physics.
Another explanation put forward has a great deal of supporting evidence, it squares perfectly with the evidence, has many preceding examples supporting it and is complimented by the laws of physics.
Occams razor? Legend or Logic?
One explanation put forward for these events cannot provide evidence to substantiate it, it is an explanation that does not square with the evidence, it appears to contradict the laws of physics.
Another explanation put forward has a great deal of supporting evidence, it squares perfectly with the evidence, has many preceding examples supporting it and is complimented by the laws of physics.
Occams razor? Legend or Logic?
Let me get this straight.
In your interpretation of Occam's razor the simplest explaination is that there is a secret organization who control the NWO unbeknownst to anyone except the poor individual witnesses who are 'silenced' for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and replaced by hundreds of plant witnesses, and hundreds of respected scientists at the world's foremost technological standards institute are either bought off or silenced, all to cover up either the placement and use of tons of undetected thermite, undetected radiation from a special new nuclear device, a rocket launched from a helicopter in plain view in broad daylight, a super microwave weapon or just column upon column rigged with cutting charges that only appear as 1 or 2 phantom "squibs".
gotcha
In your interpretation of Occam's razor the simplest explaination is that there is a secret organization who control the NWO unbeknownst to anyone except the poor individual witnesses who are 'silenced' for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and replaced by hundreds of plant witnesses, and hundreds of respected scientists at the world's foremost technological standards institute are either bought off or silenced, all to cover up either the placement and use of tons of undetected thermite, undetected radiation from a special new nuclear device, a rocket launched from a helicopter in plain view in broad daylight, a super microwave weapon or just column upon column rigged with cutting charges that only appear as 1 or 2 phantom "squibs".
gotcha
Thanks Ron,
You made my day.
Even though you left out the buying off of the NYFD and NYPD so they would go along with killing over 300 of their members.
Arthur
You made my day.
Even though you left out the buying off of the NYFD and NYPD so they would go along with killing over 300 of their members.
Arthur
I post this -
Three unique events take place -
One explanation put forward for these events cannot provide evidence to substantiate it, it is an explanation that does not square with the evidence, it appears to contradict the laws of physics.
Another explanation put forward has a great deal of supporting evidence, it squares perfectly with the evidence, has many preceding examples supporting it and is complimented by the laws of physics.
Occams razor? Legend or Logic?
Ron then posts drivel in reply which makes adoucettes day.
Can we assume Ron has lost the plot and adoucette is having one hell of a bad day?
Three unique events take place -
One explanation put forward for these events cannot provide evidence to substantiate it, it is an explanation that does not square with the evidence, it appears to contradict the laws of physics.
Another explanation put forward has a great deal of supporting evidence, it squares perfectly with the evidence, has many preceding examples supporting it and is complimented by the laws of physics.
Occams razor? Legend or Logic?
Ron then posts drivel in reply which makes adoucettes day.
Can we assume Ron has lost the plot and adoucette is having one hell of a bad day?
I'm having a great day, and the only one posting drivel is you Brian.
Ron showed how your invocation of Occam's razor in regards to the WTC towers was TOTALLY FLAWED.
Arthur
Ron showed how your invocation of Occam's razor in regards to the WTC towers was TOTALLY FLAWED.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 14 2006, 11:01 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 14 2006, 04:36 PM)
QUOTE (andoucette+)
This was no biggy, since neither the US military nor NORAD was structured to quickly find a specific commercial jet within US airspace.
This is not true. NORAD has always had routine hijacked plane interception drills, including specific scenarios simulating hijacked planes heading for the word trade center and the pentagon in the years prior to 9/11.
Provide some proof, or this is just more BS.
Arthur
The US Military did not have the ability to defend our Nation's capitol and other major cities against threats from private/commercial aircraft?!? If not, this is a crime in itself, as our Military is commissioned to protect against all threats, "foreign and domestic". It's not like they didn't have plenty of warnings...
From “The Washington Post”, Dec 25, 1975
Probe of Mock Air Attacks Set
FAA Chief Wants New Look at Reports on Military Jets
“John L. McLucas, the new administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, has ordered his agency to investigate persistent reports from air traffic controllers that military fighter pilots use commercial, passenger carrying jets as targets in mock intercept runs…”
From “The Washington Post”, Sep 13, 1994
Crashing the `Peoples' House`
“How is it that a light aircraft could take off from an obscure airfield miles from Washington and fly undetected or at least unchallenged through the restricted zone surrounding the executive mansion, only to end up below the White House portico? Where was the White House's elaborate security system that is supposed to be able to head off breaches of the airspace over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? This is a fair question, especially since Monday's fatal crash isn't the first case of an unauthorized aircraft successfully penetrating White House security. Ten years ago, the South Lawn played host to another illegal landing, then with a serviceman at the controls. This week's pilot reportedly is Frank Corder, a truck driver and holder of a student pilot's license…”
From “The New York Times”, Sep 13, 1994
CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE DEFENSES; Pilot's Exploit Rattles White House Officials
“Rattled security officials acknowledged today that they could not account for how a small Cessna airplane breached the closely guarded White House compound early this morning…”
From “The Washington Post”, Sep 14, 1994
Radar at National Airport Probably Was Not Watched
Tape Apparently Shows Plane's Path Toward White House
“Why wouldn't the FAA have seen this plane and notified the Secret Service?" asked Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.). DeConcini, who is chairman of a subcommittee that oversees the Secret Service, said he may hold hearings to get an answer…
Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee on public works, was briefed by the head of the FAA yesterday on the radar tracking of the plane. "There's an actual graph of how the aircraft flew in and approached," Oberstar said.
The plane, which had been stolen from an airfield north of Baltimore, was picked up on National Airport radar flying south along 17th Street NW, sources said. The plane flew near the National Zoo and continued southward. In a few minutes, the tiny plane flew directly past Blair House, where President [Bill Clinton] and his family were staying because of renovations to the White House.”
From “The Washington Post”, Dec 26, 1994
Analysts Urge FAA to Close National, Citing Need to Protect White House
Agency Dismisses Proposal, Says Airport's Proximity Not an Issue
“An FAA spokesman said agency officials will not comment on [David S. Stempler]'s proposal or anything else related to the possible closing of National. James A. Wilding, general manager of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs National and Dulles, said the proximity of National does not make much difference; a pilot determined to attack the White House could do so from almost anywhere, he said.
In September, Frank Corder, 38, of Aberdeen, Md., stole a single-engine Cessna from an airfield north of Baltimore. Under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, he flew south to Washington and slammed into the South Lawn of the White House before the plane slid into the west side of the mansion below the president's living quarters. Corder, an unemployed truck driver, was killed.
Flights are banned over the White House; the restricted area extends between the Lincoln Memorial and the Capitol. Planes landing at National usually fly along the Potomac River at the edge of the restricted area. Pilots are supposed to contact air traffic controllers and follow their instructions. Radar picked up Corder's plane in September, but controllers did not notice it until it was too late. The FAA has since taken steps to ensure that that doesn't happen again…”
From “The New York Times”, February , 1997
Military Pilots' Mission: To Intercept the Enemy
“Their mission is to protect vast stretches of airspace off the New Jersey coastline, and almost daily, members of the Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing climb into sleek military jets and practice maneuvers up and down the shore. Most are commercial airline pilots who served in the Air Force…”
From “The Washington Post”, February 9, 1997
Navy, Civilian Controllers' Discourse Traces Planes' Coastal Encounter
“Two F-16 fighter jets were advised of other aircraft traffic in a restricted military area as they began maneuvers off the New Jersey coast Wednesday, but were not told specifically that a civilian airliner had been given permission to transit the zone, according to air traffic control voice tapes. A Navy air traffic controller authorized the two military planes to begin their training exercise before the Nations Air Express flight had cleared the restricted zone, leading a civilian controller to demand that the F-16s stay away from the civilian airliner.
Part of the confusion was over whether the military pilots -- one an instructor, the other a student -- were fully informed of the presence of the civilian plane. The transcript shows they were told of "working traffic" in the restricted zone shortly after they entered the area, but were not told that the traffic included the Nations Air Boeing 727, where it was located or where it was going until after the F-16 instructor -- who had identified the plane on his own radar -- had begun closing on the airliner…”
From “The Washington Post”, September 21, 1998
White House Overflights Breach Strict Security Zone
FAA Warns Pilots, Traffic Controllers
“But it was one of a rapidly increasing number of White House airspace violations, which have more than doubled each year since fiscal 1996, despite precautions taken after a small plane struck the White House in 1994. The trend has concerned the Secret Service and the Federal Aviation Administration, leading to new warnings to pilots and a recommendation by a task force to update maps and make other changes at National. The American Airlines incident alone apparently has prompted the FAA to consider changes in procedures for one National landing pattern.
Nevertheless, the issue is considered extremely sensitive by the FAA and the Secret Service, even though at the moment no one will officially label the overflights either a safety issue or a security problem. Neither the FAA nor the Secret Service will discuss any aspect of the protected airspace other than to confirm its boundaries, which are printed on publicly available maps. Neither agency would offer an explanation for the increase in intrusions.
The FAA has become sufficiently worried about continuing violations that it has sent memos reminding various aviation groups to avoid the area. The agency also has admonished controllers at National to do more to ensure that planes do not stray into the restricted area. This, in turn, has fueled a bitter labor dispute in which National's traditionally combative air traffic controllers union has claimed that local management is ignoring a union plan to solve the problem because it would cost money…”
From “Air and Space Magazine”, November 1999
“In 1927, there was no piece of sky that was off limits to aviators. Today, everywhere you look there is airspace that is for one reason or another forbidden to pilots who fly by eye and choose not to have their routing defined by radio and air traffic controllers. There are also no--excuses, absolute--exclusion prohibited areas, the airspace above the White House perhaps the best known of them. There are military restricted areas where practicing dogfighters don't want to run into a Bonanza. There are air defense zones where, if you enter without notice, it's assumed you're a terrorist. There are vast blocks of restricted airspace over many big cities to provide freedom for airliners to maneuver during arrival and departure. There are routes where bombers practice very-low-altitude missions--not strictly forbidden airspace, but you're warned that you might be sharing it with a B-52 on fast--forward down in the weeds. Sectionals show all of these as well.”
