Helicopters firing anti-tank missiles now!
Add this to the thermite, mini-nukes, beam weapons, and what the hell , include the pod planes and holograms.
Ok so what would such a missile impact?
The roof! If it is designed to punch through and then detonate it is going to have to do so through over a dozen floors and then what? It explodes someplace on the fire floor. So what? An anti-tank missile will indeed punch through the armor of a tank but it has to hit the armor to do so. This missile will NOT be hitting any columns unless it hits one at the top of the building.
There would be a delay between the explosion and the collapse yet the upper section of the building is already moving before any debris is seen exiting. So much for explosive initiation of the collapse.
Fireman: "bomb in the building start clearing out" - Google Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...14832928&q=9-11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...14832928&q=9-11
Guest,
Talk about the tin hat, wild conspiracy crowd. All you have to do is open up your eyes a little and check some of the news now and then and read between the lines, such as on Lou Dobbs of CNN.
In fact today he was following up on his report about the US selling out and giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, and he showed congress BEGGING the white house to change it's position on giving control of the ports to a group of people who they say had ties to 9/11.
Of course little bush was adamant and sad NO! Funny how congress had no power to ARREST LITTLE BUSH for treason, but after making a fuss about they gave in and went their way.
Problem is there are so many crimes this government has done against the people that trying to do anything to stop it is like putting up a stop sign on the tracks a few feet before a train that's already going 100 miles per hour, it ain't gonna stop folks, there's too much momentum.
So you can say it seems we have a division of different types of people in this country, such as
The TIN FOIL HAT CROWD, you know people like Arthur, anti-common sense, yesdidit and other ignoramuses that have their heads so far stuck up this administrations butt that they feel it is impossible for little bush or congress to do anything wrong. Yeah this crowd chooses to believe in magician's in a cave who can defy ALL the laws of physics and do the impossible, IE; bring steel frame buildings down to the ground VIA fire, which has been proven to be absolutely impossible.
Then you have the LUKE WARM CROWD, who knows the government has been lying and denying about many things, but just can't bring themselves to face up to reality and confess the top leaders in this government are in fact criminals.
And then you have the people, (few as they are) who face reality and realize that you have to accept the truth and facts of life, no matter how sad and painful they are. This group understands you can't just stick your head in the sand and make reality go away, and that the best way to make changes is to first face up to reality and DEAL with it, no matter how ugly it may appear. And of course these people are called every name in the book including tin foil hats, because they choose to DEAL WITH REALITY and not run away from it.
Now for the few people who choose to deal with reality, here are the facts...
Most of the government officials have SOLD OUT A LONG TIME AGO.
Our trade deficit with China is over $200 BILLION, and who knows what it is with the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and other countries. Point being the US is at least $7 trillion in debt and many countries, such as China now OWN OUR BUTTS and are able to do what they want.
They don't ask our politicians to pass laws for their benefit THEY TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. Remember, the US SOLD OUT A LONG TIME AGO. Why do really think we closed down over 30 of our military bases in the past few years?
Did you know that LITTLE BUSH'S guest worker deal with president Fox included temporary passes for 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS? And the TIN FOIL HAT sheep people still think little bush really cares about this nation and is protecting us from terrorists. Talk about morons, who put their trust in scum bag politicians.
Our president and congress are supposed to be public servants, working for the best interest of the US tax payer, but in reality they're nothing more than over glorified, welfare recipients, stealing money from the tax payer and spending on items that'd make real people sick to their stomachs.
Did you know that little bush and the federal government have spent over $1.6 billion on advertising campaigns for PR purposes, such as to sell the war in Iraq and BS the idiot sheople into accepting their other scams?
No wonder the media is so supportive of their BS, they are paid a ton of money in a variety of ways. Not that Fox news network wouldn't support their fearless leader any way, but isn't nice to know your hard earned tax dollars is going to help the president and his team convince the American public that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I better end this post, and let the IDIOT TIN FOIL HAT CLUB respond and try to turn it around so that they look reasonable and anyone who finds fault in any of our government must be crazy, but one last analogy.
Trusting in our government is almost the exact same thing as the little catholic alter boy who is told by his mommy and daddy to trust and obey his priest. Even though the little boy some very suspicious activity and over heard numerous reports of other alter boys getting molested, his parents are serious, he better still trust that priest and always obey him.
And when the little boy tells his Mommy that father Jolley, keeps touching him in his private parts, his mommy says, "You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking bad thoughts about the holy father" And so the little alter boy spends the next 10 years of his child hood getting his butt reamed out twice a week by father Jolley, because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
And so it is, some of us in the US are tired of getting our butts reamed out by our corrupt politicians and false wolf, religious leaders who go along with it, and so we speak out and inform the public about all this molestation taking place, and we're sick and tired of it and don't think we are supposed to put up with it.
But little arthur, little yesdidit, and anti-common sense are adamantly against people pointing out the truth in the sick, disgusting and perverted behavior of our corrupt government, and they call us every name in the book in hopes of discrediting what we say, just like the way the church tries to discredit the little alter boys who report on all that molestation.
So while I don't have all the answers, I will say this, keep speaking out! If you got the facts about 9/11, (the real facts, not the perverted lies of the government, but the truth) then speak out, after all it's our government and the corrupt politicians are not kings and queens, but according to the Constitution, they are supposed to work for us, they are HIRED HELP.
Talk about the tin hat, wild conspiracy crowd. All you have to do is open up your eyes a little and check some of the news now and then and read between the lines, such as on Lou Dobbs of CNN.
In fact today he was following up on his report about the US selling out and giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, and he showed congress BEGGING the white house to change it's position on giving control of the ports to a group of people who they say had ties to 9/11.
Of course little bush was adamant and sad NO! Funny how congress had no power to ARREST LITTLE BUSH for treason, but after making a fuss about they gave in and went their way.
Problem is there are so many crimes this government has done against the people that trying to do anything to stop it is like putting up a stop sign on the tracks a few feet before a train that's already going 100 miles per hour, it ain't gonna stop folks, there's too much momentum.
So you can say it seems we have a division of different types of people in this country, such as
The TIN FOIL HAT CROWD, you know people like Arthur, anti-common sense, yesdidit and other ignoramuses that have their heads so far stuck up this administrations butt that they feel it is impossible for little bush or congress to do anything wrong. Yeah this crowd chooses to believe in magician's in a cave who can defy ALL the laws of physics and do the impossible, IE; bring steel frame buildings down to the ground VIA fire, which has been proven to be absolutely impossible.
Then you have the LUKE WARM CROWD, who knows the government has been lying and denying about many things, but just can't bring themselves to face up to reality and confess the top leaders in this government are in fact criminals.
And then you have the people, (few as they are) who face reality and realize that you have to accept the truth and facts of life, no matter how sad and painful they are. This group understands you can't just stick your head in the sand and make reality go away, and that the best way to make changes is to first face up to reality and DEAL with it, no matter how ugly it may appear. And of course these people are called every name in the book including tin foil hats, because they choose to DEAL WITH REALITY and not run away from it.
Now for the few people who choose to deal with reality, here are the facts...
Most of the government officials have SOLD OUT A LONG TIME AGO.
Our trade deficit with China is over $200 BILLION, and who knows what it is with the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and other countries. Point being the US is at least $7 trillion in debt and many countries, such as China now OWN OUR BUTTS and are able to do what they want.
They don't ask our politicians to pass laws for their benefit THEY TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. Remember, the US SOLD OUT A LONG TIME AGO. Why do really think we closed down over 30 of our military bases in the past few years?
Did you know that LITTLE BUSH'S guest worker deal with president Fox included temporary passes for 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS? And the TIN FOIL HAT sheep people still think little bush really cares about this nation and is protecting us from terrorists. Talk about morons, who put their trust in scum bag politicians.
Our president and congress are supposed to be public servants, working for the best interest of the US tax payer, but in reality they're nothing more than over glorified, welfare recipients, stealing money from the tax payer and spending on items that'd make real people sick to their stomachs.
Did you know that little bush and the federal government have spent over $1.6 billion on advertising campaigns for PR purposes, such as to sell the war in Iraq and BS the idiot sheople into accepting their other scams?
No wonder the media is so supportive of their BS, they are paid a ton of money in a variety of ways. Not that Fox news network wouldn't support their fearless leader any way, but isn't nice to know your hard earned tax dollars is going to help the president and his team convince the American public that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I better end this post, and let the IDIOT TIN FOIL HAT CLUB respond and try to turn it around so that they look reasonable and anyone who finds fault in any of our government must be crazy, but one last analogy.
Trusting in our government is almost the exact same thing as the little catholic alter boy who is told by his mommy and daddy to trust and obey his priest. Even though the little boy some very suspicious activity and over heard numerous reports of other alter boys getting molested, his parents are serious, he better still trust that priest and always obey him.
And when the little boy tells his Mommy that father Jolley, keeps touching him in his private parts, his mommy says, "You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking bad thoughts about the holy father" And so the little alter boy spends the next 10 years of his child hood getting his butt reamed out twice a week by father Jolley, because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
And so it is, some of us in the US are tired of getting our butts reamed out by our corrupt politicians and false wolf, religious leaders who go along with it, and so we speak out and inform the public about all this molestation taking place, and we're sick and tired of it and don't think we are supposed to put up with it.
But little arthur, little yesdidit, and anti-common sense are adamantly against people pointing out the truth in the sick, disgusting and perverted behavior of our corrupt government, and they call us every name in the book in hopes of discrediting what we say, just like the way the church tries to discredit the little alter boys who report on all that molestation.
So while I don't have all the answers, I will say this, keep speaking out! If you got the facts about 9/11, (the real facts, not the perverted lies of the government, but the truth) then speak out, after all it's our government and the corrupt politicians are not kings and queens, but according to the Constitution, they are supposed to work for us, they are HIRED HELP.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 16 2006, 03:48 PM)
Helicopters firing anti-tank missiles now!
Add this to the thermite, mini-nukes, beam weapons, and what the hell , include the pod planes and holograms.
Ok so what would such a missile impact?
The roof! If it is designed to punch through and then detonate it is going to have to do so through over a dozen floors and then what? It explodes someplace on the fire floor. So what? An anti-tank missile will indeed punch through the armor of a tank but it has to hit the armor to do so. This missile will NOT be hitting any columns unless it hits one at the top of the building.
There would be a delay between the explosion and the collapse yet the upper section of the building is already moving before any debris is seen exiting. So much for explosive initiation of the collapse.
I replied to this subject initially,only to explain that it was possible. It's possible to run overhead mag/lev 200 mph+ trains down the center of the nations interstates. It's implementation is impossible under the current regime, but it's possible to do. I'm just driving through the lame technological roadblocks you're erecting, when you know that there are special forces' unit's, that could be easily trained to do this. Weather, they would have is a different argument from, if they could have. I'm addressing the latter.
Gee... If the armament was fired from the horizon of the impact hole, center shot, what do you think it would hit? The core maybe. How can it not hit anything? Are you implying the core was gone? Why would they fire at the roof? That's totally lame.
Why is the building moving from below? This would imply, core destruction before the collapse. The only "official" source of energy available to destroy the lower section was the accelerated mass above. That force could only be released after initiation. How does that force act before it's released?
I'm saying this: the core was compromised some how and still it didn't fall. The peripheral and some vertical support in the columns, kept it standing. Now what? Release the accelerated mass! There were multiple flashes, so, possibly multiple shots, with whatever state of the art weaponry, was available then. The upper section falls into the lower section, throwing-up a furious cloud of pre-destroyed core cement. Horizontal integrity between the columns is gone. The descending upper core section is able to defeat what's left of the lateral support between the lower columns, as it plows down the middle, wedging them away from the center.The floor supports are crushed sideways into the peripheral network. Once the columns are snapped off at the weld points and are away, they fall, still connected and oriented, with in the peripheral network via the floor joists. Descending parallel columns pull down everything into a pile of rubble. I still think it would take more than 10-12 seconds, but it's the best I can do at the moment.
"so much for explosive initiation of the collapse". So. It's just a very speculative theory. It addresses conditions of the collapse. Until they take it away, I have the right to postulate. If the theory make ME look lame, why do YOU get bent out of shape about it? Are you arthur's understudy? It's his job to suppress me. Et Tu, Brute!
Add this to the thermite, mini-nukes, beam weapons, and what the hell , include the pod planes and holograms.
Ok so what would such a missile impact?
The roof! If it is designed to punch through and then detonate it is going to have to do so through over a dozen floors and then what? It explodes someplace on the fire floor. So what? An anti-tank missile will indeed punch through the armor of a tank but it has to hit the armor to do so. This missile will NOT be hitting any columns unless it hits one at the top of the building.
There would be a delay between the explosion and the collapse yet the upper section of the building is already moving before any debris is seen exiting. So much for explosive initiation of the collapse.
I replied to this subject initially,only to explain that it was possible. It's possible to run overhead mag/lev 200 mph+ trains down the center of the nations interstates. It's implementation is impossible under the current regime, but it's possible to do. I'm just driving through the lame technological roadblocks you're erecting, when you know that there are special forces' unit's, that could be easily trained to do this. Weather, they would have is a different argument from, if they could have. I'm addressing the latter.
Gee... If the armament was fired from the horizon of the impact hole, center shot, what do you think it would hit? The core maybe. How can it not hit anything? Are you implying the core was gone? Why would they fire at the roof? That's totally lame.
Why is the building moving from below? This would imply, core destruction before the collapse. The only "official" source of energy available to destroy the lower section was the accelerated mass above. That force could only be released after initiation. How does that force act before it's released?
I'm saying this: the core was compromised some how and still it didn't fall. The peripheral and some vertical support in the columns, kept it standing. Now what? Release the accelerated mass! There were multiple flashes, so, possibly multiple shots, with whatever state of the art weaponry, was available then. The upper section falls into the lower section, throwing-up a furious cloud of pre-destroyed core cement. Horizontal integrity between the columns is gone. The descending upper core section is able to defeat what's left of the lateral support between the lower columns, as it plows down the middle, wedging them away from the center.The floor supports are crushed sideways into the peripheral network. Once the columns are snapped off at the weld points and are away, they fall, still connected and oriented, with in the peripheral network via the floor joists. Descending parallel columns pull down everything into a pile of rubble. I still think it would take more than 10-12 seconds, but it's the best I can do at the moment.
"so much for explosive initiation of the collapse". So. It's just a very speculative theory. It addresses conditions of the collapse. Until they take it away, I have the right to postulate. If the theory make ME look lame, why do YOU get bent out of shape about it? Are you arthur's understudy? It's his job to suppress me. Et Tu, Brute!
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?
QUOTE (->
| 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? |
Response by YID
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.
Yesitdid, I'm afraid you just DON'T GET IT.
9/11 is NOT a 'cause'... it is an 'effect'.
In seeking to limit the discussion to ONLY the psyopts events of that ONE DAY in history, you blind yourself to reality.
9/11 is a symptom of a malignant sickness hidden deep within the military-industrial complex of the US. It can not be separated from the PNAC 'Northwoods' mentality of these psychopaths, whom you refuse to recognize.
I'm afraid you've spent too long at AH, idolizing JU (and his errant thinking that ALL conspiracies are mere hogwash - which can be washed away with sophistry & semantics).
9/11 is the outcome of years of ignoring a monster that has surfaced numerous times before...
Anyone (like you) who promotes the ideology that ALL conspiracies are nonsense, ARE the proveable tin-hat loonies who walk about in fairy-tales that the world is 'good' (except for the chosen 'enemies of the day i.e - communists, socialists, muslims, etc).
These 'enemies' are ghosts - not REAL enemies, but made to appear as such through propaganda so as to feed the military-industrial war-profit machine.