From “CNN”, January 16, 1999
Small plane veers into White House airspace
January 16, 1999
“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A private plane strayed near restricted airspace around the White House Friday afternoon, triggering the firing of a small flare by security officials from the White House roof to warn the pilot to leave the area.
White House officials said the plane, which took off from Washington's Reagan National Airport, was told to turn because President Clinton's helicopter was expected to land at the White House shortly. When the plane turned as instructed by air traffic controllers, the pilot apparently got too close to the restricted airspace.
Security officials said they do not consider the incident a threat, and a Secret Service officer put part of the blame on high winds that pushed the pilot off course.
Reporters awaiting the president's return saw a small red flare fired from the White House roof as the plane passed by. The flare landed on the White House South Lawn.
Secret Service Officer John Tomlinson said the flare was fired simply to help the pilot correct his course.
Tomlinson said the pilot apparently had problems with wind and weather that caused him to wander off course. The pilot was in contact with the air traffic controllers at all times, Tomlinson said.
He added that the FAA and Secret Service were also in contact.
The presidential chopper, Marine One, was not yet on final approach when the incident occurred. The plane landed later without incident…”
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 15 2006, 08:01 AM)
I'm having a great day, and the only one posting drivel is you Brian.
Ron showed how your invocation of Occam's razor in regards to the WTC towers was TOTALLY FLAWED.
Arthur
Arthur , you have been working so hard why don’t you go on a hunting vacation with your fellow globalist Cheney?
Ron showed how your invocation of Occam's razor in regards to the WTC towers was TOTALLY FLAWED.
Arthur
Arthur , you have been working so hard why don’t you go on a hunting vacation with your fellow globalist Cheney?
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 15 2006, 04:01 PM)
I'm having a great day, and the only one posting drivel is you Brian.
Ron showed how your invocation of Occam's razor in regards to the WTC towers was TOTALLY FLAWED.
Arthur
Seems you are having such a wonderful day you failed to notice my invocation of Occam's razor made no mention of the WTC, I merely put a situation that might apply in any number of scenarios. The obvious point being which explanation would Occams razor favour.
Try again and point out how Ron's drivel shows a flaw, a flaw which would by necessity be in the question as unlike Ron I drew no conclusions. I found it instructive that he so readily did. Ron obviously found the first explanation to be the one Occams razor would cast aside then attacked the one left - says it all does it not?
Try again -
Three unique events take place -
One explanation put forward for these events cannot provide evidence to substantiate it, it is an explanation that does not square with the evidence, it appears to contradict the laws of physics.
Another explanation put forward has a great deal of supporting evidence, it squares perfectly with the evidence, has many preceding examples supporting it and is complimented by the laws of physics.
Occams razor? Legend or Logic?
Ron showed how your invocation of Occam's razor in regards to the WTC towers was TOTALLY FLAWED.
Arthur
Seems you are having such a wonderful day you failed to notice my invocation of Occam's razor made no mention of the WTC, I merely put a situation that might apply in any number of scenarios. The obvious point being which explanation would Occams razor favour.
Try again and point out how Ron's drivel shows a flaw, a flaw which would by necessity be in the question as unlike Ron I drew no conclusions. I found it instructive that he so readily did. Ron obviously found the first explanation to be the one Occams razor would cast aside then attacked the one left - says it all does it not?
Try again -
Three unique events take place -
One explanation put forward for these events cannot provide evidence to substantiate it, it is an explanation that does not square with the evidence, it appears to contradict the laws of physics.
Another explanation put forward has a great deal of supporting evidence, it squares perfectly with the evidence, has many preceding examples supporting it and is complimented by the laws of physics.
Occams razor? Legend or Logic?
Occams Razor
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"
Try using a more appropriate axiom.
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"
Try using a more appropriate axiom.
CDI DREXS: As explained by the British Division
"Our DREXS tm. system... Segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available carrying equipment. the floors shattered at about 10 floors per second minus the air resistance. If a superheated explosive were burning the basement floor and collums to the point of molten steel the building would have held the heated air inside thereby cauing the heated air to contract rather than expand. There were in fact two demolition jobs the exterior and the interior. The clue is in the residual smoke patter preciding and after the collapse.
The South tower had a counter clock spin at the interior space and the north tower spun clockwise. The simularity between the the tower collapses and the KEYSPAN Maspeth Holder tank Demo is the way it was all kept in a small box.
P.s I'm not going to adress two year olds who can't come up with something more than kindergarden name callin. You obviously have shown you're a Real Proud American Idiot.
Have a nice day.
Sentinel
"Our DREXS tm. system... Segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available carrying equipment. the floors shattered at about 10 floors per second minus the air resistance. If a superheated explosive were burning the basement floor and collums to the point of molten steel the building would have held the heated air inside thereby cauing the heated air to contract rather than expand. There were in fact two demolition jobs the exterior and the interior. The clue is in the residual smoke patter preciding and after the collapse.
The South tower had a counter clock spin at the interior space and the north tower spun clockwise. The simularity between the the tower collapses and the KEYSPAN Maspeth Holder tank Demo is the way it was all kept in a small box.
P.s I'm not going to adress two year olds who can't come up with something more than kindergarden name callin. You obviously have shown you're a Real Proud American Idiot.
Have a nice day.
Sentinel
Hermetically sealed at the MER Floors. The building withstood winds of 140 MPH at the top floors and the building had to be hermetically sealed to prevent penatration and destablization. They acted as kytes in the wind. The windows were sealed and the elevator shafts were cut off at the MER Mechanical Equipment Rooms (Floors).
These floors were not public access areas. There were some videos showing what looked like shape charges going off, I think it was the Evan Faribanks video which showed the 44flr pushing out white smoke which different in color to the collapse cloud.
Sentinel
These floors were not public access areas. There were some videos showing what looked like shape charges going off, I think it was the Evan Faribanks video which showed the 44flr pushing out white smoke which different in color to the collapse cloud.
Sentinel
This "clip" was taken from an article of the Queens Gazette Dated 18 July 2001.
"kespan uses mechinal scissor like devises to cut up the steel skin of the tanks, rather than torches, to avoid vaporizing the the lead paint."
DREXS
Sentinel
"kespan uses mechinal scissor like devises to cut up the steel skin of the tanks, rather than torches, to avoid vaporizing the the lead paint."
DREXS
Sentinel
QUOTE (Ron+Feb 15 2006, 05:21 PM)
Occams Razor
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"
Try using a more appropriate axiom.
1 entity -- Al-Quada
1 entity -- US Government
1 to 1; looks like a tie to me...
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"
Try using a more appropriate axiom.
1 entity -- Al-Quada
1 entity -- US Government
1 to 1; looks like a tie to me...
QUOTE (Proud American+Feb 15 2006, 12:50 PM)
“Newton” and “Sentinel” are further proof that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. It’s all soooo f*cking obvious!!!
1) Obviously, no one could propose such incredibly stupid theories seriously.
2) Obviously, they must be “disinfo” agents working for the CIA to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is a classic PsyOps tactic. I have seen this on other forums. They are probably working in the same room in Langley as “Arthur” and the others. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were all the same person.
3) Obviously, the CIA would not bother using “disinfo” agents to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement unless they had something to hide.
4) Obviously, therefore 9/11 was an inside job!!
Newton and Sentinel you sleazy pseudo-truthseekers CIA covert agents f*ck off!! We’re wise you!! You are just as guilty for the murder of those 3000 people and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as Bush and Chenney and Rumsfeld and the assholes who carried out the attacks and demolition.
Stop the NWO before it is too late!!! TIME is running short!!!
'Common Sense', where've you been? it's been so much less abusive since you left.
well, nice to see you're back with your scintillating wit.
i can postulate exotic theories all day. they will stand or fall on their own merit, and do not need an emotionally charged audience member to be validated or refuted. you read my theories, and found them wanting. fine. i will not fcuk off. you may, however, if you don't like it.
please watch the video(911eyewitness), and then explain the flashes from the helicopter, with something besides, 'camera flash', because they were WAY too bright from that distance(1.8 miles) and too obscured by heavy smoke, to be little 1.5 watt powered camera flashes.
please also explain why that particular 'copter flew TO the towers along the smoke plume on a blue sky day. there was a gazillion cubic acres of clear air, and these guys fly in the smoke. why? why did they hover directly over? why did they say, 'mission accomplished' over the radio immediately after the flashes were seen(i can't say for sure that it was this helicopter that broadcast that message, but the timing was right)? what mission?
perhaps it was a top secret particle beam weapon of laser.
or maybe it was an industrial strength gigawatt camera flash.
or maybe it was a shoulder fired missile, and no i don't think that DESTROYED the towers, but rather initiated the collapse. i'm speculate that if this is true, that the remote control to the charges that were SUPPOSED to initiate the collapse failed, and this was a back-up plan.
and YOU can't have it BOTH ways, either the towers can fall down by themselves, or they are very strong. if the official story has ANY merit
(which it obviously does, otherwise it wouldn't be good 'wool' for acedemic 'eyes'), then it is mostly only the INITIATION of the collapse that is being assisted with explosions. however, the poorly timed 'squibs' are evidence that there were other explosives on key points, as are the ridiculously short fall times that started this thread.
and, okay, arthur, i'm actually a 90 yr. old woman. it's rude to force a woman to tell her age, you brute.
i'm all for stopping the NWO, but we'll have to get into the WAAAAY BACK machine for that. back to before 'the new deal' at least. the NWO has been busy controlling earth for a long time. the best i hope for is to shatter some NWO mirrors and smoke machines. if this means speaking incomplete truths, then so be it. i don't know what the flashes were, but i do know there were flashes.
if you have constructive ideas about stopping the NWO, i for one would love to hear them. first we would have to agree on who and what exactly the NWO is.
to me, it's simple. big money is the NWO. 'they' use every reactive button they can press in people to goad them into their 'pens'. 'morals and dogma' are the main buttons, and they are attached to the 'electrical circuit', or 'currency'.
1) Obviously, no one could propose such incredibly stupid theories seriously.
2) Obviously, they must be “disinfo” agents working for the CIA to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is a classic PsyOps tactic. I have seen this on other forums. They are probably working in the same room in Langley as “Arthur” and the others. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were all the same person.
3) Obviously, the CIA would not bother using “disinfo” agents to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement unless they had something to hide.
4) Obviously, therefore 9/11 was an inside job!!
Newton and Sentinel you sleazy pseudo-truthseekers CIA covert agents f*ck off!! We’re wise you!! You are just as guilty for the murder of those 3000 people and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as Bush and Chenney and Rumsfeld and the assholes who carried out the attacks and demolition.
Stop the NWO before it is too late!!! TIME is running short!!!
'Common Sense', where've you been? it's been so much less abusive since you left.
well, nice to see you're back with your scintillating wit.
i can postulate exotic theories all day. they will stand or fall on their own merit, and do not need an emotionally charged audience member to be validated or refuted. you read my theories, and found them wanting. fine. i will not fcuk off. you may, however, if you don't like it.
please watch the video(911eyewitness), and then explain the flashes from the helicopter, with something besides, 'camera flash', because they were WAY too bright from that distance(1.8 miles) and too obscured by heavy smoke, to be little 1.5 watt powered camera flashes.
please also explain why that particular 'copter flew TO the towers along the smoke plume on a blue sky day. there was a gazillion cubic acres of clear air, and these guys fly in the smoke. why? why did they hover directly over? why did they say, 'mission accomplished' over the radio immediately after the flashes were seen(i can't say for sure that it was this helicopter that broadcast that message, but the timing was right)? what mission?
perhaps it was a top secret particle beam weapon of laser.
or maybe it was an industrial strength gigawatt camera flash.
or maybe it was a shoulder fired missile, and no i don't think that DESTROYED the towers, but rather initiated the collapse. i'm speculate that if this is true, that the remote control to the charges that were SUPPOSED to initiate the collapse failed, and this was a back-up plan.
and YOU can't have it BOTH ways, either the towers can fall down by themselves, or they are very strong. if the official story has ANY merit
(which it obviously does, otherwise it wouldn't be good 'wool' for acedemic 'eyes'), then it is mostly only the INITIATION of the collapse that is being assisted with explosions. however, the poorly timed 'squibs' are evidence that there were other explosives on key points, as are the ridiculously short fall times that started this thread.
and, okay, arthur, i'm actually a 90 yr. old woman. it's rude to force a woman to tell her age, you brute.
i'm all for stopping the NWO, but we'll have to get into the WAAAAY BACK machine for that. back to before 'the new deal' at least. the NWO has been busy controlling earth for a long time. the best i hope for is to shatter some NWO mirrors and smoke machines. if this means speaking incomplete truths, then so be it. i don't know what the flashes were, but i do know there were flashes.
if you have constructive ideas about stopping the NWO, i for one would love to hear them. first we would have to agree on who and what exactly the NWO is.
to me, it's simple. big money is the NWO. 'they' use every reactive button they can press in people to goad them into their 'pens'. 'morals and dogma' are the main buttons, and they are attached to the 'electrical circuit', or 'currency'.
QUOTE (brian+Feb 15 2006, 01:13 PM)
Seems you are having such a wonderful day you failed to notice my invocation of Occam's razor made no mention of the WTC, I merely put a situation that might apply in any number of scenarios. The obvious point being which explanation would Occams razor favour.
Brain,
Are you that RETARDED?
I'm not ASSUMING ANYTHING the Whole FRIGGIN THREAD is on the WTC Towers.
If you DON'T want me to assume you are refering to the WTC Towers in the WTC Tower Thread then YOU should make that clear.
Arthur
Brain,
Are you that RETARDED?
I'm not ASSUMING ANYTHING the Whole FRIGGIN THREAD is on the WTC Towers.
If you DON'T want me to assume you are refering to the WTC Towers in the WTC Tower Thread then YOU should make that clear.
Arthur
QUOTE
i'm all for stopping the NWO, but we'll have to get into the WAAAAY BACK machine for that. back to before 'the new deal' at least. the NWO has been busy controlling earth for a long time. the best i hope for is to shatter some NWO mirrors and smoke machines. if this means speaking incomplete truths, then so be it. i don't know what the flashes were, but i do know there were flashes.
if you have constructive ideas about stopping the NWO, i for one would love to hear them. first we would have to agree on who and what exactly the NWO is.
to me, it's simple. big money is the NWO. 'they' use every reactive button they can press in people to goad them into their 'pens'. 'morals and dogma' are the main buttons, and they are attached to the 'electrical circuit', or 'currency'.
if you have constructive ideas about stopping the NWO, i for one would love to hear them. first we would have to agree on who and what exactly the NWO is.
to me, it's simple. big money is the NWO. 'they' use every reactive button they can press in people to goad them into their 'pens'. 'morals and dogma' are the main buttons, and they are attached to the 'electrical circuit', or 'currency'.
What you see is the PARANOID rantings from a complete IDIOT.
newton, the MATRIX was NOT a documentary.
Arthur
coming from you, that's a compliment, arthur.
the matrix movies are a perfect analogy of our 'reality'. they are documentaries, although i never mentioned them.
money is called currency. it is a control device.
duh.
the matrix movies are a perfect analogy of our 'reality'. they are documentaries, although i never mentioned them.
money is called currency. it is a control device.
duh.
Here's some physics for you.
How could 28 gage bird shot concentrate itself and penetrate a guy from 90 feet away, as Cheney said about 30 yards.
According to the laws of physics Cheney couldn't have been much more that 10 feet away when he shot the guy in the face, which equates to about 3 yards.
I wonder how Arthur and anti-common sense and the other half wits are gonna handle this one... Maybe he thought Whittington was Alqueda so he shot him.
How could 28 gage bird shot concentrate itself and penetrate a guy from 90 feet away, as Cheney said about 30 yards.
According to the laws of physics Cheney couldn't have been much more that 10 feet away when he shot the guy in the face, which equates to about 3 yards.
I wonder how Arthur and anti-common sense and the other half wits are gonna handle this one... Maybe he thought Whittington was Alqueda so he shot him.
Bird shot from a 28guage shotgun has to be within close quarters to penatrate so many pellets at such a deep rate. 1 2 beers and tampering with the blood alchohol level may have played a part in the farce.
Had the sherrif made observation that night Cheney would probally be facing reckless endangerment charges.
Sentinel
Had the sherrif made observation that night Cheney would probally be facing reckless endangerment charges.
Sentinel
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 15 2006, 08:57 PM)
What you see is the PARANOID rantings from a complete IDIOT.
newton, the MATRIX was NOT a documentary.
Arthur
,,, neither was 'Rollerball' , '1984', 'Logan's Run',,,,,,
newton, the MATRIX was NOT a documentary.
Arthur
,,, neither was 'Rollerball' , '1984', 'Logan's Run',,,,,,
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 15 2006, 09:48 PM)
Here's some physics for you.
How could 28 gage bird shot concentrate itself and penetrate a guy from 90 feet away, as Cheney said about 30 yards.
According to the laws of physics Cheney couldn't have been much more that 10 feet away when he shot the guy in the face, which equates to about 3 yards.
I wonder how Arthur and anti-common sense and the other half wits are gonna handle this one... Maybe he thought Whittington was Alqueda so he shot him.
Why explain anything? Is it relevant? Is there some reason why anyone here needs to defend the idiocy of *** Cheney?
BTW , you do realize that this is one of those stupendous masterminds of the most secret, covert black-op, treasonous mass muder in all of US(possibly the world) history. This guy, who cannot think straight enough to recall that his hunting buddy is in that direction, who does not notice the hunting buddy's orange vest in his line of fire(from, according to steve1957, only 10 feet away), is supposedly one of the same guys who planned out a complex and complicated operation involving the use of explosives and/or space based weapons and/or remotely controlled aircraft.
How could 28 gage bird shot concentrate itself and penetrate a guy from 90 feet away, as Cheney said about 30 yards.
According to the laws of physics Cheney couldn't have been much more that 10 feet away when he shot the guy in the face, which equates to about 3 yards.
I wonder how Arthur and anti-common sense and the other half wits are gonna handle this one... Maybe he thought Whittington was Alqueda so he shot him.
Why explain anything? Is it relevant? Is there some reason why anyone here needs to defend the idiocy of *** Cheney?
BTW , you do realize that this is one of those stupendous masterminds of the most secret, covert black-op, treasonous mass muder in all of US(possibly the world) history. This guy, who cannot think straight enough to recall that his hunting buddy is in that direction, who does not notice the hunting buddy's orange vest in his line of fire(from, according to steve1957, only 10 feet away), is supposedly one of the same guys who planned out a complex and complicated operation involving the use of explosives and/or space based weapons and/or remotely controlled aircraft.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 15 2006, 11:11 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 15 2006, 08:57 PM)
What you see is the PARANOID rantings from a complete IDIOT.
newton, the MATRIX was NOT a documentary.
Arthur
,,, neither was 'Rollerball' , '1984', 'Logan's Run',,,,,,
wrong. thoughts are shaped by literature and media.
the price is right.
truth or consequences.
who shot jr.
who shot mr.burns.
survivor.
fear factor.
the running man.
minority report.
terminator.
everything is connected.
newton, the MATRIX was NOT a documentary.
Arthur
,,, neither was 'Rollerball' , '1984', 'Logan's Run',,,,,,
wrong. thoughts are shaped by literature and media.
the price is right.
truth or consequences.
who shot jr.
who shot mr.burns.
survivor.
fear factor.
the running man.
minority report.
terminator.
everything is connected.
Posted on Wed, Feb. 15, 2006
SHOOTING
Cheney: Trigger-happy all the time
EUGENE ROBINSON
I told you people *** Cheney was dangerous.
Let's all wish a full and speedy recovery for Harry Whittington, the man Cheney accidentally shot Saturday while they were out in the Texas boonies hunting quail.
As for the trigger-happy vice president, let's hope he takes this unfortunate episode as a hint to pack up his shotgun and go home. Lord knows he's done enough.
The man is out of control. Then again, out-of-control is the way this whole administration operates: ready, fire, aim.
Global war on terrorism, global war on poultry, what's the difference? You see something moving, shoot it.
It's been clear for some time that Cheney has pushed so hard in his campaign to assert autocratic powers for the White House that even his allies on Capitol Hill have begun pushing back. On electronic spying, Cheney has essentially told Congress they're welcome to talk to the hand.