No WAR... No Enemy... Whoops, wait a minute... NO PROFIT.
The last REAL 'independant' POTUS (JFK) was in the process of taking steps to smash this evil ---
look where such nobility got him.
Research...
"The Pentagon Papers"
"Operation Mongoose"
"Watergate"
"The Iran-Contra Affair"
(just to name a few)...
These were ALL just the tip of the iceberg 'government conspiracies' perpetrated by 'spooks' working in concert with the powerful ELITE.
Research Daniel Ellsberg's history and what he has to say about current events TODAY.
The above 'TRUE ACTUAL Government Conspiracies were not separate and distinct events...
They were ALL MANIFESTATIONS of an ongoing program hidden from public view in the black-opts world of deceit & greed by thoroughly corrupt men, who have no conscience (whether it regards to murdering foreign babies or domestics who stand in their way).
Innocent deaths are merely classified as 'acceptable collateral damages' on the road to profit.
A million dollar cruise missile allegedly spent on 'trying to take out terrorists' (and instead wipes out an innocent group of unknown peasants half a world away) is merely an 'unfortunate incident'... nevertheless that missile is spent and 'someone' is paid to replace that million dollar baby in the arsenal.
You seek to dis-associate current wars and events from 9/11, and therefore exhibit your own superficial thinking.
The NEW History was commenced on 9/11 BUT it had been planned long before that day.
The psychological and sophistry arguements which worked well to decimate the 'We-Never-Went-To-The-Moon' tin-hat conspiracy TRUE NONSENSE... Doesn't work at all with the 9/11 truth movement which is thousands of times larger and more well researched & documented than the few 'tin-hats' who believed the AH conspiracy.
It took me about 4 hours of research (independant of AH sophists) to reach the conclusion that THAT 'conspiracy theory' (AH) was TRUE bunk... And LONG Before I had ever even heard of AH OR 9/11 conspiracies
Yet in the thousands of hours you have spent trying to claim that the AH conspiracy and the 9/11 'conspiracy' come from the same delusions, you have failed to put forth one iota of positive proof that the official fairy tale is TRUE.
In other words... you have become one of the 'tin-hats' that you claim you fight against and are 'sooooo delusional'... (at least regarding 9/11 issues).
Get a grip.
PS --- regarding the above quote...
Now think about Carters expedition into Iran to free the embassy hostages.
This is HOW the spooks control, it was blatantly obvious to me THEN.
Carter listens to his 'military advisors' who suggest a secret military option to free the hostages. The plan is implemented. Helicopters take off on a high-priority top-secret mission... and what happened?
They mysteriously 'broke down' in the desert short of the mark.
Who 'wins' ??? ... CUI BONO ?
Carter was well known as a peacemaker (in fact winning the Nobel Peace prize years later).
Who suffered for this 'botched mission'?
Carter was made to look like 'the fool' (as Commander-in-Chief the responsibility for the mission was his).
The electorate did NOT Forget this botched mission and punished Carter by booting him out (in favour of the more Hawkish PNAC Reagan).
This alone was evidence (to me) of WHO was in control.
Was Carter the man who chose which helicopters to choose for the mission?
Was he in charge of the actual logistics?
It was a COMPLETE SHAM perpetrated by those military-industrialists who were close enough to 'advise' Carter, yet were actually enemies of 'peace'.
To this day, I am convinced that those who opposed Carters peace initiatives purposely 'set him up' through that mission, to make it appear that HE was 'incompetent'.
Yet it was the military 'chiefs' who orchestrated the mission to look like a 'disaster', so as to 'discredit' the 'Commander-in-Chief'.
That whole operation was another 'bogus' black-opts scenario purposely devised to discredit Carter, so that the more-sympathetic hawkish Reagan could be brought 'into the fold'... all leading to the Iran-Contra affair.
Now... read again the Northwoods document, and see if you can make 'common sense' of the past 50 years of history...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/northwoods01.html
QUOTE
The last REAL 'independant' POTUS (JFK) was in the process of taking steps to smash this evil ---
look where such nobility got him.
look where such nobility got him.
Now think about Carters expedition into Iran to free the embassy hostages.
This is HOW the spooks control, it was blatantly obvious to me THEN.
Carter listens to his 'military advisors' who suggest a secret military option to free the hostages. The plan is implemented. Helicopters take off on a high-priority top-secret mission... and what happened?
They mysteriously 'broke down' in the desert short of the mark.
Who 'wins' ??? ... CUI BONO ?
Carter was well known as a peacemaker (in fact winning the Nobel Peace prize years later).
Who suffered for this 'botched mission'?
Carter was made to look like 'the fool' (as Commander-in-Chief the responsibility for the mission was his).
The electorate did NOT Forget this botched mission and punished Carter by booting him out (in favour of the more Hawkish PNAC Reagan).
This alone was evidence (to me) of WHO was in control.
Was Carter the man who chose which helicopters to choose for the mission?
Was he in charge of the actual logistics?
It was a COMPLETE SHAM perpetrated by those military-industrialists who were close enough to 'advise' Carter, yet were actually enemies of 'peace'.
To this day, I am convinced that those who opposed Carters peace initiatives purposely 'set him up' through that mission, to make it appear that HE was 'incompetent'.
Yet it was the military 'chiefs' who orchestrated the mission to look like a 'disaster', so as to 'discredit' the 'Commander-in-Chief'.
That whole operation was another 'bogus' black-opts scenario purposely devised to discredit Carter, so that the more-sympathetic hawkish Reagan could be brought 'into the fold'... all leading to the Iran-Contra affair.
Now... read again the Northwoods document, and see if you can make 'common sense' of the past 50 years of history...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/northwoods01.html
Porter Goss’ Op-ed: ‘Ignotum per Ignotius’!
Feb 16 2006
Posted by Sibel Edmonds...
Read more at...
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10429
later, folks.
Feb 16 2006
Posted by Sibel Edmonds...
QUOTE
" Dear Mr. Goss, the timing of your recent op-ed in the New York Times interestingly coincides with the upcoming congressional hearing by the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats & International Relations on National Security Whistleblowers. Your comments are predictably consistent with the pattern of “preemptive strikes” you and the administration have been keen on maintaining. I do not blame you for your opposition to legislation to protect courageous whistleblowers, which will enable the United States Congress to reclaim some of its authority and oversight that it has given up for the past five years. No sir, you have all the right and reason to be nervous. However, I must take issue with your attempt to mislead the American public - another habit of your heart - by presenting them with false information and misleading statements."
Read more at...
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10429
later, folks.
yesdidit,
If little bush and the other neo/con artist governmental leaders REALLY THOUGHT ARAB TERRORISTS DID 9/11, do you honestly believe they would give control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates???
Lou Dobbs brought up the fact that the same group the white house is fighting for to retain control of the ports have close ties to the people they say did 9/11.
Point being, the white house knows darn well that they, (the Arabs) had nothing to do with 9/11), because they did it themselves.
If anything, it might be possible that our government HIRED THE SERVICES of some Arab people, who may have played a part in the ordeal, but never the less it is obvious that it was GOVERNMENT SPONSORED, any one with half a brain knows explosives were used to bring down the towers, it's only the complete brain dead who think a magician in a cave did it with jet fuel fire.
And this in only one of the many pieces of the puzzle that some of our more intelligent people can figure out, but the brain dead have their heads so far up the governments BS theories, THAT THEY STILL DON'T GET IT.
If little bush and the other neo/con artist governmental leaders REALLY THOUGHT ARAB TERRORISTS DID 9/11, do you honestly believe they would give control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates???
Lou Dobbs brought up the fact that the same group the white house is fighting for to retain control of the ports have close ties to the people they say did 9/11.
Point being, the white house knows darn well that they, (the Arabs) had nothing to do with 9/11), because they did it themselves.
If anything, it might be possible that our government HIRED THE SERVICES of some Arab people, who may have played a part in the ordeal, but never the less it is obvious that it was GOVERNMENT SPONSORED, any one with half a brain knows explosives were used to bring down the towers, it's only the complete brain dead who think a magician in a cave did it with jet fuel fire.
And this in only one of the many pieces of the puzzle that some of our more intelligent people can figure out, but the brain dead have their heads so far up the governments BS theories, THAT THEY STILL DON'T GET IT.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 17 2006, 12:13 AM)
PS --- regarding the above quote...
Now think about Carters expedition into Iran to free the embassy hostages.
This is HOW the spooks control, it was blatantly obvious to me THEN.
Carter listens to his 'military advisors' who suggest a secret military option to free the hostages. The plan is implemented. Helicopters take off on a high-priority top-secret mission... and what happened?
They mysteriously 'broke down' in the desert short of the mark.
Who 'wins' ??? ... CUI BONO ?
Carter was well known as a peacemaker (in fact winning the Nobel Peace prize years later).
Who suffered for this 'botched mission'?
Carter was made to look like 'the fool' (as Commander-in-Chief the responsibility for the mission was his).
The electorate did NOT Forget this botched mission and punished Carter by booting him out (in favour of the more Hawkish PNAC Reagan).
This alone was evidence (to me) of WHO was in control.
Was Carter the man who chose which helicopters to choose for the mission?
Was he in charge of the actual logistics?
It was a COMPLETE SHAM perpetrated by those military-industrialists who were close enough to 'advise' Carter, yet were actually enemies of 'peace'.
To this day, I am convinced that those who opposed Carters peace initiatives purposely 'set him up' through that mission, to make it appear that HE was 'incompetent'.
Yet it was the military 'chiefs' who orchestrated the mission to look like a 'disaster', so as to 'discredit' the 'Commander-in-Chief'.
That whole operation was another 'bogus' black-opts scenario purposely devised to discredit Carter, so that the more-sympathetic hawkish Reagan could be brought 'into the fold'... all leading to the Iran-Contra affair.
Foxx,
You are so full of shiit.
Carter lost the election on the debates alone.
As to the Iran rescue, it was a rescue JUST IN TIME to save his presidency.
Carter was RISKING their lives to secure a second term.
He was a true putz.
The rescue NEVER HAD A CHANCE OF SUCCESS.
As bad as it was, had the helo's NOT crashed in the desert, the loss of life at the embassy would have been horrific. Finding the hostages in the embassy would have taken WAY too long since the compound was HUGE and no one knew WHERE in the compound they were, or even if they were all in the same buildings. Assuming one could actually find them ALL, then getting them out of the embassy, and across the street into the soccer stadium would have had to be done in the open, which means crossing a heavily patrolled street that was generally full of Anti-American protesters. Good luck there.
The final nail in this coffin was having to have the rescue helos land single file in the stadium. The difficult landing situation (light posts etc requiring a slow vertical hover to land approach) to get the hostages out would make the chance that all of the helos would make it out pretty much slim to none.
Carter was an idiot as a President and he was a fool as Commander in Chief.
Arthur
QUOTE
The last REAL 'independant' POTUS (JFK) was in the process of taking steps to smash this evil ---
look where such nobility got him.
look where such nobility got him.
Now think about Carters expedition into Iran to free the embassy hostages.
This is HOW the spooks control, it was blatantly obvious to me THEN.
Carter listens to his 'military advisors' who suggest a secret military option to free the hostages. The plan is implemented. Helicopters take off on a high-priority top-secret mission... and what happened?
They mysteriously 'broke down' in the desert short of the mark.
Who 'wins' ??? ... CUI BONO ?
Carter was well known as a peacemaker (in fact winning the Nobel Peace prize years later).
Who suffered for this 'botched mission'?
Carter was made to look like 'the fool' (as Commander-in-Chief the responsibility for the mission was his).
The electorate did NOT Forget this botched mission and punished Carter by booting him out (in favour of the more Hawkish PNAC Reagan).
This alone was evidence (to me) of WHO was in control.
Was Carter the man who chose which helicopters to choose for the mission?
Was he in charge of the actual logistics?
It was a COMPLETE SHAM perpetrated by those military-industrialists who were close enough to 'advise' Carter, yet were actually enemies of 'peace'.
To this day, I am convinced that those who opposed Carters peace initiatives purposely 'set him up' through that mission, to make it appear that HE was 'incompetent'.
Yet it was the military 'chiefs' who orchestrated the mission to look like a 'disaster', so as to 'discredit' the 'Commander-in-Chief'.
That whole operation was another 'bogus' black-opts scenario purposely devised to discredit Carter, so that the more-sympathetic hawkish Reagan could be brought 'into the fold'... all leading to the Iran-Contra affair.
Foxx,
You are so full of shiit.
Carter lost the election on the debates alone.
As to the Iran rescue, it was a rescue JUST IN TIME to save his presidency.
Carter was RISKING their lives to secure a second term.
He was a true putz.
The rescue NEVER HAD A CHANCE OF SUCCESS.
As bad as it was, had the helo's NOT crashed in the desert, the loss of life at the embassy would have been horrific. Finding the hostages in the embassy would have taken WAY too long since the compound was HUGE and no one knew WHERE in the compound they were, or even if they were all in the same buildings. Assuming one could actually find them ALL, then getting them out of the embassy, and across the street into the soccer stadium would have had to be done in the open, which means crossing a heavily patrolled street that was generally full of Anti-American protesters. Good luck there.
The final nail in this coffin was having to have the rescue helos land single file in the stadium. The difficult landing situation (light posts etc requiring a slow vertical hover to land approach) to get the hostages out would make the chance that all of the helos would make it out pretty much slim to none.
Carter was an idiot as a President and he was a fool as Commander in Chief.
Arthur
QUOTE
9/11 is a symptom of a malignant sickness hidden deep within the military-industrial complex of the US. It can not be separated from the PNAC 'Northwoods' mentality of these psychopaths, whom you refuse to recognize.
Its not that we "refuse to recongnise", its that neither you nor your fellow CTers have provided ANY evidence that the WTC towers fell for any reason besides the planes, fire and gravity.
Four years and THIS tripe you've been posting is all you have to show for it?
Foxx et al have totally given up on the PHYSICS. Don't think we've seen any of that for about 100 pages or so.
Pathetic
Arthur
QUOTE (steve1957+Feb 16 2006, 05:14 PM)
Guest,
Talk about the tin hat, wild conspiracy crowd. All you have to do is open up your eyes a little and check some of the news now and then and read between the lines, such as on Lou Dobbs of CNN.
In fact today he was following up on his report about the US selling out and giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, and he showed congress BEGGING the white house to change it's position on giving control of the ports to a group of people who they say had ties to 9/11.
Of course little bush was adamant and sad NO! Funny how congress had no power to ARREST LITTLE BUSH for treason, but after making a fuss about they gave in and went their way.
Problem is there are so many crimes this government has done against the people that trying to do anything to stop it is like putting up a stop sign on the tracks a few feet before a train that's already going 100 miles per hour, it ain't gonna stop folks, there's too much momentum.
So you can say it seems we have a division of different types of people in this country, such as
The TIN FOIL HAT CROWD, you know people like Arthur, anti-common sense, yesdidit and other ignoramuses that have their heads so far stuck up this administrations butt that they feel it is impossible for little bush or congress to do anything wrong. Yeah this crowd chooses to believe in magician's in a cave who can defy ALL the laws of physics and do the impossible, IE; bring steel frame buildings down to the ground VIA fire, which has been proven to be absolutely impossible.
Then you have the LUKE WARM CROWD, who knows the government has been lying and denying about many things, but just can't bring themselves to face up to reality and confess the top leaders in this government are in fact criminals.
And then you have the people, (few as they are) who face reality and realize that you have to accept the truth and facts of life, no matter how sad and painful they are. This group understands you can't just stick your head in the sand and make reality go away, and that the best way to make changes is to first face up to reality and DEAL with it, no matter how ugly it may appear. And of course these people are called every name in the book including tin foil hats, because they choose to DEAL WITH REALITY and not run away from it.
Now for the few people who choose to deal with reality, here are the facts...
Most of the government officials have SOLD OUT A LONG TIME AGO.
Our trade deficit with China is over $200 BILLION, and who knows what it is with the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and other countries. Point being the US is at least $7 trillion in debt and many countries, such as China now OWN OUR BUTTS and are able to do what they want.
They don't ask our politicians to pass laws for their benefit THEY TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. Remember, the US SOLD OUT A LONG TIME AGO. Why do really think we closed down over 30 of our military bases in the past few years?
Did you know that LITTLE BUSH'S guest worker deal with president Fox included temporary passes for 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS? And the TIN FOIL HAT sheep people still think little bush really cares about this nation and is protecting us from terrorists. Talk about morons, who put their trust in scum bag politicians.
Our president and congress are supposed to be public servants, working for the best interest of the US tax payer, but in reality they're nothing more than over glorified, welfare recipients, stealing money from the tax payer and spending on items that'd make real people sick to their stomachs.
Did you know that little bush and the federal government have spent over $1.6 billion on advertising campaigns for PR purposes, such as to sell the war in Iraq and BS the idiot sheople into accepting their other scams?
No wonder the media is so supportive of their BS, they are paid a ton of money in a variety of ways. Not that Fox news network wouldn't support their fearless leader any way, but isn't nice to know your hard earned tax dollars is going to help the president and his team convince the American public that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I better end this post, and let the IDIOT TIN FOIL HAT CLUB respond and try to turn it around so that they look reasonable and anyone who finds fault in any of our government must be crazy, but one last analogy.
Trusting in our government is almost the exact same thing as the little catholic alter boy who is told by his mommy and daddy to trust and obey his priest. Even though the little boy some very suspicious activity and over heard numerous reports of other alter boys getting molested, his parents are serious, he better still trust that priest and always obey him.
And when the little boy tells his Mommy that father Jolley, keeps touching him in his private parts, his mommy says, "You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking bad thoughts about the holy father" And so the little alter boy spends the next 10 years of his child hood getting his butt reamed out twice a week by father Jolley, because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
And so it is, some of us in the US are tired of getting our butts reamed out by our corrupt politicians and false wolf, religious leaders who go along with it, and so we speak out and inform the public about all this molestation taking place, and we're sick and tired of it and don't think we are supposed to put up with it.
But little arthur, little yesdidit, and anti-common sense are adamantly against people pointing out the truth in the sick, disgusting and perverted behavior of our corrupt government, and they call us every name in the book in hopes of discrediting what we say, just like the way the church tries to discredit the little alter boys who report on all that molestation.
So while I don't have all the answers, I will say this, keep speaking out! If you got the facts about 9/11, (the real facts, not the perverted lies of the government, but the truth) then speak out, after all it's our government and the corrupt politicians are not kings and queens, but according to the Constitution, they are supposed to work for us, they are HIRED HELP.
Steve1957,
The commentary in your post, above, gave me chills. It was powerful and poignant. In an earlier post, during that period when we first learned that our Internet providers (except Google) were more than willing to kiss the feet of the Imperial Regime; arthur parroted the "feds" overt concern about child porn. Access to our Internet searches will be limited only to that red flag issue. It's funny, I don't hear a thing about that concern now. Just like going to Mars and hydrogen technology. A few lines in a speech that "W" forgot, the minute he said it. So, that was just a ploy to placate the concerns of the bulk of 'right of center Americans' with kids; about the intrusions into their privacy. It's already in the archives of concern. The fed's are still prying but Americans have moved on to the next "shiny object" diversion. Anything will do, as long as it's on the major networks for a day or two. We are in trouble. Our fellow Americans: friends, neighbors, relatives and co-workers are no longer diligent about there obligations as citizens living under a democracy. They can spend all day manicuring lawns, detailing cars and replacing perfectly fine kitchen cabinets--- but not a minute, to embrace the fabric of a document that is the only thing standing between them and powerful entities that would crush them like a bugs. The people who rise to defend the integrity of the constitution will, ironically, be painted as unpatriotic. How CAN we defend it, if the majority of its' constituents would trade away there last shred of egalitarianism for a bigger flat screen.
"I can train a monkey to wave an American Flag. That does not make the monkey patriotic". –Scott Ritter
Talk about the tin hat, wild conspiracy crowd. All you have to do is open up your eyes a little and check some of the news now and then and read between the lines, such as on Lou Dobbs of CNN.
In fact today he was following up on his report about the US selling out and giving control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, and he showed congress BEGGING the white house to change it's position on giving control of the ports to a group of people who they say had ties to 9/11.
Of course little bush was adamant and sad NO! Funny how congress had no power to ARREST LITTLE BUSH for treason, but after making a fuss about they gave in and went their way.
Problem is there are so many crimes this government has done against the people that trying to do anything to stop it is like putting up a stop sign on the tracks a few feet before a train that's already going 100 miles per hour, it ain't gonna stop folks, there's too much momentum.
So you can say it seems we have a division of different types of people in this country, such as
The TIN FOIL HAT CROWD, you know people like Arthur, anti-common sense, yesdidit and other ignoramuses that have their heads so far stuck up this administrations butt that they feel it is impossible for little bush or congress to do anything wrong. Yeah this crowd chooses to believe in magician's in a cave who can defy ALL the laws of physics and do the impossible, IE; bring steel frame buildings down to the ground VIA fire, which has been proven to be absolutely impossible.
Then you have the LUKE WARM CROWD, who knows the government has been lying and denying about many things, but just can't bring themselves to face up to reality and confess the top leaders in this government are in fact criminals.
And then you have the people, (few as they are) who face reality and realize that you have to accept the truth and facts of life, no matter how sad and painful they are. This group understands you can't just stick your head in the sand and make reality go away, and that the best way to make changes is to first face up to reality and DEAL with it, no matter how ugly it may appear. And of course these people are called every name in the book including tin foil hats, because they choose to DEAL WITH REALITY and not run away from it.
Now for the few people who choose to deal with reality, here are the facts...
Most of the government officials have SOLD OUT A LONG TIME AGO.
Our trade deficit with China is over $200 BILLION, and who knows what it is with the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and other countries. Point being the US is at least $7 trillion in debt and many countries, such as China now OWN OUR BUTTS and are able to do what they want.
They don't ask our politicians to pass laws for their benefit THEY TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. Remember, the US SOLD OUT A LONG TIME AGO. Why do really think we closed down over 30 of our military bases in the past few years?
Did you know that LITTLE BUSH'S guest worker deal with president Fox included temporary passes for 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS? And the TIN FOIL HAT sheep people still think little bush really cares about this nation and is protecting us from terrorists. Talk about morons, who put their trust in scum bag politicians.
Our president and congress are supposed to be public servants, working for the best interest of the US tax payer, but in reality they're nothing more than over glorified, welfare recipients, stealing money from the tax payer and spending on items that'd make real people sick to their stomachs.
Did you know that little bush and the federal government have spent over $1.6 billion on advertising campaigns for PR purposes, such as to sell the war in Iraq and BS the idiot sheople into accepting their other scams?
No wonder the media is so supportive of their BS, they are paid a ton of money in a variety of ways. Not that Fox news network wouldn't support their fearless leader any way, but isn't nice to know your hard earned tax dollars is going to help the president and his team convince the American public that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I better end this post, and let the IDIOT TIN FOIL HAT CLUB respond and try to turn it around so that they look reasonable and anyone who finds fault in any of our government must be crazy, but one last analogy.
Trusting in our government is almost the exact same thing as the little catholic alter boy who is told by his mommy and daddy to trust and obey his priest. Even though the little boy some very suspicious activity and over heard numerous reports of other alter boys getting molested, his parents are serious, he better still trust that priest and always obey him.
And when the little boy tells his Mommy that father Jolley, keeps touching him in his private parts, his mommy says, "You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking bad thoughts about the holy father" And so the little alter boy spends the next 10 years of his child hood getting his butt reamed out twice a week by father Jolley, because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
And so it is, some of us in the US are tired of getting our butts reamed out by our corrupt politicians and false wolf, religious leaders who go along with it, and so we speak out and inform the public about all this molestation taking place, and we're sick and tired of it and don't think we are supposed to put up with it.
But little arthur, little yesdidit, and anti-common sense are adamantly against people pointing out the truth in the sick, disgusting and perverted behavior of our corrupt government, and they call us every name in the book in hopes of discrediting what we say, just like the way the church tries to discredit the little alter boys who report on all that molestation.
So while I don't have all the answers, I will say this, keep speaking out! If you got the facts about 9/11, (the real facts, not the perverted lies of the government, but the truth) then speak out, after all it's our government and the corrupt politicians are not kings and queens, but according to the Constitution, they are supposed to work for us, they are HIRED HELP.
Steve1957,
The commentary in your post, above, gave me chills. It was powerful and poignant. In an earlier post, during that period when we first learned that our Internet providers (except Google) were more than willing to kiss the feet of the Imperial Regime; arthur parroted the "feds" overt concern about child porn. Access to our Internet searches will be limited only to that red flag issue. It's funny, I don't hear a thing about that concern now. Just like going to Mars and hydrogen technology. A few lines in a speech that "W" forgot, the minute he said it. So, that was just a ploy to placate the concerns of the bulk of 'right of center Americans' with kids; about the intrusions into their privacy. It's already in the archives of concern. The fed's are still prying but Americans have moved on to the next "shiny object" diversion. Anything will do, as long as it's on the major networks for a day or two. We are in trouble. Our fellow Americans: friends, neighbors, relatives and co-workers are no longer diligent about there obligations as citizens living under a democracy. They can spend all day manicuring lawns, detailing cars and replacing perfectly fine kitchen cabinets--- but not a minute, to embrace the fabric of a document that is the only thing standing between them and powerful entities that would crush them like a bugs. The people who rise to defend the integrity of the constitution will, ironically, be painted as unpatriotic. How CAN we defend it, if the majority of its' constituents would trade away there last shred of egalitarianism for a bigger flat screen.
"I can train a monkey to wave an American Flag. That does not make the monkey patriotic". –Scott Ritter
Steve 1957 - I think You are full of .... . You own money to people around you and are afraid to come out of your "own" door in the daylight. You think you can hide your identity using mail box for the rest of your life? The ntt s..t is fraud - same as everything else what you do in your life. How many time did you had to close your las Vegas based corporation? And why you listing Debbie Gliksman Jackson as your wife one day and the other as an stranger - using her name as the reference - business associate. Funny
I guess some people never change (if they dont have a will)
If anybody interested about some more details, drop me a link or post the chain
People v. Gliksman (1978) 78 CA3d 343
[Crim. 9303 Fourth Dist, Div Two Mar., 7, 1978]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN JOSEPH GLIKSMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Opinion by Morris, J., with Gardner, P. J., and McDaniel, J., concurring.
OPINION
MORRIS, J.
Defendant, Stephen Gliksman, appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of receiving or offering to receive a bribe by a witness (Pen. Code, § 138).
In February of 1974, defendant and his girl friend, Deborah Rayner, were involved in an accident. Deborah, who was injured in the accident, and her mother, Mrs. Rayner, brought a personal injury action against persons allegedly responsible for the accident.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment, it shows that in July 1976, defendant telephoned Mrs. Rayner and later her attorney, Mr. Thomason, several times to talk about being paid a sum of money (initially $10,000, later $20,000 and finally $25,000) for his testimony, which, if favorable, could increase recovery in the personal injury suit by half a million dollars. Thomason contacted the district attorney's office, which arranged to have some of the conversations recorded. As a result of his communications with Mrs. Rayner and Thomason, defendant came to Thomason's office where he signed a written statement and was given $25,000. He was arrested as he was putting the money in his jacket.
I guess some people never change (if they dont have a will)
If anybody interested about some more details, drop me a link or post the chain
People v. Gliksman (1978) 78 CA3d 343
[Crim. 9303 Fourth Dist, Div Two Mar., 7, 1978]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN JOSEPH GLIKSMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Opinion by Morris, J., with Gardner, P. J., and McDaniel, J., concurring.
OPINION
MORRIS, J.
Defendant, Stephen Gliksman, appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of receiving or offering to receive a bribe by a witness (Pen. Code, § 138).
In February of 1974, defendant and his girl friend, Deborah Rayner, were involved in an accident. Deborah, who was injured in the accident, and her mother, Mrs. Rayner, brought a personal injury action against persons allegedly responsible for the accident.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment, it shows that in July 1976, defendant telephoned Mrs. Rayner and later her attorney, Mr. Thomason, several times to talk about being paid a sum of money (initially $10,000, later $20,000 and finally $25,000) for his testimony, which, if favorable, could increase recovery in the personal injury suit by half a million dollars. Thomason contacted the district attorney's office, which arranged to have some of the conversations recorded. As a result of his communications with Mrs. Rayner and Thomason, defendant came to Thomason's office where he signed a written statement and was given $25,000. He was arrested as he was putting the money in his jacket.
Oh my! This is rich!
Foxx, old buddy....
...you seem to be lapsing into histrionics. Looks like you're fresh out of physics (and facts) again.
I hope this is not a portent of your swan song, as it was over at Pravda.
Please! Don't leave. This is way too entertaining.
C'mon..... How about a rousing rendition of Four Dead in O-hi-o. It'll put you back in the mood.
HOLY OFF TOPIC, BATMAN! spray the WAY OFF topic repellent.
the truth sings, while the liars cackle and moan.
this thread begins with a postulate that the towers fell in 8, and 10 seconds.
i think FEMA screwed THAT number up REALLY BADLY, somehow. by using the SEISMIC periods, perhaps?
brazant zhou or whatever was not as 'real' an investigation as the FEMA one. FEMA pwned the site and ALL the evidence.
the towers took 12ish seconds. still nearly freefall. the 'spire', which i believe are core columns, could be considered as part of the collapse, but the majority of the building was at ground level while the spire stood, then staggered, then began to tip, and then fell so quickly that it appears to evaporate and blow away as a puff of smoke.
maybe it DID evaporate. unknown science is indistinguishable from MAGIC.
the truth sings, while the liars cackle and moan.
this thread begins with a postulate that the towers fell in 8, and 10 seconds.
i think FEMA screwed THAT number up REALLY BADLY, somehow. by using the SEISMIC periods, perhaps?
brazant zhou or whatever was not as 'real' an investigation as the FEMA one. FEMA pwned the site and ALL the evidence.
the towers took 12ish seconds. still nearly freefall. the 'spire', which i believe are core columns, could be considered as part of the collapse, but the majority of the building was at ground level while the spire stood, then staggered, then began to tip, and then fell so quickly that it appears to evaporate and blow away as a puff of smoke.
maybe it DID evaporate. unknown science is indistinguishable from MAGIC.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 17 2006, 05:27 AM)
QUOTE
9/11 is a symptom of a malignant sickness hidden deep within the military-industrial complex of the US. It can not be separated from the PNAC 'Northwoods' mentality of these psychopaths, whom you refuse to recognize.
Its not that we "refuse to recongnise", its that neither you nor your fellow CTers have provided ANY evidence that the WTC towers fell for any reason besides the planes, fire and gravity.
Four years and THIS tripe you've been posting is all you have to show for it?
Foxx et al have totally given up on the PHYSICS. Don't think we've seen any of that for about 100 pages or so.
Pathetic
Arthur
Incorrect. You are trying to create the impression that a lack of willingness to endlessly correct your disinfo and misinfo means that we somehow acquiesce with your completely merit-less notion that we have not provided "ANY" evidence against government Fairy Tales.
This is disingenuous, to say the least.