His uncompromising drill-and-guzzle position on energy makes a lot of oil-industry executives sound like tree-huggers. When the subject turns to measures that could actually begin to lead this country toward energy independence, such as conservation and alternative fuels, Cheney begins checking his watch and barely tries to stifle his yawns. But let someone raise the prospect of drilling in the Arctic, which couldn't even begin to slake America's energy thirst, and he lights up with such glee that it's impossible not to think of Mr. Burns on "The Simpsons."
Typically, Cheney's office didn't bother to tell anyone for more than 18 hours that the vice president of the U.S. had shot someone.
A vice-presidential shooting doesn't happen every day, and I, for one, would appreciate being informed whenever the man who's just "a heartbeat away from the presidency" peppers a 78-year-old attorney with birdshot.
Cheney seems to believe that we want to know far too much about what our government is up to. He doesn't have to tell us who came to the White House and engineered the administration's "Happy Days" energy policy, he doesn't have to tell us who the National Security Agency is spying on or how they're doing it, he doesn't have to tell us anything about the conduct of the war on terrorism this administration is waging in our names. Anyone who leaks information to try to keep us informed, such as the unnamed whistleblowers who told of the secret CIA prisons and the unauthorized domestic surveillance, will be hunted down.
Foreign policy wise man Brent Scowcroft, who served with Cheney under George Bush the Elder, famously said that he doesn't recognize the man who now occupies the vice presidency. I wonder what happened.
A pop psychologist might speculate that Cheney was shaken by two stunning blows.
One of them - the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - was suffered by all Americans, but it's hard to overstate the extent to which George Bush the Younger and his inner circle took Sept. 11 personally. The other blow is Cheney's personal health crisis.
But I doubt the vice president would have any patience for this sort of navel-gazing. Just lock and load. The rest of you, don't forget to duck.
It was radio host Tom Joyner who came up with Cheney's Valentines Day poem:
Roses are red, Violets are blue,
Say something I don't like
And I'll shoot you too.
Contact Robinson, a Washington Post columnist, at eugenerobinson@washpost.com.
SHOOTING
Cheney: Trigger-happy all the time
EUGENE ROBINSON
I told you people *** Cheney was dangerous.
Let's all wish a full and speedy recovery for Harry Whittington, the man Cheney accidentally shot Saturday while they were out in the Texas boonies hunting quail.
As for the trigger-happy vice president, let's hope he takes this unfortunate episode as a hint to pack up his shotgun and go home. Lord knows he's done enough.
The man is out of control. Then again, out-of-control is the way this whole administration operates: ready, fire, aim.
Global war on terrorism, global war on poultry, what's the difference? You see something moving, shoot it.
It's been clear for some time that Cheney has pushed so hard in his campaign to assert autocratic powers for the White House that even his allies on Capitol Hill have begun pushing back. On electronic spying, Cheney has essentially told Congress they're welcome to talk to the hand.
His uncompromising drill-and-guzzle position on energy makes a lot of oil-industry executives sound like tree-huggers. When the subject turns to measures that could actually begin to lead this country toward energy independence, such as conservation and alternative fuels, Cheney begins checking his watch and barely tries to stifle his yawns. But let someone raise the prospect of drilling in the Arctic, which couldn't even begin to slake America's energy thirst, and he lights up with such glee that it's impossible not to think of Mr. Burns on "The Simpsons."
Typically, Cheney's office didn't bother to tell anyone for more than 18 hours that the vice president of the U.S. had shot someone.
A vice-presidential shooting doesn't happen every day, and I, for one, would appreciate being informed whenever the man who's just "a heartbeat away from the presidency" peppers a 78-year-old attorney with birdshot.
Cheney seems to believe that we want to know far too much about what our government is up to. He doesn't have to tell us who came to the White House and engineered the administration's "Happy Days" energy policy, he doesn't have to tell us who the National Security Agency is spying on or how they're doing it, he doesn't have to tell us anything about the conduct of the war on terrorism this administration is waging in our names. Anyone who leaks information to try to keep us informed, such as the unnamed whistleblowers who told of the secret CIA prisons and the unauthorized domestic surveillance, will be hunted down.
Foreign policy wise man Brent Scowcroft, who served with Cheney under George Bush the Elder, famously said that he doesn't recognize the man who now occupies the vice presidency. I wonder what happened.
A pop psychologist might speculate that Cheney was shaken by two stunning blows.
One of them - the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - was suffered by all Americans, but it's hard to overstate the extent to which George Bush the Younger and his inner circle took Sept. 11 personally. The other blow is Cheney's personal health crisis.
But I doubt the vice president would have any patience for this sort of navel-gazing. Just lock and load. The rest of you, don't forget to duck.
It was radio host Tom Joyner who came up with Cheney's Valentines Day poem:
Roses are red, Violets are blue,
Say something I don't like
And I'll shoot you too.
Contact Robinson, a Washington Post columnist, at eugenerobinson@washpost.com.
For the people who still have a little bit of brain power left and don't buy all the hogwash spewed out from the government about the big bad terrorists who they say are Arab Islam extremists, CONSIDER THIS.
They announced on the news the other day that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES will be controlling our ports.
Now I'm not racist and I understand people south of the boarder are looking for some work and a little help, and if I had a family to feed and found out that little bush made a deal with el president Fox to LET IN more Mexican people and give a free pass so to speak, as it helps Walmart and other industries hire cheaper help, then I too would try everything I could to hop over the fence and come to America.
And I can't really blame the Chinese, who BRIBED our congressmen and white house officials fair and square, so as to be able to own our technology and other resources.
BUT!!!!!!!!
Don't some of you find it a little SUSPICIOUS that GW, and the homeland security, CIA, FBI and congress wouldn't be objecting to giving up CONTROL OF OUR PORTS to the United Arab Emirates?
Yeah, I know they didn't do 9/11, but half of America still believes the governmental scam that a bunch of angry Arabs did 9/11 and want to inflict more harm on us.
Yeah, yeah, I know that about 98% of the cargo imported into the US doesn't get inspected any way, and only about 2% does at best, but to give up control of the ports to the United Arab Emirates seems to me to be a little OVERLY OBVIOUS, that they don't really think the Arabs did 9/11.
I'm sure yesdidit, arthur and anti-common sense will have to come up with a great reason why there's nothing wrong with our government giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, but regarding the other people on this board, who may have a little, tiny bit of real common sense left, well don't you think that's a bit odd?
They announced on the news the other day that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES will be controlling our ports.
Now I'm not racist and I understand people south of the boarder are looking for some work and a little help, and if I had a family to feed and found out that little bush made a deal with el president Fox to LET IN more Mexican people and give a free pass so to speak, as it helps Walmart and other industries hire cheaper help, then I too would try everything I could to hop over the fence and come to America.
And I can't really blame the Chinese, who BRIBED our congressmen and white house officials fair and square, so as to be able to own our technology and other resources.
BUT!!!!!!!!
Don't some of you find it a little SUSPICIOUS that GW, and the homeland security, CIA, FBI and congress wouldn't be objecting to giving up CONTROL OF OUR PORTS to the United Arab Emirates?
Yeah, I know they didn't do 9/11, but half of America still believes the governmental scam that a bunch of angry Arabs did 9/11 and want to inflict more harm on us.
Yeah, yeah, I know that about 98% of the cargo imported into the US doesn't get inspected any way, and only about 2% does at best, but to give up control of the ports to the United Arab Emirates seems to me to be a little OVERLY OBVIOUS, that they don't really think the Arabs did 9/11.
I'm sure yesdidit, arthur and anti-common sense will have to come up with a great reason why there's nothing wrong with our government giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, but regarding the other people on this board, who may have a little, tiny bit of real common sense left, well don't you think that's a bit odd?
cheney already caught involved in a lie...
cheney quote from fox news:
the quote from latimes.com (boxed in red below):
the quote from latimes.com (boxed in red below):
"Katharine Armstrong said she saw Cheney's security detail running toward the scene. "The first thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem," she told The Associated Press."
How can you be an eyewitness when the first thing that crosses your mind is that the penguin had a heart attack? Hmmm?
Oh and regarding the poll I set up, I think it's clear that there are about a dozen people here... plus the split personality individual.
Do you mean those paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists who believe in some bizarre theory that a rag-tag group of hedonistic muslims pulled off the greatest military manuever since the days of Jerico --- the last time the walls came tumbling down ??? ... (or at least the last time the walls came crumbling down apart from the laws of physics)...
simple trumpets did it the last time.
I see the operation has been updated to include, mysteriously half-filled aircraft, and invisible infernos.
I guess the trumpet sounds came this time in the form of impossible cell-phone calls amidst the echoing backdrop of 24-7 propaganda over modern loudpeakers...for example (Fox, CNN, BBC, 'et-al', News)...
"Osama fought the battle of Jerico...and the walls came tumbling down."
As for the 9/11eyewitness video... I haven't seen it yet either cosmo.
Isn't that the hour long video where Schneibster stole the 4 second clip, posted it at some urology site ('somehow') ... and then quickly retracted it when he got caught?
I think 'Coastal' is getting ready to reveal to us how that transpired)
I'll have to reserve my opinion on the "missile launch from the helicopter" until I view the relevant segment of the tape. Can someone provide the link again (I've been very busy lately).
Generally, I think newton has added some poignant analytical facts regarding the structures engineering anomalies. But, personally I think 'missiles' are 'unlikely'.
Nevertheless, perhaps that's just a gut-reaction from studying too much Phil Jayhans 'Amazing Pod Missile Theory' , (which I rank up there with)...
the 'Amazing Super-Sonic Jet Fuel Theory' from Schneiby...
Ali-baba's 'Amazing Underground Bellows Theory', and...
the Quack-Thelma-Louise 'authored' 'Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy'.
Can't spend long tonight, so I'll try to condense a couple of things into this post that I have caught over the past numerous pages.
The first is above.
The second is ...
why are we back to promoting the 'hollow-central-core shaft /Chimney' fairy tale?
The central core was NOT a chimney... (no matter WHAT the gov't CT's tell you).
There WAS NO waterfalls of 'left-over fuel' plummeting down (supersonically) to explode in thermobaric 'fuel-air explosions' in the basement.That IS a fairy tale.
The stairwells all had numerous fire-proof doors to separate one level from another.
There were only three express-elevator shaftways which went from the basement levels to the impact zone... ( 2 of which were occupied in the north tower; and as those occupants did NOT get incinerated we know the Amazing Magical Supersonic Sentient Jet-Fuel DIDN'T Come DOWN THOSE two).