I certainly hope that a robust, honest discussion (complete with honest skeptics) occurs at a Scholars for 911 Truth Forum, or somewhere else.
Physorg allows "popes" such as yourself to endlessly post nonsense, as you have once again chosen to do. The fact that you make excellent points, at times, in no way changes the fact that you as readily post nonsense as its opposite.
Since you are almost completely predictable, I will supply the answer to your predictable question "Oh, yeah, so WHERE is this supposed evidence - I haven't seen any?" like so:
"Click the "First" hyperlink at the top left, and top bottom, of this page. Keep going."
BTW, I don't think you ever presented the successor to your "Amazaing Bellows" hypothesis for how the rubble pile was aerated to the point the metal would be heated to a glowingly hot temperature.
Do tell. You doubtless have some "explanation" why this is not evidence against the Fairy Tales that you promote, either.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 17 2006, 05:27 AM)
QUOTE
9/11 is a symptom of a malignant sickness hidden deep within the military-industrial complex of the US. It can not be separated from the PNAC 'Northwoods' mentality of these psychopaths, whom you refuse to recognize.
Its not that we "refuse to recongnise", its that neither you nor your fellow CTers have provided ANY evidence that the WTC towers fell for any reason besides the planes, fire and gravity.
Four years and THIS tripe you've been posting is all you have to show for it?
Foxx et al have totally given up on the PHYSICS. Don't think we've seen any of that for about 100 pages or so.
Pathetic
Arthur
Arthur , the MASTER CONSPIRACY THEORIST tries to shift the burden of proof (typical of all CT'ers). This thread is about Andrew Johnson debunking of the OFFICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY:
Dear All,
I invite everyone reading this to disprove basic Physics and Chemistry I (and many others) have presented regarding the collapse of the World Trade Centre towers.
Please look at this:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collap...of%20Towers.swf
Then consider if NIST is/are correct http://www.physorg.com/news3686.html.
[[ Due to website access problems, I have mirrored this file here]]:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ad.johnson/Co...of%20Towers.swf
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.johnso...of%20Towers.swf
People can disagree with me for sure, but please point out the error in my Physics if you are going to do so.
Thanks for reading.
Andrew Johnson
UK
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28206
Now, almost 400 pages latter, nobody has proven this wrong.
My post above.
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 17 2006, 06:57 AM)
Incorrect. You are trying to create the impression that a lack of willingness to endlessly correct your disinfo and misinfo means that we somehow acquiesce with your completely merit-less notion that we have not provided "ANY" evidence against government Fairy Tales.
This is disingenuous, to say the least.
I certainly hope that a robust, honest discussion (complete with honest skeptics) occurs at a Scholars for 911 Truth Forum, or somewhere else.
Physorg allows "popes" such as yourself to endlessly post nonsense, as you have once again chosen to do. The fact that you make excellent points, at times, in no way changes the fact that you as readily post nonsense as its opposite.
Since you are almost completely predictable, I will supply the answer to your predictable question "Oh, yeah, so WHERE is this supposed evidence - I haven't seen any?" like so:
"Click the "First" hyperlink at the top left, and top bottom, of this page. Keep going."
BTW, I don't think you ever presented the successor to your "Amazaing Bellows" hypothesis for how the rubble pile was aerated to the point the metal would be heated to a glowingly hot temperature.
Do tell. You doubtless have some "explanation" why this is not evidence against the Fairy Tales that you promote, either.
YOUR LACK OF WILLINGNESS TO CORRECT DISINFO AND MISINFO??????
Are you kidding me?
That's all the heck I and others have been doing for 4 friggin months.
Faster than Free fall (original AJ) -- killed.
Almost as fast as Free fall -- killed.
Provided video evidence of material falling far faster than towers.
Pyroclastic Clouds -- provided evidence that the cloud was no way NEAR Hoffman's estimate.
Pulverized to micron size - Shown to be from a health report that first put material through SIEVE to get rid of big particles.
100 ton columns thrown 600 ft -shown to be 20 ton columns thrown 200 ft.
Comparison to Madrid -- Shown to be incorrect, Madrid had Reinforced Concrete Core.
Only Steel Buildings to Collapse - Shown to be irrelevant as only steel buildings to be run into by Jets. (WTC 7 report not out yet)
Steel melted (original AJ) - Shown to be false
Rivers of melted Steel - No evidence produced
Molten Steel - Temp of steel at that color shown to be within normal UNFORCED AIR temp for steel.
Thermite - Shown that Tons and Tons would be required, yet no evidence of slag
Disinformation about no steel EXPOSED to temps higher than 600C shown to be false.
Complete Elevator layout shown to PROVE that there was a hollow core running from top to bottom of the WTC towers.
Proved material on each floor sufficient to generate fires to account for collapse.
No evidence of explosives, only noise that SOUNDED like Explosives.
Lobby basement damage explained via jet fuel in elevator shafts and consistent with multiple fires on other floors, burn injuries and eye witness testimony.
Showed visual proof that buildings didn't "fall within their footprint"
Showed visual proof that some of lower core of building remained for some time after floors pancaked around it.
Showed visual proof that some of perimeter stood after floors pancaked within the outer tube.
Showed how DOZENS of quotes posted by CTers were taken out of context or abbreviated so as to make an invalid point.
Shown through Video evidence that the most visible "Squib" is clearly a POINT ejection of air as it originates from one point and grows in size over several seconds. Thus not at all the characteristics of a HE, i.e. a SUPERSONIC blast front.
Shown how all comparisons to ACTUAL Controlled demolitions are opposite the WTC tower collapse, ie. bottom up vs top down.
Shown through video and photo evidence of the bowed in columns that are only explainable via the sagging floor trusses.
ON THE OTHER HAND
No evidence provided to support Metamars and MMC's ridiculous concept of a nuclear device.
No evidence provided to support idea of shoulder fired missile.
No evidence provided to support idea of Thermite used to cut columns.
No evidence provided to support explosives at all.
Just pages and pages of BS.
Arthur
This is disingenuous, to say the least.
I certainly hope that a robust, honest discussion (complete with honest skeptics) occurs at a Scholars for 911 Truth Forum, or somewhere else.
Physorg allows "popes" such as yourself to endlessly post nonsense, as you have once again chosen to do. The fact that you make excellent points, at times, in no way changes the fact that you as readily post nonsense as its opposite.
Since you are almost completely predictable, I will supply the answer to your predictable question "Oh, yeah, so WHERE is this supposed evidence - I haven't seen any?" like so:
"Click the "First" hyperlink at the top left, and top bottom, of this page. Keep going."
BTW, I don't think you ever presented the successor to your "Amazaing Bellows" hypothesis for how the rubble pile was aerated to the point the metal would be heated to a glowingly hot temperature.
Do tell. You doubtless have some "explanation" why this is not evidence against the Fairy Tales that you promote, either.
YOUR LACK OF WILLINGNESS TO CORRECT DISINFO AND MISINFO??????
Are you kidding me?
That's all the heck I and others have been doing for 4 friggin months.
Faster than Free fall (original AJ) -- killed.
Almost as fast as Free fall -- killed.
Provided video evidence of material falling far faster than towers.
Pyroclastic Clouds -- provided evidence that the cloud was no way NEAR Hoffman's estimate.
Pulverized to micron size - Shown to be from a health report that first put material through SIEVE to get rid of big particles.
100 ton columns thrown 600 ft -shown to be 20 ton columns thrown 200 ft.
Comparison to Madrid -- Shown to be incorrect, Madrid had Reinforced Concrete Core.
Only Steel Buildings to Collapse - Shown to be irrelevant as only steel buildings to be run into by Jets. (WTC 7 report not out yet)
Steel melted (original AJ) - Shown to be false
Rivers of melted Steel - No evidence produced
Molten Steel - Temp of steel at that color shown to be within normal UNFORCED AIR temp for steel.
Thermite - Shown that Tons and Tons would be required, yet no evidence of slag
Disinformation about no steel EXPOSED to temps higher than 600C shown to be false.
Complete Elevator layout shown to PROVE that there was a hollow core running from top to bottom of the WTC towers.
Proved material on each floor sufficient to generate fires to account for collapse.
No evidence of explosives, only noise that SOUNDED like Explosives.
Lobby basement damage explained via jet fuel in elevator shafts and consistent with multiple fires on other floors, burn injuries and eye witness testimony.
Showed visual proof that buildings didn't "fall within their footprint"
Showed visual proof that some of lower core of building remained for some time after floors pancaked around it.
Showed visual proof that some of perimeter stood after floors pancaked within the outer tube.
Showed how DOZENS of quotes posted by CTers were taken out of context or abbreviated so as to make an invalid point.
Shown through Video evidence that the most visible "Squib" is clearly a POINT ejection of air as it originates from one point and grows in size over several seconds. Thus not at all the characteristics of a HE, i.e. a SUPERSONIC blast front.
Shown how all comparisons to ACTUAL Controlled demolitions are opposite the WTC tower collapse, ie. bottom up vs top down.
Shown through video and photo evidence of the bowed in columns that are only explainable via the sagging floor trusses.
ON THE OTHER HAND
No evidence provided to support Metamars and MMC's ridiculous concept of a nuclear device.
No evidence provided to support idea of shoulder fired missile.
No evidence provided to support idea of Thermite used to cut columns.
No evidence provided to support explosives at all.
Just pages and pages of BS.
Arthur
Guest_Paul,
Thank you my little scum bag trickster. I consider it a compliment when I hear idiots like yourself try to discredit me or anyone else when they speak the truth.
Problem is it back fires on you, because I confess I'm a rotten, piece of crap scum bag, no good sinner and no one should ever trust me personally.
But I do suggest people think for themselves, and check things things out, because it's in the public record, it's even on some news stations, few and far between, that our whorish government has sold out a long time ago, and little punks like yourself only aid and abet the criminals in their rape and plunder against the people of this nation.
So feel free to waste time and space and bore people to death about my past, in fact the more you talk about my product, the better, it'll be free advertising, not that I expect anyone to buy anything from me off this forum, as this is not the time and place, and most of the people, (except a small few) are into sick, unhealthy lies and BS as opposed to things healthy for your mind, body and soul.
However, if you want to open up your mouth and promote my product, remember this negative advertising is sometimes better than no advertising.
Another words, shut your mouth up about my products, otherwise you might inadvertently help promote my product, and you certainly wouldn't want to do that now would you???
Better stay on topic my boy and stick to the facts about this corrupt, lying government, that did 9/11 and is continuing to SELL OUT this nation to the highest bidder.
Thank you my little scum bag trickster. I consider it a compliment when I hear idiots like yourself try to discredit me or anyone else when they speak the truth.
Problem is it back fires on you, because I confess I'm a rotten, piece of crap scum bag, no good sinner and no one should ever trust me personally.
But I do suggest people think for themselves, and check things things out, because it's in the public record, it's even on some news stations, few and far between, that our whorish government has sold out a long time ago, and little punks like yourself only aid and abet the criminals in their rape and plunder against the people of this nation.
So feel free to waste time and space and bore people to death about my past, in fact the more you talk about my product, the better, it'll be free advertising, not that I expect anyone to buy anything from me off this forum, as this is not the time and place, and most of the people, (except a small few) are into sick, unhealthy lies and BS as opposed to things healthy for your mind, body and soul.
However, if you want to open up your mouth and promote my product, remember this negative advertising is sometimes better than no advertising.
Another words, shut your mouth up about my products, otherwise you might inadvertently help promote my product, and you certainly wouldn't want to do that now would you???
Better stay on topic my boy and stick to the facts about this corrupt, lying government, that did 9/11 and is continuing to SELL OUT this nation to the highest bidder.
QUOTE (Luketober+)
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?
Who was looking at the helos? Ah, how many video cameras were trained on the Towers? You would HAVE to assume you were seen. Oh, wait, they WERE seen, in fact newton points them out.
What's more you would not only be seen, but you would have to be OFFICIAL, meaning if you were NOT in contact with ATC, i.e. a Helo up there as a ROGUE, then an hour after the planes hit the towers there were several F/15s that would have had a word or two with you. Not to mention being all over the ATC transcripts as they tried to contact you and asked other helos for your call letters, etc etc.
So these helos had to be one of the FEW that were allowed up there. Which is REALLY ballsy.
Ok, so you don't mind being seen and you don't mind being "Official", but you have to do your dirty work inside the smoke cloud.
Now you might be able to fly into that toxic smoke cloud for a few seconds, but stay in it for a while (where its dense enough so you can't be seen) and your engine is going to be losing power pretty quick, see that isn't AIR you're sucking in, its lots of CO2, CO, and unburned hydrocarbons. What it ain't is a lot of O2, which makes keeping the helo engine going problematical.
Of course once your are in this pitch black toxic cloud we have to attach a rocket launcher to the landing gear. No easy trick that, considering if it has the HE power to do the damage it can't be LIGHT. But hey, we manage to do that.
The targeting is bogus, as the smoke would also prevent the laser from working. But now your problem is the ONLY path via an external hole to the CORE would require you to take your shot BELOW the smoke, which unfortunately for you is leaving the top floors of the building, leaving the holes clearly visibile.
MORON.
Arthur
--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?
Who was looking at the helos? Ah, how many video cameras were trained on the Towers? You would HAVE to assume you were seen. Oh, wait, they WERE seen, in fact newton points them out.
What's more you would not only be seen, but you would have to be OFFICIAL, meaning if you were NOT in contact with ATC, i.e. a Helo up there as a ROGUE, then an hour after the planes hit the towers there were several F/15s that would have had a word or two with you. Not to mention being all over the ATC transcripts as they tried to contact you and asked other helos for your call letters, etc etc.
So these helos had to be one of the FEW that were allowed up there. Which is REALLY ballsy.
Ok, so you don't mind being seen and you don't mind being "Official", but you have to do your dirty work inside the smoke cloud.
Now you might be able to fly into that toxic smoke cloud for a few seconds, but stay in it for a while (where its dense enough so you can't be seen) and your engine is going to be losing power pretty quick, see that isn't AIR you're sucking in, its lots of CO2, CO, and unburned hydrocarbons. What it ain't is a lot of O2, which makes keeping the helo engine going problematical.
Of course once your are in this pitch black toxic cloud we have to attach a rocket launcher to the landing gear. No easy trick that, considering if it has the HE power to do the damage it can't be LIGHT. But hey, we manage to do that.
The targeting is bogus, as the smoke would also prevent the laser from working. But now your problem is the ONLY path via an external hole to the CORE would require you to take your shot BELOW the smoke, which unfortunately for you is leaving the top floors of the building, leaving the holes clearly visibile.
MORON.
Arthur
QUOTE (Coastal+Feb 17 2006, 04:52 AM)
Oh my! This is rich!
Foxx, old buddy....
...you seem to be lapsing into histrionics. Looks like you're fresh out of physics (and facts) again.
I hope this is not a portent of your swan song, as it was over at Pravda.
Please! Don't leave. This is way too entertaining.
C'mon..... How about a rousing rendition of Four Dead in O-hi-o. It'll put you back in the mood.
I didn't see his "swan song" over at the other forum, but your description of his decline here was spot on.
Too many of his obviously well scripted, but pat lies, have been exposed, leaving him nothing to prattle on about.
Now he's reverted back to Northwood and Jimmy Carter.
I guess any thought of Physics is a distant memory.
I wonder where he will turn up next peddling his snake oil
Or then again, maybe him and galdur ("I LOVE you Foxx") will find some cozy place where they can tell each other lies and stroke each others "egos".
Arthur
QUOTE (ReasonWhy+)
QUOTE
People can disagree with me for sure, but please point out the error in my Physics if you are going to do so.
Thanks for reading.
Andrew Johnson
UK
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28206
Thanks for reading.