The electrical / plumbing conduits between floors were sealed after the '93 fire.
So WHERE is this mythical open pathway / chimney from the basement levels to the impact zones?
Do you mean those paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists who believe in some bizarre theory that a rag-tag group of hedonistic muslims pulled off the greatest military manuever since the days of Jerico --- the last time the walls came tumbling down ??? ... (or at least the last time the walls came crumbling down apart from the laws of physics)...
simple trumpets did it the last time.
I see the operation has been updated to include, mysteriously half-filled aircraft, and invisible infernos.
I guess the trumpet sounds came this time in the form of impossible cell-phone calls amidst the echoing backdrop of 24-7 propaganda over modern loudpeakers...for example (Fox, CNN, BBC, 'et-al', News)...
"Osama fought the battle of Jerico...and the walls came tumbling down."
As for the 9/11eyewitness video... I haven't seen it yet either cosmo.
Isn't that the hour long video where Schneibster stole the 4 second clip, posted it at some urology site ('somehow') ... and then quickly retracted it when he got caught?
I think 'Coastal' is getting ready to reveal to us how that transpired)
I'll have to reserve my opinion on the "missile launch from the helicopter" until I view the relevant segment of the tape. Can someone provide the link again (I've been very busy lately).
Ya Im actually trying to watch it right now. I may owe Newton a great big apology afterwards.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...2F11+eyewitness
Go to any 9/11 forum and you will see the same techniques to try to disrupt the discussion.
That's true.
You'll see these techniques used on almost all of the 9/11 threads....
They're called reason and common sense.
Black helicopters.....
....heh.
Go to any 9/11 forum and you will see the same techniques to try to disrupt the discussion.
That's true.
You'll see these techniques used on almost all of the 9/11 threads....
They're called reason and common sense.
Black helicopters.....
....heh.
Priceless , a conspiracy theorist accusing me of being a CT.
You’re the one supporting a ridicules conspiracy theory. I don’t have enough information and would like a real investigation even though the evidence was conveniently destroyed.
Watch out, Al Qaeda might be behind you.
cheney quote from fox news:
QUOTE
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I said Karl has hunted at the Armstrong, as well, and we're both good friends of the Armstrongs and of Katherine Armstrong. And Katherine suggested, and I agreed, that she would go make the announcement, that is that she'd put the story out. And I thought that made good sense for several reasons. First of all, she was an eye-witness. She'd seen the whole thing.
the quote from latimes.com (boxed in red below):
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| THE VICE PRESIDENT: I said Karl has hunted at the Armstrong, as well, and we're both good friends of the Armstrongs and of Katherine Armstrong. And Katherine suggested, and I agreed, that she would go make the announcement, that is that she'd put the story out. And I thought that made good sense for several reasons. First of all, she was an eye-witness. She'd seen the whole thing. |
the quote from latimes.com (boxed in red below):
"Katharine Armstrong said she saw Cheney's security detail running toward the scene. "The first thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem," she told The Associated Press."
How can you be an eyewitness when the first thing that crosses your mind is that the penguin had a heart attack? Hmmm?
Oh and regarding the poll I set up, I think it's clear that there are about a dozen people here... plus the split personality individual.
QUOTE (Sentinel+Feb 15 2006, 06:19 PM)
Bird shot from a 28guage shotgun has to be within close quarters to penatrate so many pellets at such a deep rate. 1 2 beers and tampering with the blood alchohol level may have played a part in the farce.
Had the sherrif made observation that night Cheney would probally be facing reckless endangerment charges.
Sentinel
Right,
Would you stand 40 yards away and let me shoot you with a 28 gauge, loaded with #8 shot?
If you would you would most certainly be a MORON.
Over 1/2 the pellets will hit you and they will be traveling at ~1,000 fps
It most definitely could be LETHAL.
They didn't keep his but in the ICU for nothing.
He didn't suffer a heart attack over nothing.
A 28 gauge shotgun shooting a 3/4 oz load of #8 lead shot will put over 1/2 the pellets within a 30 inch circle at 40 yards. There are 410 #8 pellets per Ounce.
Thus Cheney's description of the event and the number of pellets in the guy and the damage done are ALL consistent.
http://www.chambermates.com/28gauge.htm
Arthur
PS, I'm not defending Cheney for SHOOTING the guy, what I'm pointing out is the description of the injuries sustained jives with the shot pattern of a 28 gauge shotgun shooting #8 birdshot at a distance of 30 yards from the muzzle.
Had the sherrif made observation that night Cheney would probally be facing reckless endangerment charges.
Sentinel
Right,
Would you stand 40 yards away and let me shoot you with a 28 gauge, loaded with #8 shot?
If you would you would most certainly be a MORON.
Over 1/2 the pellets will hit you and they will be traveling at ~1,000 fps
It most definitely could be LETHAL.
They didn't keep his but in the ICU for nothing.
He didn't suffer a heart attack over nothing.
A 28 gauge shotgun shooting a 3/4 oz load of #8 lead shot will put over 1/2 the pellets within a 30 inch circle at 40 yards. There are 410 #8 pellets per Ounce.
Thus Cheney's description of the event and the number of pellets in the guy and the damage done are ALL consistent.
http://www.chambermates.com/28gauge.htm
QUOTE
28 Gauge Gun
40 yds - 3/4 oz. #8 Shot -Full Choke
1278 fps - 52% pellet count 30 in. circle
40 yds - 3/4 oz. #8 Shot -Full Choke
1278 fps - 52% pellet count 30 in. circle
Arthur
PS, I'm not defending Cheney for SHOOTING the guy, what I'm pointing out is the description of the injuries sustained jives with the shot pattern of a 28 gauge shotgun shooting #8 birdshot at a distance of 30 yards from the muzzle.
Speaking of achems razor, check out this site. Athur in particular will enjoy it. http://manning.blogster.com/911_attacks.html
QUOTE (newton+Feb 15 2006, 06:58 PM)
i'm all for stopping the NWO, but we'll have to get into the WAAAAY BACK machine for that. back to before 'the new deal' at least. the NWO has been busy controlling earth for a long time. the best i hope for is to shatter some NWO mirrors and smoke machines. if this means speaking incomplete truths, then so be it. i don't know what the flashes were, but i do know there were flashes.
if you have constructive ideas about stopping the NWO, i for one would love to hear them. first we would have to agree on who and what exactly the NWO is.
to me, it's simple. big money is the NWO. 'they' use every reactive button they can press in people to goad them into their 'pens'. 'morals and dogma' are the main buttons, and they are attached to the 'electrical circuit', or 'currency'.
The tin foil hat is a tried and tested device which in a simple way blocks out the signals from the CIA's and other government agencies' mind control devices.
However, it has one serious drawback: In order to be effective, it must be worn at all times, and as soon as you start wearing it in public, the government agents will notice you and understand that you are a person not easily fooled. (Btw, government agents are actually very easy to spot: They can be recognised because they tend to look at you in a rather strange way when you wear your tin foil hat in public). They will then do their best to harm your reputation and discredit you, for example by spreading rumors that you're paranoid, delusional or otherwise not a very stable person.
So, is there a way around this problem? Can you block the mind control rays without letting the CIA know that you know?
Yes, there is a way.
All you need is a pair of scissors, an ordinary baseball cap, and your old tinfoil hat
You start by slowly and carefully deconstructing your old hat. You should now have one big, flat piece of tin foil. You will now cut a circle from this foil, and the size of the circle is calculated as follows: You measure the diameter of the baseball cap. We call this d. Then you enter the value of d into the following formula:
S = (d*3.1415926) / 2
The next step is to take your scissors (be careful with those things!) and cut a circular piece from the tin foil, with a diameter of S (centimeters, inches or whatever).
Now take your circular piece of foil and put it inside the baseball cap. If you've done your math correctly it should be a near perfect fit. If not, use the scissors to give it a little trim at the edges.
And voila! You now have a tin foil hat that not even the government's finest equipment (i.e. the tin foil detectors taken from the UFO that crashed in Roswell. President Kennedy knew, so they faked his death and took away his hat!) will be able to detect, and you may walk the streets of the city like any law-abiding citizen.
Good luck, and remember: TRUST NO ONE!
if you have constructive ideas about stopping the NWO, i for one would love to hear them. first we would have to agree on who and what exactly the NWO is.
to me, it's simple. big money is the NWO. 'they' use every reactive button they can press in people to goad them into their 'pens'. 'morals and dogma' are the main buttons, and they are attached to the 'electrical circuit', or 'currency'.
The tin foil hat is a tried and tested device which in a simple way blocks out the signals from the CIA's and other government agencies' mind control devices.
However, it has one serious drawback: In order to be effective, it must be worn at all times, and as soon as you start wearing it in public, the government agents will notice you and understand that you are a person not easily fooled. (Btw, government agents are actually very easy to spot: They can be recognised because they tend to look at you in a rather strange way when you wear your tin foil hat in public). They will then do their best to harm your reputation and discredit you, for example by spreading rumors that you're paranoid, delusional or otherwise not a very stable person.
So, is there a way around this problem? Can you block the mind control rays without letting the CIA know that you know?
Yes, there is a way.
All you need is a pair of scissors, an ordinary baseball cap, and your old tinfoil hat
You start by slowly and carefully deconstructing your old hat. You should now have one big, flat piece of tin foil. You will now cut a circle from this foil, and the size of the circle is calculated as follows: You measure the diameter of the baseball cap. We call this d. Then you enter the value of d into the following formula:
S = (d*3.1415926) / 2
The next step is to take your scissors (be careful with those things!) and cut a circular piece from the tin foil, with a diameter of S (centimeters, inches or whatever).
Now take your circular piece of foil and put it inside the baseball cap. If you've done your math correctly it should be a near perfect fit. If not, use the scissors to give it a little trim at the edges.
And voila! You now have a tin foil hat that not even the government's finest equipment (i.e. the tin foil detectors taken from the UFO that crashed in Roswell. President Kennedy knew, so they faked his death and took away his hat!) will be able to detect, and you may walk the streets of the city like any law-abiding citizen.
Good luck, and remember: TRUST NO ONE!
QUOTE
Originally posted by Cosmo
Anyone who wishes to be taken seriously needs to distance themselves from people who push paranoid speculation as fact.
Anyone who wishes to be taken seriously needs to distance themselves from people who push paranoid speculation as fact.
Do you mean those paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists who believe in some bizarre theory that a rag-tag group of hedonistic muslims pulled off the greatest military manuever since the days of Jerico --- the last time the walls came tumbling down ??? ... (or at least the last time the walls came crumbling down apart from the laws of physics)...
simple trumpets did it the last time.
I see the operation has been updated to include, mysteriously half-filled aircraft, and invisible infernos.
I guess the trumpet sounds came this time in the form of impossible cell-phone calls amidst the echoing backdrop of 24-7 propaganda over modern loudpeakers...for example (Fox, CNN, BBC, 'et-al', News)...
"Osama fought the battle of Jerico...and the walls came tumbling down."
As for the 9/11eyewitness video... I haven't seen it yet either cosmo.
Isn't that the hour long video where Schneibster stole the 4 second clip, posted it at some urology site ('somehow') ... and then quickly retracted it when he got caught?
I think 'Coastal' is getting ready to reveal to us how that transpired)
I'll have to reserve my opinion on the "missile launch from the helicopter" until I view the relevant segment of the tape. Can someone provide the link again (I've been very busy lately).
Generally, I think newton has added some poignant analytical facts regarding the structures engineering anomalies. But, personally I think 'missiles' are 'unlikely'.
Nevertheless, perhaps that's just a gut-reaction from studying too much Phil Jayhans 'Amazing Pod Missile Theory' , (which I rank up there with)...
the 'Amazing Super-Sonic Jet Fuel Theory' from Schneiby...
Ali-baba's 'Amazing Underground Bellows Theory', and...
the Quack-Thelma-Louise 'authored' 'Amazing Bowling Ball Analogy'.
Can't spend long tonight, so I'll try to condense a couple of things into this post that I have caught over the past numerous pages.
The first is above.
The second is ...
why are we back to promoting the 'hollow-central-core shaft /Chimney' fairy tale?
The central core was NOT a chimney... (no matter WHAT the gov't CT's tell you).
There WAS NO waterfalls of 'left-over fuel' plummeting down (supersonically) to explode in thermobaric 'fuel-air explosions' in the basement.That IS a fairy tale.
The stairwells all had numerous fire-proof doors to separate one level from another.
There were only three express-elevator shaftways which went from the basement levels to the impact zone... ( 2 of which were occupied in the north tower; and as those occupants did NOT get incinerated we know the Amazing Magical Supersonic Sentient Jet-Fuel DIDN'T Come DOWN THOSE two).
The electrical / plumbing conduits between floors were sealed after the '93 fire.
So WHERE is this mythical open pathway / chimney from the basement levels to the impact zones?
PS, BTW... Thanks for that expose on hiding the 'tin-hats', cosmo.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
That explains how the likes of Schneiby & friends are going undetected (outside of these threads)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
That explains how the likes of Schneiby & friends are going undetected (outside of these threads)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 16 2006, 04:40 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Cosmo
Anyone who wishes to be taken seriously needs to distance themselves from people who push paranoid speculation as fact.
Anyone who wishes to be taken seriously needs to distance themselves from people who push paranoid speculation as fact.
Do you mean those paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists who believe in some bizarre theory that a rag-tag group of hedonistic muslims pulled off the greatest military manuever since the days of Jerico --- the last time the walls came tumbling down ??? ... (or at least the last time the walls came crumbling down apart from the laws of physics)...
simple trumpets did it the last time.
I see the operation has been updated to include, mysteriously half-filled aircraft, and invisible infernos.
I guess the trumpet sounds came this time in the form of impossible cell-phone calls amidst the echoing backdrop of 24-7 propaganda over modern loudpeakers...for example (Fox, CNN, BBC, 'et-al', News)...
"Osama fought the battle of Jerico...and the walls came tumbling down."
As for the 9/11eyewitness video... I haven't seen it yet either cosmo.
Isn't that the hour long video where Schneibster stole the 4 second clip, posted it at some urology site ('somehow') ... and then quickly retracted it when he got caught?
I think 'Coastal' is getting ready to reveal to us how that transpired)
I'll have to reserve my opinion on the "missile launch from the helicopter" until I view the relevant segment of the tape. Can someone provide the link again (I've been very busy lately).
Ya Im actually trying to watch it right now. I may owe Newton a great big apology afterwards.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...2F11+eyewitness
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 16 2006, 12:40 AM)
why are we back to promoting the 'hollow-central-core shaft /Chimney' fairy tale?
The central core was NOT a chimney... (no matter WHAT the gov't CT's tell you).
There WAS NO waterfalls of 'left-over fuel' plummeting down (supersonically) to explode in thermobaric 'fuel-air explosions' in the basement.That IS a fairy tale.
The stairwells all had numerous fire-proof doors to separate one level from another.
There were only three express-elevator shaftways which went from the basement levels to the impact zone... ( 2 of which were occupied in the north tower; and as those occupants did NOT get incinerated we know the Amazing Magical Supersonic Sentient Jet-Fuel DIDN'T Come DOWN THOSE two).
The electrical / plumbing conduits between floors were sealed after the '93 fire.
So WHERE is this mythical open pathway / chimney from the basement levels to the impact zones?
Yes the mechanical floors provided SOME separation, BUT the EXPRESS elevators to each Zone OVERLAPPED with the elevators serving that Zone. Thus they RAN THROUGH the mechanical floors.
There were also 3 large express interzone elevators, running from the lower skylobby to the upper skylobby, so all of these passed through the mechanical floors.
In total there were at least 101 elevators in each WTC tower.
the elevators REALLY were layed out as:
There were EIGHT 10,000 lb (50 passenger) EXPRESS elevators (Elev #s 12-15 & 20-23) that ran from the lobby (or lower) up to the skylobby on the 78th floor and there they had ADJACENT shafts to the TWENTY FOUR 8,500 lb (30 passenger) elevators that serviced the upper zone.
6 Elevs #s 75-80 serviced 78 & flr 80-86
6 Elevs #s 81-86 serviced 78 & flr 87-93
6 Elevs #s 87-92 serviced 78 & flr 94-99
6 Elevs #s 93-98 serviced 78 & flr 100-107
In addition there were THREE 10,000b lb (50 passenger) INTERZONE elevators (Elevs # 16, 18 and 19) that ran between the skylobby on the 44th floor to the skylobby on the 78th floor.
Adjacent to these 3 are the EIGHT 10,000 lb Zone 2 elevators (Elev #s 1-4 & 8-11)that run from the lobby (or lower) to the skylobby on the 44th floor.
Then there are the 2 Express elevators (labeled OBS 1 and OBS 2) and one 1 freight elevator that ran the length of the towers. All three of these are the huge 50 passenger jobbies.
So WHAT shafts ran from the lobby (or lower) up to the fire floors?
Besides the 2 shafts that we know ran in one continuous shaft from the top to the lobby and the 1 that ran to the top from the basement.
We have 12 shafts running from the fire floors to the skylobby on the 78th floor where they meet with 8 shafts that run to at least the lobby and 3 shafts that go to the 44th floor skylobby
At the 44th skylobby they meet up with an additional 8 shafts that run to the lobby or lower.
So at NO TIME are there less than 3 continuous shafts and 11 overlapping shafts that run from the fire floors to the lobby or lower, and most of these are the HUGE 50 passenger shafts.
The fact that the elevators were occupied does NOT negate their role in this. We KNOW that at least ONE of the express elevators was ABOVE the impact point, thus the shaft was open ALL THE WAY TO THE BASEMENT.
Arthur
The central core was NOT a chimney... (no matter WHAT the gov't CT's tell you).
There WAS NO waterfalls of 'left-over fuel' plummeting down (supersonically) to explode in thermobaric 'fuel-air explosions' in the basement.That IS a fairy tale.
The stairwells all had numerous fire-proof doors to separate one level from another.
There were only three express-elevator shaftways which went from the basement levels to the impact zone... ( 2 of which were occupied in the north tower; and as those occupants did NOT get incinerated we know the Amazing Magical Supersonic Sentient Jet-Fuel DIDN'T Come DOWN THOSE two).
The electrical / plumbing conduits between floors were sealed after the '93 fire.
So WHERE is this mythical open pathway / chimney from the basement levels to the impact zones?
Yes the mechanical floors provided SOME separation, BUT the EXPRESS elevators to each Zone OVERLAPPED with the elevators serving that Zone. Thus they RAN THROUGH the mechanical floors.
There were also 3 large express interzone elevators, running from the lower skylobby to the upper skylobby, so all of these passed through the mechanical floors.
In total there were at least 101 elevators in each WTC tower.
the elevators REALLY were layed out as:
There were EIGHT 10,000 lb (50 passenger) EXPRESS elevators (Elev #s 12-15 & 20-23) that ran from the lobby (or lower) up to the skylobby on the 78th floor and there they had ADJACENT shafts to the TWENTY FOUR 8,500 lb (30 passenger) elevators that serviced the upper zone.
6 Elevs #s 75-80 serviced 78 & flr 80-86
6 Elevs #s 81-86 serviced 78 & flr 87-93
6 Elevs #s 87-92 serviced 78 & flr 94-99
6 Elevs #s 93-98 serviced 78 & flr 100-107
In addition there were THREE 10,000b lb (50 passenger) INTERZONE elevators (Elevs # 16, 18 and 19) that ran between the skylobby on the 44th floor to the skylobby on the 78th floor.
Adjacent to these 3 are the EIGHT 10,000 lb Zone 2 elevators (Elev #s 1-4 & 8-11)that run from the lobby (or lower) to the skylobby on the 44th floor.
Then there are the 2 Express elevators (labeled OBS 1 and OBS 2) and one 1 freight elevator that ran the length of the towers. All three of these are the huge 50 passenger jobbies.
So WHAT shafts ran from the lobby (or lower) up to the fire floors?
Besides the 2 shafts that we know ran in one continuous shaft from the top to the lobby and the 1 that ran to the top from the basement.
We have 12 shafts running from the fire floors to the skylobby on the 78th floor where they meet with 8 shafts that run to at least the lobby and 3 shafts that go to the 44th floor skylobby
At the 44th skylobby they meet up with an additional 8 shafts that run to the lobby or lower.