Andrew Johnson
UK
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28206
Now, almost 400 pages latter, nobody has proven this wrong.
Are you kidding me?
His BS didn't last 100 pages.
His argument was almost totally based on the time it took the towers to fall.
He starts out showing a BOGUS picture that shows the WTC towers have a REINFORCED CONCRETE center.
This was pointed out but still remains on his site.
AJ then postulated that THE VACUUM EFFECT FROM THE EXPLOSIVES PULLED THE TOWERS DOWN QUICKER THAN FREEFALL.
Total nonsense.
He claimed the "official" story was the "Steel Beams Melted".
More Nonsense.
He claimed that even if the towers took 15 seconds it had "little impact" to the physics of the collapse.
More Nonsense
He claims the fire was almost out.
More Nonsense.
In fact, his WHOLE thing is nonsense, which is probably why we haven't seen him for months.
Yet, here it is months later and you are still too STUPID to realize his 'theory' was shot down.
What does that say about YOU?
MORON
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Feb 15 2006, 02:58 PM)
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.
Yeah, Shoulder Fired missile is the most LOGICAL conclusion.
Couldn't be a friggin SEARCH LIGHT, you know, like ALL Police Helos have installed?
And while from the distance (almost 2 miles) this video was taken, the helo is reduced to a dot, just a few pixels in size (thus NO DETAIL at all) newt claims he can tell that it is flying INSIDE the smoke cloud, when in fact it and the smoke cloud are the SAME COLOR at this distance.
What's more, its actually reasonably clear that it is either over WTC 1 or possibly even closer to the camera, It certainly is not closer to WTC 2 when we see the flashes, but not only is NO explosion seen in or over WTC 2, its 20 seconds after the flashes before WTC 2 collapses. Of course no shoulder fired weapon could fire multiple shots as fast as the flashes appear, and unlike Luketober's suggestion, the helo is not present over the towers long enough to deploy a missile battery, fire the shots and get rid of the battery.
But to Luketober and newt this is EVIDENCE.
Lord help you if you get tried and one of these two morons are on the jury, apparently their definition of what constitutes EVIDENCE allows a LOT of latitude.
Arthur
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.
Yeah, Shoulder Fired missile is the most LOGICAL conclusion.
Couldn't be a friggin SEARCH LIGHT, you know, like ALL Police Helos have installed?
And while from the distance (almost 2 miles) this video was taken, the helo is reduced to a dot, just a few pixels in size (thus NO DETAIL at all) newt claims he can tell that it is flying INSIDE the smoke cloud, when in fact it and the smoke cloud are the SAME COLOR at this distance.
What's more, its actually reasonably clear that it is either over WTC 1 or possibly even closer to the camera, It certainly is not closer to WTC 2 when we see the flashes, but not only is NO explosion seen in or over WTC 2, its 20 seconds after the flashes before WTC 2 collapses. Of course no shoulder fired weapon could fire multiple shots as fast as the flashes appear, and unlike Luketober's suggestion, the helo is not present over the towers long enough to deploy a missile battery, fire the shots and get rid of the battery.
But to Luketober and newt this is EVIDENCE.
Lord help you if you get tried and one of these two morons are on the jury, apparently their definition of what constitutes EVIDENCE allows a LOT of latitude.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 17 2006, 03:37 AM)
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?
QUOTE (->
| 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? |
Response by YID
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.
Yesitdid, I'm afraid you just DON'T GET IT.
NO! You don't get it. You, and others, fail to understand that just because I and others do not subscribe to your twisted world view that we do not necessarily subscribe to all of the policies of the administration.
Just because we will not accept your weak arguments that the present administration are mass murdering traitors you label us lovers of the administration.
Get a grip!
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 17 2006, 06:29 AM)
QUOTE (ReasonWhy+)
QUOTE
People can disagree with me for sure, but please point out the error in my Physics if you are going to do so.
Thanks for reading.
Andrew Johnson
UK
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28206
Thanks for reading.
Andrew Johnson
UK
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=28206
Arthur , the MASTER CONSPIRACY THEORIST tries to shift the burden of proof (typical of all CT'ers). This thread is about Andrew Johnson debunking of the OFFICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY:
Now, almost 400 pages latter, nobody has proven this wrong.
Are you kidding me?
His BS didn't last 100 pages.
His argument was almost totally based on the time it took the towers to fall.
He starts out showing a BOGUS picture that shows the WTC towers have a REINFORCED CONCRETE center.
This was pointed out but still remains on his site.
AJ then postulated that THE VACUUM EFFECT FROM THE EXPLOSIVES PULLED THE TOWERS DOWN QUICKER THAN FREEFALL.
Total nonsense.
He claimed the "official" story was the "Steel Beams Melted".
More Nonsense.
He claimed that even if the towers took 15 seconds it had "little impact" to the physics of the collapse.
More Nonsense
He claims the fire was almost out.
More Nonsense.
In fact, his WHOLE thing is nonsense, which is probably why we haven't seen him for months.
Yet, here it is months later and you are still too STUPID to realize his 'theory' was shot down.
What does that say about YOU?
MORON
Arthur
I will leave it to the readers to watch Andrews presentation and see who is telling the truth:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collap...of%20Towers.swf
ReasonWhy,
Do YOU believe the towers fell FASTER than freefall????
Do YOU believe the OFFICIAL story is that the Steel MELTED????
Do YOU believe there were PYROCLASTIC clouds from the collapse?
Do YOU believe the Fires were "almost out" in the towers?
Well DO YOU???
Arthur
Do YOU believe the towers fell FASTER than freefall????
Do YOU believe the OFFICIAL story is that the Steel MELTED????
Do YOU believe there were PYROCLASTIC clouds from the collapse?
Do YOU believe the Fires were "almost out" in the towers?
Well DO YOU???
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Feb 14 2006, 06:46 PM)
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).
What is the max burning temp of Hydrocarbons? Only a furnace will melt steel you fool.
What is the max burning temp of Hydrocarbons? Only a furnace will melt steel you fool.
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.
Are you reading that from a CNN news report or from a training manual?
As is this statement. Where did the "collapse" start?
I am taking that from the way that all terrorist groups everywhere at all times , have been set up. From the IRA to the ETA to the ELF all of these groups operate in individual cells which are free to operate independantly and thus reduce the damage done if any one cell is infiltrated or caught.
Do some reading of history before proving that you are indeed an idiot.
It started at the 80th or 81st floor IIRC.
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
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.
What is the max burning temp of Hydrocarbons? Only a furnace will melt steel you fool.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
What is the max burning temp of Hydrocarbons? Only a furnace will melt steel you fool.
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.
Are you reading that from a CNN news report or from a training manual?
QUOTE
Given that fires on the 77th floor were not as severe as those a few floors up, your statement is ridiculous to start with.
As is this statement. Where did the "collapse" start?
QUOTE (Temp+)
What is the max burning temp of Hydrocarbons? Only a furnace will melt steel you fool.
And Steel doesn't have to get anywhere near its melting point to have less then 1/2 its strength.
Had you bothered to actually READ the NIST report you would have known that nowhere does the OFFICIAL explanation involve the MELTING of ANY steel
Fool
Arthur
And Steel doesn't have to get anywhere near its melting point to have less then 1/2 its strength.
Had you bothered to actually READ the NIST report you would have known that nowhere does the OFFICIAL explanation involve the MELTING of ANY steel
Fool
Arthur
QUOTE
QUOTE
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.
Are you reading that from a CNN news report or from a training manual?
QUOTE
Given that fires on the 77th floor were not as severe as those a few floors up, your statement is ridiculous to start with.
As is this statement. Where did the "collapse" start?
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.
Are you reading that from a CNN news report or from a training manual?
QUOTE
Given that fires on the 77th floor were not as severe as those a few floors up, your statement is ridiculous to start with.
As is this statement. Where did the "collapse" start?
I am taking that from the way that all terrorist groups everywhere at all times , have been set up. From the IRA to the ETA to the ELF all of these groups operate in individual cells which are free to operate independantly and thus reduce the damage done if any one cell is infiltrated or caught.
Do some reading of history before proving that you are indeed an idiot.
It started at the 80th or 81st floor IIRC.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 17 2006, 03:41 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 15 2006, 02:58 PM)
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.
Yeah, Shoulder Fired missile is the LOGICAL conclusion.
Couldn't be a friggin SEARCH LIGHT, you know, like ALL Police Helos have installed?
And while from the distance (almost 2 miles) this video was taken, the helo is reduced to a dot, just a few pixels in size (thus NO DETAIL at all) newt claims he can tell that it is flying INSIDE the smoke cloud, when in fact it and the smoke cloud are the SAME COLOR at this distance.
What's more, its actually reasonably clear that it is either over WTC 1 or possibly closer to camera, not closer to WTC 2 when we see the flashes, but not only is NO explosion seen in or over WTC 2, its 20 seconds after the flashes before WTC 2 collapses. Of course no shoulder fired weapon could fire multiple shots as fast as the flashes appear, and unlike Luketober's suggestion, the helo is not present over the towers long enough to deploy a missile battery, fire the shots and get rid of the battery.
But to Luketober and newt this is EVIDENCE.
Lord help you if you get tried and one of these two morons are on the jury, apparently their definition of what constitutes EVIDENCE allows a LOT of latitude.
Arthur
it is clearly flying in the smoke. everyone(except you) who viewed the 911eyewitness video agrees. it is not just newt.
as you say, the helicopter is but a speck at that distance. which makes the light even brighter.
you can watch the helicopter fly through the smoke in the video arthur, you don't have to pretend that i made it up, or that it's not possible. it's on the video. you know, the video? where you point a camera at something and capture the images of it's motion and stuff?
the police and rescue teams were ORDERED not to attempt any rooftop rescue, so your searchlight theory is completely lame, like most of your crazy muslim terrorist conspiracy theories.
as i said, unknown science is indistinguishable from magic.
your blanket statements about what cannot exist are, frankly, hilarious.
p.s. the f16's weren't shooting anything on 911. FEMA and guiliani were giving all the commands, and there was enough chaos that your arguments are out of order.
i would say, 'ditto' about your jury comment. you are the master of the foregone conclusion.
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.
Yeah, Shoulder Fired missile is the LOGICAL conclusion.
Couldn't be a friggin SEARCH LIGHT, you know, like ALL Police Helos have installed?
And while from the distance (almost 2 miles) this video was taken, the helo is reduced to a dot, just a few pixels in size (thus NO DETAIL at all) newt claims he can tell that it is flying INSIDE the smoke cloud, when in fact it and the smoke cloud are the SAME COLOR at this distance.
What's more, its actually reasonably clear that it is either over WTC 1 or possibly closer to camera, not closer to WTC 2 when we see the flashes, but not only is NO explosion seen in or over WTC 2, its 20 seconds after the flashes before WTC 2 collapses. Of course no shoulder fired weapon could fire multiple shots as fast as the flashes appear, and unlike Luketober's suggestion, the helo is not present over the towers long enough to deploy a missile battery, fire the shots and get rid of the battery.
But to Luketober and newt this is EVIDENCE.
Lord help you if you get tried and one of these two morons are on the jury, apparently their definition of what constitutes EVIDENCE allows a LOT of latitude.
Arthur
it is clearly flying in the smoke. everyone(except you) who viewed the 911eyewitness video agrees. it is not just newt.
as you say, the helicopter is but a speck at that distance. which makes the light even brighter.
you can watch the helicopter fly through the smoke in the video arthur, you don't have to pretend that i made it up, or that it's not possible. it's on the video. you know, the video? where you point a camera at something and capture the images of it's motion and stuff?
the police and rescue teams were ORDERED not to attempt any rooftop rescue, so your searchlight theory is completely lame, like most of your crazy muslim terrorist conspiracy theories.
as i said, unknown science is indistinguishable from magic.
your blanket statements about what cannot exist are, frankly, hilarious.
p.s. the f16's weren't shooting anything on 911. FEMA and guiliani were giving all the commands, and there was enough chaos that your arguments are out of order.
i would say, 'ditto' about your jury comment. you are the master of the foregone conclusion.
QUOTE (Pope newt+)
it is clearly flying in the smoke. everyone(except you) who viewed the 911eyewitness video agrees. it is not just newt
No, it is not CLEARLY doing ANYTHING, and I'll be real surprised if someone doesn't agree with me on this and thus, invalidate your statement. (Do you often talk about yourself in the 3rd person?)
9 New Yorkers = lie.
Yeah, so how come I got that number from their web site?
This is SO PATHETIC.
That petition has been around since the Fall of '04. Here we are 16 months later and you've got a total of 9,062 signatures.
Woooie,
In a city that is OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL and OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATIC you can't get even 1/2 of 1 percent of the people to sign your LOSER petition in well over a year.
Well, all I gotta say, is keep up the good work.
LOSERS.
Arthur
Hard to know just where to start with Foxx's idiocy in that post but the above does spring out. I posted photos that show a squad car, a parking meter officer's vehicle and a poster all well within the 'pyroclastic' cloud that Hoffman states was 1000 degrees , yet none of those things is even scorched.
Hoffman is an idiot.
Hard to know just where to start with Foxx's idiocy in that post but the above does spring out. I posted photos that show a squad car, a parking meter officer's vehicle and a poster all well within the 'pyroclastic' cloud that Hoffman states was 1000 degrees , yet none of those things is even scorched.
Hoffman is an idiot.
Steel melted (original AJ) - Shown to be false
- The melted steel issue was first promoted by structural engineers to support the fairy tale. After debunkers of the official story proved that could not be the case, the OFFICIAL myth-makers changed their tune to say that the steel did NOT melt... except when it was underground flowing in rivers of molten metal... or in the now 'hidden' & 'ignored' unexplained euctectic actions.
Eager states quite well the melting point of steel and that such was not the cause of the collapses.
The fact that in the first few days some engineers stated that the steel may have melted was taken up by the CT crowd and even though no one in the engineering community now says that the steel melted the CT crowd still use this 'straw-man' arguement. Many first hours estimates were corrected in the days and months following 9/11. Yet the CT crowd wishes to either believe that such first estimates were changed in order to better agree with the CT's or because big bad brother told them to change.
It is odd that there are NO photos of melted steel, NO photos of 'rivers of molten steel'. One wonders why that was not worthy of a shot or two.
Although the CT crowd likes to state that 'molten' means either melted or glowing hot, any reference to 'rivers' would certainly imply the former.
No evidence exists that these 'rivers' existed or that any molten(ie melted) steel existed. Even IF it did it is quite obvious that this occured post-collapse.
It was shown that thermite burns off quickly.
Since it is YOUR contention that thermite melted the steel and kept it melted for weeks then perhaps YOU might feel some responsibility to show how much thermite would be required to do that.
I await your calculations but I will not be holding my breath.
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Ahhhh yes... remember that...( in the legends of arthur)... NO SLAG was found... (selectively denying that a photo of alleged 'slag' was already produced in this thread, which he totally ignored)...
Of course (like two monkeys rolled into one), when he has his hands simultaneously over his eyes and his ears... it's easy enough to bypass such inconvenient evidence).
Unlike the third monkey (unfortunately)...he does NOT have his hands over his mouth (as evidenced by his continual proclamations of fantasy).
We all know where you have hidden your tin-hat, arthur...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Engineers yeah electrical engineers!!! And since when are engineers (of any sort) and scientists (other then forensic video analysts) qualified to authenticate of falsify a video?
Methinks, you are losing it arthur.
quote:"differences of opinion are not lies"...
yet (like Schneibster) you claim that everything I post is a "lie" - my posts that you object to can't be just a 'difference of opinion', can they?
They are 'outright LIES' !!!