So at NO TIME are there less than 3 continuous shafts and 11 overlapping shafts that run from the fire floors to the lobby or lower, and most of these are the HUGE 50 passenger shafts.
The fact that the elevators were occupied does NOT negate their role in this. We KNOW that at least ONE of the express elevators was ABOVE the impact point, thus the shaft was open ALL THE WAY TO THE BASEMENT.
Arthur
Thanks, adou-cette...
Looks good on ya...
Looks good on ya...
Ok Newton, I finished watching the 9/11 eyewitness video and I gotta say, there is DEFINITLEY something very strange going on with the helicopter that flies into the smoke right before the collapse.
I sincerely apologize for insinuating that you are insane. I still maintain that you should avoid wild speculation ( i.e. shoulder fired rockets). Insanity can only be succesfully countered with sanity...not more insanity
There were some excellent close-ups of the collapses that I had not seen before (I also noticed Schneibster's Urology Video was in there).
That video just reaffirmed my opinion that you'd have to be crazy (or a shill) to deny explosives were used.
Gravity driven collapse my @ss.
I sincerely apologize for insinuating that you are insane. I still maintain that you should avoid wild speculation ( i.e. shoulder fired rockets). Insanity can only be succesfully countered with sanity...not more insanity
There were some excellent close-ups of the collapses that I had not seen before (I also noticed Schneibster's Urology Video was in there
). That video just reaffirmed my opinion that you'd have to be crazy (or a shill) to deny explosives were used.
Gravity driven collapse my @ss.
QUOTE (cosmo+Feb 15 2006, 10:16 PM)
Ok Newton, I finished watching the 9/11 eyewitness video and I gotta say, there is DEFINITLEY something very strange going on with the helicopter that flies into the smoke right before the collapse.
I sincerely apologize for insinuating that you are insane. I still maintain that you should avoid wild speculation ( i.e. shoulder fired rockets). Insanity can only be succesfully countered with sanity...not more insanity
There were some excellent close-ups of the collapses that I had not seen before (I also noticed Schneibster's Urology Video was in there).
That video just reaffirmed my opinion that you'd have to be crazy (or a shill) to deny explosives were used.
Gravity driven collapse my @ss.
Be careful with the attacks on people like Newton. Some of the events of 9/11 are so strange that it is difficult to explain or understand. That is why the shills are here to put you back to sleep. Go to any 9/11 forum and you will see the same techniques to try to disrupt the discussion. Better yet , just watch Arthur.
They only (certifiable) crazy shill is Shnobster.
I sincerely apologize for insinuating that you are insane. I still maintain that you should avoid wild speculation ( i.e. shoulder fired rockets). Insanity can only be succesfully countered with sanity...not more insanity
There were some excellent close-ups of the collapses that I had not seen before (I also noticed Schneibster's Urology Video was in there
). That video just reaffirmed my opinion that you'd have to be crazy (or a shill) to deny explosives were used.
Gravity driven collapse my @ss.
Be careful with the attacks on people like Newton. Some of the events of 9/11 are so strange that it is difficult to explain or understand. That is why the shills are here to put you back to sleep. Go to any 9/11 forum and you will see the same techniques to try to disrupt the discussion. Better yet , just watch Arthur.
They only (certifiable) crazy shill is Shnobster.
The reason NIST did not show the visualization is that it would be equivalent to watching paint dry. NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse.” So the visualization would just show slight color changes of the model.
you can believe me on THIS, for sure, ....it isn't easy to stand up bold-faced and spout theories based on evidence that people have never heard of(ie. flashes from helicopters hiding in smoke, or even the symmetrical, instant collapse of tower seven. MOST people still have NO IDEA there even was a third collapse). especially when you're TRYING to be a 'crusader' for truth.
my theory is that if i just say things i KNOW to be true, not be afraid to speculate, wherever it may take me, and admit when i'm wrong, then i won't be 'harming' the 'truth movement'.
arthur thinks i'm a moron. i must be doing something right.
my theory is that if i just say things i KNOW to be true, not be afraid to speculate, wherever it may take me, and admit when i'm wrong, then i won't be 'harming' the 'truth movement'.
arthur thinks i'm a moron. i must be doing something right.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 15 2006, 02:39 AM)
and, no i'm not a 13 yr. old girl. i'm a seventy-eight yr. old crazy cat lady, with many boxes full of indecisive cats.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 16 2006, 06:52 AM)
Go to any 9/11 forum and you will see the same techniques to try to disrupt the discussion.
That's true.
You'll see these techniques used on almost all of the 9/11 threads....
They're called reason and common sense.
Black helicopters.....
....heh.
U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.
Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested.
The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.
In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable cause for charging the above-named persons with treason for complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they had sworn to protect.
The summary of evidence covers the following areas:
* Andrews Air Force Base and the myth of 'no available planes;'
* The air safety/air defense systems and the myth that they were not prepared;
* The actions of George Bush on 9-11 that clearly violated his positive legal and constitutional obligations and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;
* The testimony of General Richard B. Myers at Senate hearings on his nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In these hearings, the contents of which were reported accurately by one lone journalist, General Myers attempted to cover up what had happened 9-11 when he was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He offered three mutually contradictory cover stories and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;
* The cover story floated by CBS evening news, September 14th.
Until that time, officials reported that no planes had been 'scrambled' to intercept the hijacked planes. But following Gen. Myers disastrous Senate testimony, CBS broadcast an improved version of 9-11. In the new script, fighter jets from Otis and Langley Air Force Bases did try, but failed, to intercept the hijacked planes. This is now presented as the official NORAD story and has been repeated uncritically by media and government officials alike. We will demonstrate that this cover story is both weak and incriminating.
...rest of article here
Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested.
The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.
In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable cause for charging the above-named persons with treason for complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they had sworn to protect.
The summary of evidence covers the following areas:
* Andrews Air Force Base and the myth of 'no available planes;'
* The air safety/air defense systems and the myth that they were not prepared;
* The actions of George Bush on 9-11 that clearly violated his positive legal and constitutional obligations and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;
* The testimony of General Richard B. Myers at Senate hearings on his nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In these hearings, the contents of which were reported accurately by one lone journalist, General Myers attempted to cover up what had happened 9-11 when he was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He offered three mutually contradictory cover stories and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;
* The cover story floated by CBS evening news, September 14th.
Until that time, officials reported that no planes had been 'scrambled' to intercept the hijacked planes. But following Gen. Myers disastrous Senate testimony, CBS broadcast an improved version of 9-11. In the new script, fighter jets from Otis and Langley Air Force Bases did try, but failed, to intercept the hijacked planes. This is now presented as the official NORAD story and has been repeated uncritically by media and government officials alike. We will demonstrate that this cover story is both weak and incriminating.
...rest of article here
QUOTE (Coastal+Feb 16 2006, 12:05 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 16 2006, 06:52 AM)
Go to any 9/11 forum and you will see the same techniques to try to disrupt the discussion.
That's true.
You'll see these techniques used on almost all of the 9/11 threads....
They're called reason and common sense.
Black helicopters.....
....heh.
Priceless , a conspiracy theorist accusing me of being a CT.
You’re the one supporting a ridicules conspiracy theory. I don’t have enough information and would like a real investigation even though the evidence was conveniently destroyed.
Watch out, Al Qaeda might be behind you.
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 16 2006, 02:58 AM)
For the people who still have a little bit of brain power left and don't buy all the hogwash spewed out from the government about the big bad terrorists who they say are Arab Islam extremists, CONSIDER THIS.
They announced on the news the other day that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES will be controlling our ports.
Now I'm not racist and I understand people south of the boarder are looking for some work and a little help, and if I had a family to feed and found out that little bush made a deal with el president Fox to LET IN more Mexican people and give a free pass so to speak, as it helps Walmart and other industries hire cheaper help, then I too would try everything I could to hop over the fence and come to America.
And I can't really blame the Chinese, who BRIBED our congressmen and white house officials fair and square, so as to be able to own our technology and other resources.
BUT!!!!!!!!
Don't some of you find it a little SUSPICIOUS that GW, and the homeland security, CIA, FBI and congress wouldn't be objecting to giving up CONTROL OF OUR PORTS to the United Arab Emirates?
Yeah, I know they didn't do 9/11, but half of America still believes the governmental scam that a bunch of angry Arabs did 9/11 and want to inflict more harm on us.
Yeah, yeah, I know that about 98% of the cargo imported into the US doesn't get inspected any way, and only about 2% does at best, but to give up control of the ports to the United Arab Emirates seems to me to be a little OVERLY OBVIOUS, that they don't really think the Arabs did 9/11.
I'm sure yesdidit, arthur and anti-common sense will have to come up with a great reason why there's nothing wrong with our government giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, but regarding the other people on this board, who may have a little, tiny bit of real common sense left, well don't you think that's a bit odd?
Please provide a reference for this. Thanks.
They announced on the news the other day that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES will be controlling our ports.
Now I'm not racist and I understand people south of the boarder are looking for some work and a little help, and if I had a family to feed and found out that little bush made a deal with el president Fox to LET IN more Mexican people and give a free pass so to speak, as it helps Walmart and other industries hire cheaper help, then I too would try everything I could to hop over the fence and come to America.
And I can't really blame the Chinese, who BRIBED our congressmen and white house officials fair and square, so as to be able to own our technology and other resources.
BUT!!!!!!!!
Don't some of you find it a little SUSPICIOUS that GW, and the homeland security, CIA, FBI and congress wouldn't be objecting to giving up CONTROL OF OUR PORTS to the United Arab Emirates?
Yeah, I know they didn't do 9/11, but half of America still believes the governmental scam that a bunch of angry Arabs did 9/11 and want to inflict more harm on us.
Yeah, yeah, I know that about 98% of the cargo imported into the US doesn't get inspected any way, and only about 2% does at best, but to give up control of the ports to the United Arab Emirates seems to me to be a little OVERLY OBVIOUS, that they don't really think the Arabs did 9/11.
I'm sure yesdidit, arthur and anti-common sense will have to come up with a great reason why there's nothing wrong with our government giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, but regarding the other people on this board, who may have a little, tiny bit of real common sense left, well don't you think that's a bit odd?
Please provide a reference for this. Thanks.
QUOTE (cosmo+Feb 16 2006, 07:36 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 15 2006, 02:39 AM)
and, no i'm not a 13 yr. old girl. i'm a seventy-eight yr. old crazy cat lady, with many boxes full of indecisive cats.
that IS me! how'd you get that picture? are you from the FBI, NSA, ONI, CIA, IMO, PWN, GIF, BTW or JPG?
i really did rotflmao. thanks for the hoot.
Apache helicopters are used against tanks and hardened targets. With all the private military activity in the world, one can imagine the need to fire a missile from a non-military helicopter. A clamp on motorized platform, along the side door or the under carriage, would allow the missile to stay outside. The targeting system could use laser and/or video monitor. The pilot provides rough alignment; the armament personnel, using a joy stick, dials it in and takes the shot. Sounds reasonable to me.
Except nothing is seen clamped onto the helo.
Nor is any massive explosion from a massive warhead seen in the Towers prior to the towers collapse.
-TOTAL BS, but what do you know, it sounds REASONABLE to Luketober.
Arthur
--In case you need to be reminded, 911 was another one of those,"day(s) that would live in infamy". Who was looking at the helicopters???? Even if they were, I suggested that the missile mount was a clamp-on and therefore a clamp-OFF accessory. You attach it when your in the smoke cloud, fire and then remove it. How do-able is that.
--One thing I left out, is that some launcher tubes use a closed back design. They would not set the helicopter on fire as you implied. You know that.
-The smoke is most concentrated inside the building. So, you get a team up there who can deliver the ordinance through the impact hole. How would anyone see that? If they did, why would they assume it was anything more than a extension of the impact/fire event? Those flashes in the smoke cloud could have been (laser?) targeting systems. On the battle field, mechanized units hide in smoke clouds ALL the time. Counter systems exists, to target these objectives. You know this also.
The innuendo, that you directed against Newton, was a new low. He was getting close, through his free associated reasoning, so you had to stoop to depravity to derail him. Instead you attracted more attention to his ideas. If the collapse mechanism got stuck, where better to direct an appropriate nudge?
V
A
D ARTH_U_R
E
R
Luketober
that IS me! how'd you get that picture? are you from the FBI, NSA, ONI, CIA, IMO, PWN, GIF, BTW or JPG?
i really did rotflmao. thanks for the hoot.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 15 2006, 04:38 AM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Feb 15 2006, 12:58 AM)
Apache helicopters are used against tanks and hardened targets. With all the private military activity in the world, one can imagine the need to fire a missile from a non-military helicopter. A clamp on motorized platform, along the side door or the under carriage, would allow the missile to stay outside. The targeting system could use laser and/or video monitor. The pilot provides rough alignment; the armament personnel, using a joy stick, dials it in and takes the shot. Sounds reasonable to me.
Except nothing is seen clamped onto the helo.
Nor is any massive explosion from a massive warhead seen in the Towers prior to the towers collapse.
-TOTAL BS, but what do you know, it sounds REASONABLE to Luketober.
Arthur
--In case you need to be reminded, 911 was another one of those,"day(s) that would live in infamy". Who was looking at the helicopters???? Even if they were, I suggested that the missile mount was a clamp-on and therefore a clamp-OFF accessory. You attach it when your in the smoke cloud, fire and then remove it. How do-able is that.
--One thing I left out, is that some launcher tubes use a closed back design. They would not set the helicopter on fire as you implied. You know that.
-The smoke is most concentrated inside the building. So, you get a team up there who can deliver the ordinance through the impact hole. How would anyone see that? If they did, why would they assume it was anything more than a extension of the impact/fire event? Those flashes in the smoke cloud could have been (laser?) targeting systems. On the battle field, mechanized units hide in smoke clouds ALL the time. Counter systems exists, to target these objectives. You know this also.
The innuendo, that you directed against Newton, was a new low. He was getting close, through his free associated reasoning, so you had to stoop to depravity to derail him. Instead you attracted more attention to his ideas. If the collapse mechanism got stuck, where better to direct an appropriate nudge?
V
A
D ARTH_U_R
E
R
Luketober
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 16 2006, 10:22 AM)
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 16 2006, 02:58 AM)
For the people who still have a little bit of brain power left and don't buy all the hogwash spewed out from the government about the big bad terrorists who they say are Arab Islam extremists, CONSIDER THIS.
They announced on the news the other day that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES will be controlling our ports.
Now I'm not racist and I understand people south of the boarder are looking for some work and a little help, and if I had a family to feed and found out that little bush made a deal with el president Fox to LET IN more Mexican people and give a free pass so to speak, as it helps Walmart and other industries hire cheaper help, then I too would try everything I could to hop over the fence and come to America.
And I can't really blame the Chinese, who BRIBED our congressmen and white house officials fair and square, so as to be able to own our technology and other resources.
BUT!!!!!!!!
Don't some of you find it a little SUSPICIOUS that GW, and the homeland security, CIA, FBI and congress wouldn't be objecting to giving up CONTROL OF OUR PORTS to the United Arab Emirates?
Yeah, I know they didn't do 9/11, but half of America still believes the governmental scam that a bunch of angry Arabs did 9/11 and want to inflict more harm on us.
Yeah, yeah, I know that about 98% of the cargo imported into the US doesn't get inspected any way, and only about 2% does at best, but to give up control of the ports to the United Arab Emirates seems to me to be a little OVERLY OBVIOUS, that they don't really think the Arabs did 9/11.
I'm sure yesdidit, arthur and anti-common sense will have to come up with a great reason why there's nothing wrong with our government giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, but regarding the other people on this board, who may have a little, tiny bit of real common sense left, well don't you think that's a bit odd?
Please provide a reference for this. Thanks.
Why would we find it neccessary to come up with a reason why there is nothing wrong with this? What does this have to do with 9/11?
Once again the idiocy of some people shows through in assuming that anyone who does not believe that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by GWB et al must be a lover of GWB et al and fully content with all policies of same.
They announced on the news the other day that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES will be controlling our ports.
Now I'm not racist and I understand people south of the boarder are looking for some work and a little help, and if I had a family to feed and found out that little bush made a deal with el president Fox to LET IN more Mexican people and give a free pass so to speak, as it helps Walmart and other industries hire cheaper help, then I too would try everything I could to hop over the fence and come to America.
And I can't really blame the Chinese, who BRIBED our congressmen and white house officials fair and square, so as to be able to own our technology and other resources.
BUT!!!!!!!!
Don't some of you find it a little SUSPICIOUS that GW, and the homeland security, CIA, FBI and congress wouldn't be objecting to giving up CONTROL OF OUR PORTS to the United Arab Emirates?
Yeah, I know they didn't do 9/11, but half of America still believes the governmental scam that a bunch of angry Arabs did 9/11 and want to inflict more harm on us.
Yeah, yeah, I know that about 98% of the cargo imported into the US doesn't get inspected any way, and only about 2% does at best, but to give up control of the ports to the United Arab Emirates seems to me to be a little OVERLY OBVIOUS, that they don't really think the Arabs did 9/11.
I'm sure yesdidit, arthur and anti-common sense will have to come up with a great reason why there's nothing wrong with our government giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, but regarding the other people on this board, who may have a little, tiny bit of real common sense left, well don't you think that's a bit odd?
Please provide a reference for this. Thanks.
Why were no Flight Data Recorders or Cockpit Voice Recorders recovered? That was four aircraft; eight seperate devices. The Transportation Safety Board make it their business to find these things (even at the bottom of the ocean). You might understand not finding the ones at WTC, even though they DID find a terrorist's passport! But in an empty field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon?!?
QUOTE
I'm sure yesitdid, arthur and Common Sense will have to come up with a great reason why there's nothing wrong with our government giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, but regarding the other people on this board, who may have a little, tiny bit of real common sense left, well don't you think that's a bit odd?
Why would we find it neccessary to come up with a reason why there is nothing wrong with this? What does this have to do with 9/11?
Once again the idiocy of some people shows through in assuming that anyone who does not believe that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by GWB et al must be a lover of GWB et al and fully content with all policies of same.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 16 2006, 07:54 PM)
Why were no Flight Data Recorders or Cockpit Voice Recorders recovered? That was four aircraft; eight seperate devices. The Transportation Safety Board make it their business to find these things (even at the bottom of the ocean). You might understand not finding the ones at WTC, even though they DID find a terrorist's passport! But in an empty field in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon?!?
keey-riest , man do a search on google at least before showing all that you arte a complete imbecile.
try
"black box" 9/11 CNN
keey-riest , man do a search on google at least before showing all that you arte a complete imbecile.
try
"black box" 9/11 CNN
My question is why the roof observation deck was locked and closed on 911. It was a nice clear sunny day and it would have been the perfect day for the Rod to be open to the public and why was there a heavy smoke condition being reported by train crews on the N&R lines at courtland and church at 9:47am? Why was there no train service on the 1&9 lines that morning?
Sentinel
Sentinel
QUOTE (Guest_Sentinel+Feb 16 2006, 10:16 PM)
My question is why the roof observation deck was locked and closed on 911. It was a nice clear sunny day and it would have been the perfect day for the Rod to be open to the public and why was there a heavy smoke condition being reported by train crews on the N&R lines at courtland and church at 9:47am? Why was there no train service on the 1&9 lines that morning?
Sentinel
It is my understanding that there is no access to the roof. The observation deck is inside the building. I also understood that it never opened until later in the day.
Sentinel
It is my understanding that there is no access to the roof. The observation deck is inside the building. I also understood that it never opened until later in the day.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 16 2006, 10:23 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Sentinel+Feb 16 2006, 10:16 PM)
My question is why the roof observation deck was locked and closed on 911. It was a nice clear sunny day and it would have been the perfect day for the Rod to be open to the public and why was there a heavy smoke condition being reported by train crews on the N&R lines at courtland and church at 9:47am? Why was there no train service on the 1&9 lines that morning?
Sentinel
It is my understanding that there is no access to the roof. The observation deck is inside the building. I also understood that it never opened until later in the day.
no public access to the roof that is.
Sentinel
It is my understanding that there is no access to the roof. The observation deck is inside the building. I also understood that it never opened until later in the day.
no public access to the roof that is.
Al Interviews professor Jim Fetzer of Univ. of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. We discuss why 911 is still the preeminent issue, how the events of that day can be scientifically proven to NOT be what the government tells us, and what we can do about it. Massive information!
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/8556.php
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/8556.php
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.