Like schneibster, you have begun posting so frantically that you don't stop to think about what you are actually saying. You are following the path of degeneration into the 'Schneibster Madness'. Soon you will be posting death threats, and upcoming lawsuits to 'teach me a lesson'.
Silly Goose! Gather your wits about you before spouting off like Yosemite Sam. You are quickly becoming as big a joke as Schneibster.
Take a holiday, and compose yourself, before you get shipped off to duty in Alaska (like Schneibster).
'MORON' is such a subjective word.
As for me I always get pictures of Yosemite Sam when I think 'MORON', and you are fast becoming Yosemite Sam wearing a tin-hat in my estimation.
Now... how about going back to the 'evidence' previously posted in this thread regarding the 'rivers of molten metal', and try to refute those witness claims.
If you recall correctly, there was NOT just one or two 'Loonies' who made these claims.
You wish to just wash those claims away with the wave of the hand, but sorry... I (for one) are immune to your 'Jedi tricks'... hahahahaha
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Ahhhh yes... remember that...( in the legends of arthur)... NO SLAG was found... (selectively denying that a photo of alleged 'slag' was already produced in this thread, which he totally ignored)...
Of course (like two monkeys rolled into one), when he has his hands simultaneously over his eyes and his ears... it's easy enough to bypass such inconvenient evidence).
Unlike the third monkey (unfortunately)...he does NOT have his hands over his mouth (as evidenced by his continual proclamations of fantasy).
We all know where you have hidden your tin-hat, arthur...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
I thought someone pointed out already that this was just some floor sheet/rod steel bits plus concrete slab materials sandwiched[i/] together during the 'pancaking' of the floors; and then further burned and fused together by the rubble fires; and any showing metal then rusted by the salt water put on the fires.
Doesn't look like any Thermite 'slag' I've ever seen in my life.
Did Jones ever 'prove' his thermite theory from his expected 'alleged slag' [i]samples, from both the Twin-Tower piles? Thanks.
No, it is not CLEARLY doing ANYTHING, and I'll be real surprised if someone doesn't agree with me on this and thus, invalidate your statement. (Do you often talk about yourself in the 3rd person?)
QUOTE (newton+Feb 17 2006, 02:45 PM)
as you say, the helicopter is but a speck at that distance. which makes the light even brighter.
you can watch the helicopter fly through the smoke in the video arthur, you don't have to pretend that i made it up, or that it's not possible. it's on the video. you know, the video? where you point a camera at something and capture the images of it's motion and stuff?
the police and rescue teams were ORDERED not to attempt any rooftop rescue, so your searchlight theory is completely lame, like most of your crazy muslim terrorist conspiracy theories.
as i said, unknown science is indistinguishable from magic.
your blanket statements about what cannot exist are, frankly, hilarious.
p.s. the f16's weren't shooting anything on 911. FEMA and guiliani were giving all the commands, and there was enough chaos that your arguments are out of order.
It isn't even CLEARLY a helicopter UNTIL the camera zooms in at 5:50. Prior to that it is just one or two moving gray pixels. Because of the shaking just as the camera zooms in, it is not clear if the helo is emerging from the smoke or simply becoming visible because of the zoom. Believe what you want to believe, but you can't prove your belief by this clip in the video.
When it crosses the tower area it is the SAME color as the smoke, so one can not tell if it is IN the smoke or IN FRONT OF the smoke. (I've blown this up and examined it very closely and it simply is impossible to tell one way or the other)
Shining the light on the tower is NOT attempting to rescue someone, they could just be trying to see if anyone IS up there, see the condition of the tower, whatever. The point is a police helo DOES have a piece of STANDARD equipment that will create a VERY BRIGHT light. What IS NOT standard equipment is shoulder fired missiles.
It is also not possible to fire TWO shoulder mounted missiles from inside a SMALL Helo in that short period of time. The idea of them being mounted outside is not reasonable as the helo is seen quite clearly just seconds after the last flash.
Neither FEMA nor Guliani were talking to the fighter jocks, NEADS was. They weren't shooting anything over NYC because by the time they arrived there, there was NOTHING to shoot. But HAD ATC reported to NEADS that an unknown helo was flying around the WTC towers they would have at least come take a close look.
My statements are hilarious?
Right.
But apparently ANYTHING is possible in the land of newt and honey.
Moron.
Arthur
you can watch the helicopter fly through the smoke in the video arthur, you don't have to pretend that i made it up, or that it's not possible. it's on the video. you know, the video? where you point a camera at something and capture the images of it's motion and stuff?
the police and rescue teams were ORDERED not to attempt any rooftop rescue, so your searchlight theory is completely lame, like most of your crazy muslim terrorist conspiracy theories.
as i said, unknown science is indistinguishable from magic.
your blanket statements about what cannot exist are, frankly, hilarious.
p.s. the f16's weren't shooting anything on 911. FEMA and guiliani were giving all the commands, and there was enough chaos that your arguments are out of order.
It isn't even CLEARLY a helicopter UNTIL the camera zooms in at 5:50. Prior to that it is just one or two moving gray pixels. Because of the shaking just as the camera zooms in, it is not clear if the helo is emerging from the smoke or simply becoming visible because of the zoom. Believe what you want to believe, but you can't prove your belief by this clip in the video.
When it crosses the tower area it is the SAME color as the smoke, so one can not tell if it is IN the smoke or IN FRONT OF the smoke. (I've blown this up and examined it very closely and it simply is impossible to tell one way or the other)
Shining the light on the tower is NOT attempting to rescue someone, they could just be trying to see if anyone IS up there, see the condition of the tower, whatever. The point is a police helo DOES have a piece of STANDARD equipment that will create a VERY BRIGHT light. What IS NOT standard equipment is shoulder fired missiles.
It is also not possible to fire TWO shoulder mounted missiles from inside a SMALL Helo in that short period of time. The idea of them being mounted outside is not reasonable as the helo is seen quite clearly just seconds after the last flash.
Neither FEMA nor Guliani were talking to the fighter jocks, NEADS was. They weren't shooting anything over NYC because by the time they arrived there, there was NOTHING to shoot. But HAD ATC reported to NEADS that an unknown helo was flying around the WTC towers they would have at least come take a close look.
My statements are hilarious?
Right.
But apparently ANYTHING is possible in the land of newt and honey.
Moron.
Arthur
South tower had a roof observation deck. The north tower had windows on the world.
There is still the question on why the sout tower observation deck was locked. If there had been unlocked dorrs in the south tower they could have picked people off the roof. The only times the roof observation deck is closed is on windy or incliamte weather, that day was "extreme clear".
Sentinel
There is still the question on why the sout tower observation deck was locked. If there had been unlocked dorrs in the south tower they could have picked people off the roof. The only times the roof observation deck is closed is on windy or incliamte weather, that day was "extreme clear".
Sentinel
An Open Letter to Eliot Spitzer from 9/11 CitizensWatch regarding the NY Attorney General's Complicity in Cover-up of key Intelligence regarding the attacks of September 11th 2001.
February 17, 2006
Dear Mr. Spitzer,
I learned during a Congressional hearing before two sub-committees of the Armed Service Committee this past Wednesday (hear audio at http://www.abledangerblog.com) that you had acted in such a way as to allow the #2 at the your office, your Deputy Dietrich Snell, a former 9/11 Commission counsel, to avoid having to answer questions as to his role in the 9/11 Commission's failure and/or refusal to disclose details about the Able Danger counter-terrorist program either to the 9/11 Commissioners or in the 9/11 Report itself.
According to Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, who gave testimony before the Armed Services sub-committeess, there were five witnesses who said the program had identified Mohamed Atta by name and and/or photo over a year before the attacks. According to Rep. Weldon an Able Danger chart created over a year before 9/11 showing a photo of Atta was presented by Representatives Weldon, Burton and Shays to Stephen Hadley on September 25, 2001. On July 12, 2004 Dieter Snell met one of the Able Danger team members and witnesses, the actual hands-on head of the operation, Capt. Scott Phillpott, who told him that Able Danger had identified and planned offensive operations against four of the eventual 19 hijackers as part of what they called the "Brooklyn Cell." According to Lt. Col Shaffer Dietrich Snell said, "What do you want me to do with this information, we go to print in 10 days?"
I have called your office for a statement on this issue and Mari Arce of the Communications Dept. is not aware of any statement being issued. I have two simple questions I believe all Americans and all the victim family members deserve straight-forward answers to:
What business of yours is it to stand in the way of a Congressional effort led by the Armed Services Committee to learn the truth about why it was a military operation targeting Al-Qaeda and ID future hijackers (Able Danger) was killed by as yet identified DoD officials?
What right do you have to prevent Congressional oversight and an attempt to learn why it was the 9/11 Commission staff, including your employee Dietrich Snell, failed to brief the 9/11 Commissioners about a program a Navy Commander told Snell had ID Atta over a year before 9/11?
In 2004 and 2005, following a formal complaint filing with your office and your chief investigator William Casey, you effectively ignored leading 9/11 family members and 9/11 survivors and first responders who had signed on to the complaint requesting you investigate any number of areas where the Commission fell short. (see full complaint and appendices at http://www.justicefor911.org) And you promised me, their spokesperson at the time, in person at the your opening fund-raiser luncheon that you would meet with the complainants which included Bill Doyle. You broke your promise despite persistent follow-ups.
I believe you have a lot of explaining to do. I intend to talk extensively with Bill Doyle and other leading family members about your latest attempt to stand in the way of getting at the truth about what happened on 9/11.
I believe they are owed an explanation as to why you took no action or even a courtesy of a response following the filing of our complaint with your office (see http://www.justicefor911.org) . I believe all Americans are now owed an explanation as to why you would stand in the way of Congress who had some simple questions for your Deputy, Dietrich Snell. Given your previous responses and what appears to be your covering for Dieter Snell would I be foolish to expect the courtesy of a response?
You know Mr. Spitzer I'd admired you and the strong stand you've taken against the abuses and corruption of big business and I took you at your word when you told me you'd meet with the "Justice for 9/11" complainants. However, I'm afraid you are near to losing that respect with this latest obstruction on your part that appears to have let Mr. Snell off the hook.
What kind of coward, what kind of an American won't answer to Congress on such a question as the 9/11 attacks that led to the death of nearly 3000 people and hundreds of police and firemen from NYC; and to answer questions as to what the government knew before the attacks and why it was the Commission covered up the existence of Able Danger and how it was killed and buried by DoD officials? I truly hope you give me reason to reconsider my judgment about you and Mr. Snell. I hope you prove my doubts wrongly placed and you, and Mr. Snell, are willing to stand up for your record on the investigative questions regarding the crimes of 9/11 for which neither truth or justice have surely not been served and for which it appears you both have covered up by your inaction and/or obstruction.
Most sincerely,
Kyle F. Hence
9/11 CitizensWatch
February 17, 2006
Dear Mr. Spitzer,
I learned during a Congressional hearing before two sub-committees of the Armed Service Committee this past Wednesday (hear audio at http://www.abledangerblog.com) that you had acted in such a way as to allow the #2 at the your office, your Deputy Dietrich Snell, a former 9/11 Commission counsel, to avoid having to answer questions as to his role in the 9/11 Commission's failure and/or refusal to disclose details about the Able Danger counter-terrorist program either to the 9/11 Commissioners or in the 9/11 Report itself.
According to Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, who gave testimony before the Armed Services sub-committeess, there were five witnesses who said the program had identified Mohamed Atta by name and and/or photo over a year before the attacks. According to Rep. Weldon an Able Danger chart created over a year before 9/11 showing a photo of Atta was presented by Representatives Weldon, Burton and Shays to Stephen Hadley on September 25, 2001. On July 12, 2004 Dieter Snell met one of the Able Danger team members and witnesses, the actual hands-on head of the operation, Capt. Scott Phillpott, who told him that Able Danger had identified and planned offensive operations against four of the eventual 19 hijackers as part of what they called the "Brooklyn Cell." According to Lt. Col Shaffer Dietrich Snell said, "What do you want me to do with this information, we go to print in 10 days?"
I have called your office for a statement on this issue and Mari Arce of the Communications Dept. is not aware of any statement being issued. I have two simple questions I believe all Americans and all the victim family members deserve straight-forward answers to:
What business of yours is it to stand in the way of a Congressional effort led by the Armed Services Committee to learn the truth about why it was a military operation targeting Al-Qaeda and ID future hijackers (Able Danger) was killed by as yet identified DoD officials?
What right do you have to prevent Congressional oversight and an attempt to learn why it was the 9/11 Commission staff, including your employee Dietrich Snell, failed to brief the 9/11 Commissioners about a program a Navy Commander told Snell had ID Atta over a year before 9/11?
In 2004 and 2005, following a formal complaint filing with your office and your chief investigator William Casey, you effectively ignored leading 9/11 family members and 9/11 survivors and first responders who had signed on to the complaint requesting you investigate any number of areas where the Commission fell short. (see full complaint and appendices at http://www.justicefor911.org) And you promised me, their spokesperson at the time, in person at the your opening fund-raiser luncheon that you would meet with the complainants which included Bill Doyle. You broke your promise despite persistent follow-ups.
I believe you have a lot of explaining to do. I intend to talk extensively with Bill Doyle and other leading family members about your latest attempt to stand in the way of getting at the truth about what happened on 9/11.
I believe they are owed an explanation as to why you took no action or even a courtesy of a response following the filing of our complaint with your office (see http://www.justicefor911.org) . I believe all Americans are now owed an explanation as to why you would stand in the way of Congress who had some simple questions for your Deputy, Dietrich Snell. Given your previous responses and what appears to be your covering for Dieter Snell would I be foolish to expect the courtesy of a response?
You know Mr. Spitzer I'd admired you and the strong stand you've taken against the abuses and corruption of big business and I took you at your word when you told me you'd meet with the "Justice for 9/11" complainants. However, I'm afraid you are near to losing that respect with this latest obstruction on your part that appears to have let Mr. Snell off the hook.
What kind of coward, what kind of an American won't answer to Congress on such a question as the 9/11 attacks that led to the death of nearly 3000 people and hundreds of police and firemen from NYC; and to answer questions as to what the government knew before the attacks and why it was the Commission covered up the existence of Able Danger and how it was killed and buried by DoD officials? I truly hope you give me reason to reconsider my judgment about you and Mr. Snell. I hope you prove my doubts wrongly placed and you, and Mr. Snell, are willing to stand up for your record on the investigative questions regarding the crimes of 9/11 for which neither truth or justice have surely not been served and for which it appears you both have covered up by your inaction and/or obstruction.
Most sincerely,
Kyle F. Hence
9/11 CitizensWatch
PETITION OF SOLIDARITY
with New York legislators, first responders, victim families, and millions of NY citizens calling for a new investigation of unsolved 9/11 crimes, and the full prosecution of those found responsible.
In memory and on behalf of:
the more than 2800 murdered in New York on September 11, 2001, including 343 firefighters and 75 police officers; the hundreds of thousands of residents and workers variously harmed by the assault; the equivalent numbers suffering dire health effects from attack-related pollution;
New York's collateral victims, human and institutional, who collectively lost billions of dollars in business, career and property damages; and
the millions of New York citizens who have lost precious freedoms, rights, family members and/or faith in government in the resulting so-called "War on Terror."
We the undersigned:
a) think that there is ample evidence and probable cause to believe that many grave and still unresolved crimes were committed by US officials prior to, during and after the events of 9/11;
observe that most of these apparent crimes, including but not limited to abetment of mass murder, criminal negligence, insider trading, and obstruction of justice, fall well within the jurisdiction of New York's top law enforcement officials, who thus become the People's last recourse when federal intervention yields no credible answers, relief or accountability;
c) therefore petition the Attorney General of the State of New York and the District Attorney of the Borough of Manhattan: to open urgent new investigations into themost serious, incriminating, and still largely unexplicated bodies of 9/11 evidence, to expose and fully prosecute the perpetrators of all discovered crimes,
to restore damages, justice and honor to the state and people of New York, and thereby to reclaim the public trust in government and our system of law.
http://www.justicefor911.org/
with New York legislators, first responders, victim families, and millions of NY citizens calling for a new investigation of unsolved 9/11 crimes, and the full prosecution of those found responsible.
In memory and on behalf of:
the more than 2800 murdered in New York on September 11, 2001, including 343 firefighters and 75 police officers; the hundreds of thousands of residents and workers variously harmed by the assault; the equivalent numbers suffering dire health effects from attack-related pollution;
New York's collateral victims, human and institutional, who collectively lost billions of dollars in business, career and property damages; and
the millions of New York citizens who have lost precious freedoms, rights, family members and/or faith in government in the resulting so-called "War on Terror."
We the undersigned:
a) think that there is ample evidence and probable cause to believe that many grave and still unresolved crimes were committed by US officials prior to, during and after the events of 9/11;
observe that most of these apparent crimes, including but not limited to abetment of mass murder, criminal negligence, insider trading, and obstruction of justice, fall well within the jurisdiction of New York's top law enforcement officials, who thus become the People's last recourse when federal intervention yields no credible answers, relief or accountability;c) therefore petition the Attorney General of the State of New York and the District Attorney of the Borough of Manhattan: to open urgent new investigations into themost serious, incriminating, and still largely unexplicated bodies of 9/11 evidence, to expose and fully prosecute the perpetrators of all discovered crimes,
to restore damages, justice and honor to the state and people of New York, and thereby to reclaim the public trust in government and our system of law.
http://www.justicefor911.org/
QUOTE (brian+Feb 17 2006, 03:42 PM)
PETITION OF SOLIDARITY
with New York legislators, first responders, victim families, and millions of NY citizens calling for a new investigation of unsolved 9/11 crimes, and the full prosecution of those found responsible.
Right;
Nine members of September 11 families, Ground Zero first responders, and citizens of New York have signed on
Solidarity my butt.
Arthur
with New York legislators, first responders, victim families, and millions of NY citizens calling for a new investigation of unsolved 9/11 crimes, and the full prosecution of those found responsible.
Right;
Nine members of September 11 families, Ground Zero first responders, and citizens of New York have signed on
Solidarity my butt.
Arthur
PART II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FACTUAL MATTERS
GIVING RISE TO SUSPICIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTS
BY PERPETRATORS OTHER
THAN 19 MIDDLE EASTERN HIJACKERS
The September 11 attacks have generated a vast body of historical research, editorial content, scientific and statistical studies, and public policy statements and analyses that have over time increasingly bifurcated into two opposing camps: On the one side a large, independent research community has mounted a formidable challenge to the official story; and on the other stand those pillars of mainstream opinion who have never really doubted the original assumptions (see the list in Part I, section 5) first presented to the world by the Bush Administration within days of the tragedy. And tragedy compounds upon tragedy; compelling evidence exists that criminal acts attributed to 19 Middle Eastern hijackers may have also involved or even been perpetrated by other persons of interest or suspects either set free or not investigated who have gone free and even live among us—and all this because of the manifest default of our governmental institutions and media in carrying out their moral duty to pursue the truth no matter where it may lead.
No one doubts that the mainstream media have largely ignored the findings of the 9/11 truth movement during this period of the evolution of opinion and research. As in so many other issues of the day, establishment media have been compliant with official pronouncements—or perhaps have feared the profound consequences that might result if they were to devote the investigative resources that would be required to cover our challenges to the official story. While the mass media have remained in dereliction of duty, rich dialogues among the independent 9/11 research community have for several years fermented across the Internet, before a more recent blossoming of books, publications, speaking events, conferences, and films. Professionals and amateurs alike among these independent researchers have debated the ultimate origins of the attacks; the role of national intelligence and defense systems in failing America; the underlying motives for the actions taken by the Bush Administration in response to 9/11; and the many, many unanswered questions still not addressed by official investigations and mainstream media.
Meanwhile, the unchallenged official story that still guides government policy-making and legislation has had profound consequences for America and the world. The 9/11 tragedy has been exploited for political gain even in an election campaign. The unexamined official story about 9/11 is cited as justification for preemptive attacks on foreign countries, an ongoing war, and radical changes in public policy. The US approach to the so-called War on Terror has led to a break with America's allies and the United Nations, the enactment of statutes that limit civil liberties of citizens, visitors and immigrants alike, the detainment and even torture of foreign nationals without benefit of due process and guarantees assured under the Geneva Convention, the creation of a new cabinet agency and the expenditure of billions of dollars to increase police-like activity across the nation.
The complainants believe that the moral imperative for investigating our challenge to the official story has never been greater. But as with treatments of any complex issue outside of "official channels," the available sources vary in intent, focus, quality and accuracy and, therefore, in value. Thus in Part II we provide—based upon our best assessment of the highest quality independent research—a condensed summary of possible avenues for investigation. We realize that credible and promising leads may yet prove baseless, while speculations that at first may seem off base can turn out to be true.
An open mind is required as one considers the overwhelming evidence that points to a wider circle of complicity than allowed for in the official story. We believe a subpoena-empowered investigation of these avenues for investigation, in combination, will uncover indictable crimes under both New York and federal laws.
Ø
A. TAXONOMY OF EVIDENCE FOR A WIDER CIRCLE OF COMPLICITY
1. AIR DEFENSE ON 9/11: The complex anomalies and demonstrably false statements about US air defense response on September 11, including evidence suggesting that such failures cannot be explained by mere incompetence. This is an enormously complex issue involving conflicting and revised government air defense timelines, classified "coincident" multiple war games and other terror-related exercises that occurred on the morning of September 11, 2001, and therefore requires the longest treatment. While your office may choose not to find grounds for direct jurisdiction in these matters, their importance to a potential criminal investigation will become clear in combination with the other subjects treated below. (See, Appendix A1)
2. CHAIN OF COMMAND: The failure to exercise authority among top officials in the US military chain of command during the actual attacks, so consistent that it suggests an intentional abdication of responsibility and points to the likelihood of criminal facilitation. (See, Appendix A2) [Note: Repeat sentence here deleted, moved up to correct position in Item 1 above.-Ed.]
3. PAKISTANI ISI: The alleged connection of the Pakistani Interservices Intelligence Agency ("ISI") to financing the 9/11 plot, with its implications leading back to possible American connections in our intelligence agencies and other officials. (See, Appendix A3)
4. INSIDER TRADING: Reports received from stock exchanges all over the world pointing to evidence of massive financial trading based on insider foreknowledge of 9/11 attack details. This complex issue was far from resolved by the dismissal—itself untenable—of "put option" evidence by both the SEC and The 9/11 Commission Report, as this evidence is itself only one part of the allegation. (See, Appendix A4)
5. COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7: The unexplained and little-reported free-fall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which raises the possibility of an intentional demolition. (See, Appendix A5)
6. ANTHRAX ATTACKS: The as-yet unsolved anthrax attacks of October 2001 and their impact on domestic politics and the 9/11 investigations. (See, Appendix A6)
7. PTECH RAID/INVESTIGATION: The activities of the government contracter Ptech, indicating a possible criminal complex surrounding this US government contractor and a role in the 9/11 crimes. (See, Appendix A7)
Ø
B. SECONDARY BODIES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
The lines of inquiry suggested in Part A above are the tip of a largely unexplored iceberg. We therefore provide online at www.Justicefor911.org an evolving sampling of other relevant bodies of evidence, pointing to:
1. Hijacker Oddities. Contradictions and anomalies in reports about the alleged hijackers, suggesting that their identities, associations with other parties, and actual roles in the crime have not been resolved by official investigations. (See, Appendix B1)
2. Obstruction of investigations prior to 9/11. Consistent and high-level obstruction of a number of US counterterrorism investigations prior to September 11, one or several of which might have uncovered the plot before its execution. (See, Appendix B2)
3. Indicators of foreknowledge. Other indicators of advance preparation for the 9/11 scenario, including the circulation of attack details in advance among circles beyond the purported bin Ladin network. (See, Appendix B3)
4. Obstruction of investigations following 9/11. The destruction of evidence, use of false evidence, and obstruction of investigations after the fact. (See, Appendix B4)
5. Context of war planning prior to 9/11. The context and timing of the attacks, coming amid the Bush Administration's preparations in advance of September 11 to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. (See, Appendix B5)
6. Letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle. (November 11, 2004) Ryan, an executive at Underwriters Laboratories ("UL"), wrote to Frank Gayle, the head of the NIST team investigating the World Trade Center collapses -- which is due to issue a draft of its final report in January. UL certified the steel used in building the World Trade Center, and has since tested steel recovered from the Ground Zero site, and also created a model of part of the towers to test the effects of fire on the steel arrays at the WTC. Ryan's letter raises the possibility that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not caused solely by the fuel fires weakening the metal structure. Ryan is not the first scientist to raise common-sense objections to this widespread account, which apparently also has its supporters at NIST. Although Ryan wrote on his own behalf -- his letter is not a company statement -- he does suggest incipient conflicts between UL and NIST with regard to the cause of the collapses. We respectfully call upon the Attorney General to seek advice from UL as well as other independent scientific organizations to resolve whether a steel-beam building can collapse from the relatively foreseeable scenario of a fire fueled by hydrocarbon fuels (including the type that were, apparently, stored in Building 7). If such an independent investigation resolves the issue in favor of the common account attributing the collapses to the effects of fires, the AG should investigate whether other skyscrapers in New York are vulnerable to collapse from fire; and how many others are storing materials that, if exposed to fire, will cause steel beams and structures to fails. (See, Appendix B6)
7. Taxonomy of potential beneficiaries from the 9/11 attacks. We understand that an exploration of which parties may be complicit in a crime—such as 9/11 surely was, on a vast scale—must include due consideration for the question of "cui bono?": Who are the beneficiaries of given events? Benefits may accrue incidentally, unwanted, or unforeseen by the beneficiaries, and therefore benefit is insufficient in establishing culpability; but an impartial investigation necessarily will include consideration of possible culpability among beneficiary groups. Given the disturbing inconsistencies in the official story, such an investigation must ask, "Who would have had motive to allow or to facilitate the attacks?" "Who has displayed a willingness to exploit the events of 9/11 and their predictable consequences in the political, financial, and psychological realms?" "Are there indications that any of these beneficiaries may have been aware of the attacks in advance, or involved in obstruction of investigations either before or after the attacks?" (See, Appendix B7)
Ø
C. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE POINTING TO AN ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT
Finally, we can only briefly touch upon historical subjects that are academic to a criminal investigation and prosecution of the 9/11 crimes, but which should surely inform any such venture. We will therefore provide online at www.Justicefor911.org evolving dossiers on the following:
1. Context: History of US policy and covert networks. The US government has a long history of covert operations and covert policies, undertaken outside public purview or control by Constitutional institutions. Moreover, many of these operations and policies are properly described as extragovernmental, i.e., implemented by associations that are only partly based in US government agencies, but which pursue their own agendas that are often at cross-purposes with official policy-makers. One term for this is "parapolitics"—the practice of political influence in secret by self-appointed, unaccountable groups. Both government-approved covert operations and covert parapolitical networks often have countenanced deliberate support for the rise of groups later designated to be "enemies" of the United States. Of the many such examples, especially germane are the decades of US support for radical Islamism in general, as well as specific US government participation in creating the network around Osama bin Ladin and in exploiting that network both as a support in achieving covert policy goals, and as an overt enemy of convenience. (See, Appendix B8)
2. Context: Precedents for facilitated terror and false-flag operations internationally. The many past cases when states (including the US government) and state agents pursuing their own agendas have countenanced attacks on their own nationals, fabricated non-existent attacks, or even planned for real attacks and blamed such attacks on an enemy of convenience (a "false flag"), the motive being to rule by fear, provide the pretext for war, silence dissent, or achieve other political and economic goals. (See, Appendix B9)
http://www.justicefor911.org/Part_II_Evidence_111904.php
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FACTUAL MATTERS
GIVING RISE TO SUSPICIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTS
BY PERPETRATORS OTHER
THAN 19 MIDDLE EASTERN HIJACKERS
The September 11 attacks have generated a vast body of historical research, editorial content, scientific and statistical studies, and public policy statements and analyses that have over time increasingly bifurcated into two opposing camps: On the one side a large, independent research community has mounted a formidable challenge to the official story; and on the other stand those pillars of mainstream opinion who have never really doubted the original assumptions (see the list in Part I, section 5) first presented to the world by the Bush Administration within days of the tragedy. And tragedy compounds upon tragedy; compelling evidence exists that criminal acts attributed to 19 Middle Eastern hijackers may have also involved or even been perpetrated by other persons of interest or suspects either set free or not investigated who have gone free and even live among us—and all this because of the manifest default of our governmental institutions and media in carrying out their moral duty to pursue the truth no matter where it may lead.
No one doubts that the mainstream media have largely ignored the findings of the 9/11 truth movement during this period of the evolution of opinion and research. As in so many other issues of the day, establishment media have been compliant with official pronouncements—or perhaps have feared the profound consequences that might result if they were to devote the investigative resources that would be required to cover our challenges to the official story. While the mass media have remained in dereliction of duty, rich dialogues among the independent 9/11 research community have for several years fermented across the Internet, before a more recent blossoming of books, publications, speaking events, conferences, and films. Professionals and amateurs alike among these independent researchers have debated the ultimate origins of the attacks; the role of national intelligence and defense systems in failing America; the underlying motives for the actions taken by the Bush Administration in response to 9/11; and the many, many unanswered questions still not addressed by official investigations and mainstream media.
Meanwhile, the unchallenged official story that still guides government policy-making and legislation has had profound consequences for America and the world. The 9/11 tragedy has been exploited for political gain even in an election campaign. The unexamined official story about 9/11 is cited as justification for preemptive attacks on foreign countries, an ongoing war, and radical changes in public policy. The US approach to the so-called War on Terror has led to a break with America's allies and the United Nations, the enactment of statutes that limit civil liberties of citizens, visitors and immigrants alike, the detainment and even torture of foreign nationals without benefit of due process and guarantees assured under the Geneva Convention, the creation of a new cabinet agency and the expenditure of billions of dollars to increase police-like activity across the nation.
The complainants believe that the moral imperative for investigating our challenge to the official story has never been greater. But as with treatments of any complex issue outside of "official channels," the available sources vary in intent, focus, quality and accuracy and, therefore, in value. Thus in Part II we provide—based upon our best assessment of the highest quality independent research—a condensed summary of possible avenues for investigation. We realize that credible and promising leads may yet prove baseless, while speculations that at first may seem off base can turn out to be true.
An open mind is required as one considers the overwhelming evidence that points to a wider circle of complicity than allowed for in the official story. We believe a subpoena-empowered investigation of these avenues for investigation, in combination, will uncover indictable crimes under both New York and federal laws.
Ø
A. TAXONOMY OF EVIDENCE FOR A WIDER CIRCLE OF COMPLICITY
1. AIR DEFENSE ON 9/11: The complex anomalies and demonstrably false statements about US air defense response on September 11, including evidence suggesting that such failures cannot be explained by mere incompetence. This is an enormously complex issue involving conflicting and revised government air defense timelines, classified "coincident" multiple war games and other terror-related exercises that occurred on the morning of September 11, 2001, and therefore requires the longest treatment. While your office may choose not to find grounds for direct jurisdiction in these matters, their importance to a potential criminal investigation will become clear in combination with the other subjects treated below. (See, Appendix A1)
2. CHAIN OF COMMAND: The failure to exercise authority among top officials in the US military chain of command during the actual attacks, so consistent that it suggests an intentional abdication of responsibility and points to the likelihood of criminal facilitation. (See, Appendix A2) [Note: Repeat sentence here deleted, moved up to correct position in Item 1 above.-Ed.]
3. PAKISTANI ISI: The alleged connection of the Pakistani Interservices Intelligence Agency ("ISI") to financing the 9/11 plot, with its implications leading back to possible American connections in our intelligence agencies and other officials. (See, Appendix A3)
4. INSIDER TRADING: Reports received from stock exchanges all over the world pointing to evidence of massive financial trading based on insider foreknowledge of 9/11 attack details. This complex issue was far from resolved by the dismissal—itself untenable—of "put option" evidence by both the SEC and The 9/11 Commission Report, as this evidence is itself only one part of the allegation. (See, Appendix A4)
5. COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7: The unexplained and little-reported free-fall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which raises the possibility of an intentional demolition. (See, Appendix A5)
6. ANTHRAX ATTACKS: The as-yet unsolved anthrax attacks of October 2001 and their impact on domestic politics and the 9/11 investigations. (See, Appendix A6)
7. PTECH RAID/INVESTIGATION: The activities of the government contracter Ptech, indicating a possible criminal complex surrounding this US government contractor and a role in the 9/11 crimes. (See, Appendix A7)
Ø
B. SECONDARY BODIES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
The lines of inquiry suggested in Part A above are the tip of a largely unexplored iceberg. We therefore provide online at www.Justicefor911.org an evolving sampling of other relevant bodies of evidence, pointing to:
1. Hijacker Oddities. Contradictions and anomalies in reports about the alleged hijackers, suggesting that their identities, associations with other parties, and actual roles in the crime have not been resolved by official investigations. (See, Appendix B1)
2. Obstruction of investigations prior to 9/11. Consistent and high-level obstruction of a number of US counterterrorism investigations prior to September 11, one or several of which might have uncovered the plot before its execution. (See, Appendix B2)
3. Indicators of foreknowledge. Other indicators of advance preparation for the 9/11 scenario, including the circulation of attack details in advance among circles beyond the purported bin Ladin network. (See, Appendix B3)
4. Obstruction of investigations following 9/11. The destruction of evidence, use of false evidence, and obstruction of investigations after the fact. (See, Appendix B4)
5. Context of war planning prior to 9/11. The context and timing of the attacks, coming amid the Bush Administration's preparations in advance of September 11 to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. (See, Appendix B5)
6. Letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle. (November 11, 2004) Ryan, an executive at Underwriters Laboratories ("UL"), wrote to Frank Gayle, the head of the NIST team investigating the World Trade Center collapses -- which is due to issue a draft of its final report in January. UL certified the steel used in building the World Trade Center, and has since tested steel recovered from the Ground Zero site, and also created a model of part of the towers to test the effects of fire on the steel arrays at the WTC. Ryan's letter raises the possibility that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not caused solely by the fuel fires weakening the metal structure. Ryan is not the first scientist to raise common-sense objections to this widespread account, which apparently also has its supporters at NIST. Although Ryan wrote on his own behalf -- his letter is not a company statement -- he does suggest incipient conflicts between UL and NIST with regard to the cause of the collapses. We respectfully call upon the Attorney General to seek advice from UL as well as other independent scientific organizations to resolve whether a steel-beam building can collapse from the relatively foreseeable scenario of a fire fueled by hydrocarbon fuels (including the type that were, apparently, stored in Building 7). If such an independent investigation resolves the issue in favor of the common account attributing the collapses to the effects of fires, the AG should investigate whether other skyscrapers in New York are vulnerable to collapse from fire; and how many others are storing materials that, if exposed to fire, will cause steel beams and structures to fails. (See, Appendix B6)
7. Taxonomy of potential beneficiaries from the 9/11 attacks. We understand that an exploration of which parties may be complicit in a crime—such as 9/11 surely was, on a vast scale—must include due consideration for the question of "cui bono?": Who are the beneficiaries of given events? Benefits may accrue incidentally, unwanted, or unforeseen by the beneficiaries, and therefore benefit is insufficient in establishing culpability; but an impartial investigation necessarily will include consideration of possible culpability among beneficiary groups. Given the disturbing inconsistencies in the official story, such an investigation must ask, "Who would have had motive to allow or to facilitate the attacks?" "Who has displayed a willingness to exploit the events of 9/11 and their predictable consequences in the political, financial, and psychological realms?" "Are there indications that any of these beneficiaries may have been aware of the attacks in advance, or involved in obstruction of investigations either before or after the attacks?" (See, Appendix B7)
Ø
C. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE POINTING TO AN ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT
Finally, we can only briefly touch upon historical subjects that are academic to a criminal investigation and prosecution of the 9/11 crimes, but which should surely inform any such venture. We will therefore provide online at www.Justicefor911.org evolving dossiers on the following:
1. Context: History of US policy and covert networks. The US government has a long history of covert operations and covert policies, undertaken outside public purview or control by Constitutional institutions. Moreover, many of these operations and policies are properly described as extragovernmental, i.e., implemented by associations that are only partly based in US government agencies, but which pursue their own agendas that are often at cross-purposes with official policy-makers. One term for this is "parapolitics"—the practice of political influence in secret by self-appointed, unaccountable groups. Both government-approved covert operations and covert parapolitical networks often have countenanced deliberate support for the rise of groups later designated to be "enemies" of the United States. Of the many such examples, especially germane are the decades of US support for radical Islamism in general, as well as specific US government participation in creating the network around Osama bin Ladin and in exploiting that network both as a support in achieving covert policy goals, and as an overt enemy of convenience. (See, Appendix B8)
2. Context: Precedents for facilitated terror and false-flag operations internationally. The many past cases when states (including the US government) and state agents pursuing their own agendas have countenanced attacks on their own nationals, fabricated non-existent attacks, or even planned for real attacks and blamed such attacks on an enemy of convenience (a "false flag"), the motive being to rule by fear, provide the pretext for war, silence dissent, or achieve other political and economic goals. (See, Appendix B9)
http://www.justicefor911.org/Part_II_Evidence_111904.php
The following bold statements are the wishful hopes and dreams from Arthurian Legends.
Faster than Free fall (original AJ) -- killed.
- typical strawman tactic. Just as Schneibster did for a couple of hundred pages, the legendarian now twists this 'figure of speech' to promote an idea that most DO NOT believe --- (and as has been pointed out already too many times refers to NEAR FREE FALL speeds.
Almost as fast as Free fall -- killed.
- A complete lie, ignoring the countless times this has been proven. In typical arthurian style - he simply makes unfounded statements and then pope-ishly presents such as 'fact'
Provided video evidence of material falling far faster than towers.
- The only video evidence is that which shows ejecta thrown hundreds of feet laterally and falling through thin air, (travelling at TRUE FREE FALL speed) is slightly ahead of the pressure wave destroying storey upon story of completely undamaged building. Still none of the CT's have provided any evidence that these free-falling ejecta were actually outpacing the descending pressure wave by any great speed whatsoever. These pieces had been ejected from the top stories BEFORE the detonations of lower sections, so obviously they would have fallen further than pieces yet to be ejected, but this is proof of nothing like what the adou-liar contends.
Pyroclastic Clouds -- provided evidence that the cloud was no way NEAR Hoffman's estimate.
- Nonsense, pure biased opinion. NO factual evidence has been presented which conclusively demonstrates this. Schneibsters howlings in this regard were adequately addressed early on by metamars, which showed Schneibsters contentions suspect (at least) in his mathematical analyses. Schneibster never was able to refute metamars on this account.
Pulverized to micron size - Shown to be from a health report that first put material through SIEVE to get rid of big particles.
- Gee, now he's making it up as he goes along. Ample evidence has been shown to disprove this pope-ish statement
100 ton columns thrown 600 ft -shown to be 20 ton columns thrown 200 ft.
- Simple errors (originating from OFFICIAL reports) are presented as debunkings of the lateral ejection of 'multi-ton' Amazing Flying Columns. The fact that these multi-ton spears were laterally ejected for hundreds of feet (which can NOT be accounted for by the official theory) is one again ignored in this above pope-ish proclamation.
Comparison to Madrid -- Shown to be incorrect, Madrid had Reinforced Concrete Core.
- NOT shown to be incorrect at ALL. Still they try to avoid the real issue which is the intensity & duration of the FIRE --- unrelated to the structure.
Only Steel Buildings to Collapse - Shown to be irrelevant as only steel buildings to be run into by Jets. (WTC 7 report not out yet)
- Not irrelevant at ALL. The fact that the buildings were also run into by jets has been debunked by the NIST report itself which states that the structural damage caused by the jets was NOT sufficient to bring the buildings down, and they could have remained standing indefinately.
Steel melted (original AJ) - Shown to be false
- The melted steel issue was first promoted by structural engineers to support the fairy tale. After debunkers of the official story proved that could not be the case, the OFFICIAL myth-makers changed their tune to say that the steel did NOT melt... except when it was underground flowing in rivers of molten metal... or in the now 'hidden' & 'ignored' unexplained euctectic actions.
Rivers of melted Steel - No evidence produced
- A Complete lie... numerous witnesses ON THE SCENE reported such, and adoucette knows this. Why he is lying about it now is obvious to all.
Molten Steel - Temp of steel at that color shown to be within normal UNFORCED AIR temp for steel.
- Wrong
Thermite - Shown that Tons and Tons would be required, yet no evidence of slag.
- Another Lie. This was never 'shown'. At best it was speculated as a postulation... but never proven, and AS has already been conceded, EVEN IF 'tons & tons' were required that is not evidence nor proof that 'tons & tons' were NOT used.
Disinformation about no steel EXPOSED to temps higher than 600C shown to be false.
- Never once has this been shown by any forensic evidence present by NIST (or it's lying supporters)
Complete Elevator layout shown to PROVE that there was a hollow core running from top to bottom of the WTC towers.
- Total Bullshit - this guy will make un-ending pope-ish proclamations completely without merit, and then claim that because he has made a proclamation his proclamation therefore proves the lie. At best there were ONLY three shaftways which ran from the top of the building to the basement (two of which were occupied in the north tower). The complete elevator layout contrary to the claims of adou-liar show that these were the ONLY 'hollow' sections of the core. The core itself was NOT a 'hollow chimney'
Proved material on each floor sufficient to generate fires to account for collapse.
- Nonsense. Potential energy is not the same as Kinetic energy. The lower undamaged floors contained huge potential energies, but that was not converted to kinetic energy prior to the collapse, so could not account for the collapse.
No evidence of explosives, only noise that SOUNDED like Explosives.
- The evidence for explosions from physics to video and photo documetation, amidst hundreds of reports of explosions & brisant flashes show conclusively that explosives were used.
Lobby basement damage explained via jet fuel in elevator shafts and consistent with multiple fires on other floors, burn injuries and eye witness testimony.
- More lies - poor chap still hanging his hat on the discredited Amazing Super-Sonic Thermobaric Bomb theory, which rational evidence completely refutes.
Showed visual proof that buildings didn't "fall within their footprint"
- WTC 7 fell within it's footprint. While it is true that some still mistakenly claim that the [/b]towers[/b] fell within their base footprint, this is not true. The towers fell into a symettrical blast-damage footprint inconsistent with gravity-driven collapse.
Showed visual proof that some of lower core of building remained for some time after floors pancaked around it.
- Not sure what he's trying to prove here? the spire has been discussed numerous times, and still the gravity-driven collapse CT's, have refused to address the vertical telescoping (which is outside the realms of known physics).
Showed visual proof that some of perimeter stood after floors pancaked within the outer tube.
- Again I have no idea how he feels this supports one theory over another, except by pope-ishly claiming that it does 'somehow'.
Showed how DOZENS of quotes posted by CTers were taken out of context or abbreviated so as to make an invalid point.
- Total bull. Used sophistry to equate abbreviated statements as lies.
Shown through Video evidence that the most visible "Squib" is clearly a POINT ejection of air as it originates from one point and grows in size over several seconds. Thus not at all the characteristics of a HE, i.e. a SUPERSONIC blast front.
- Totally ignores the numerous 'squibbs' or dust ejections which are clearly indicative of material being powderized and blown out of the building far in advance of the descending demolition. The nonsensical statements that these are merely air being blown out by a descending piston-effect, is clearly refuted by the 'squibbs' evident at WTC 7 where they proceeded UP the building (in violation of the physics alledged to be the cause).
Shown how all comparisons to ACTUAL Controlled demolitions are opposite the WTC tower collapse, ie. bottom up vs top down.
- As I have often pointed out... WTC 7 was a controlled IMPLOSION demolition and proceeded from the bottom up. The Towers were controlled EXPLOSIVE demolitions, and hence can NOT be compared to convention building demolitions which for the most part are IMPLOSIVE demolitions. This point is completely without merit.
So, once again... the pope-ish proclamations of the arthurian legends turn into dust just as completely as the towers did.
Faster than Free fall (original AJ) -- killed.
- typical strawman tactic. Just as Schneibster did for a couple of hundred pages, the legendarian now twists this 'figure of speech' to promote an idea that most DO NOT believe --- (and as has been pointed out already too many times refers to NEAR FREE FALL speeds.
Almost as fast as Free fall -- killed.
- A complete lie, ignoring the countless times this has been proven. In typical arthurian style - he simply makes unfounded statements and then pope-ishly presents such as 'fact'
Provided video evidence of material falling far faster than towers.
- The only video evidence is that which shows ejecta thrown hundreds of feet laterally and falling through thin air, (travelling at TRUE FREE FALL speed) is slightly ahead of the pressure wave destroying storey upon story of completely undamaged building. Still none of the CT's have provided any evidence that these free-falling ejecta were actually outpacing the descending pressure wave by any great speed whatsoever. These pieces had been ejected from the top stories BEFORE the detonations of lower sections, so obviously they would have fallen further than pieces yet to be ejected, but this is proof of nothing like what the adou-liar contends.
Pyroclastic Clouds -- provided evidence that the cloud was no way NEAR Hoffman's estimate.
- Nonsense, pure biased opinion. NO factual evidence has been presented which conclusively demonstrates this. Schneibsters howlings in this regard were adequately addressed early on by metamars, which showed Schneibsters contentions suspect (at least) in his mathematical analyses. Schneibster never was able to refute metamars on this account.
Pulverized to micron size - Shown to be from a health report that first put material through SIEVE to get rid of big particles.
- Gee, now he's making it up as he goes along. Ample evidence has been shown to disprove this pope-ish statement
100 ton columns thrown 600 ft -shown to be 20 ton columns thrown 200 ft.
- Simple errors (originating from OFFICIAL reports) are presented as debunkings of the lateral ejection of 'multi-ton' Amazing Flying Columns. The fact that these multi-ton spears were laterally ejected for hundreds of feet (which can NOT be accounted for by the official theory) is one again ignored in this above pope-ish proclamation.
Comparison to Madrid -- Shown to be incorrect, Madrid had Reinforced Concrete Core.
- NOT shown to be incorrect at ALL. Still they try to avoid the real issue which is the intensity & duration of the FIRE --- unrelated to the structure.
Only Steel Buildings to Collapse - Shown to be irrelevant as only steel buildings to be run into by Jets. (WTC 7 report not out yet)
- Not irrelevant at ALL. The fact that the buildings were also run into by jets has been debunked by the NIST report itself which states that the structural damage caused by the jets was NOT sufficient to bring the buildings down, and they could have remained standing indefinately.
Steel melted (original AJ) - Shown to be false
- The melted steel issue was first promoted by structural engineers to support the fairy tale. After debunkers of the official story proved that could not be the case, the OFFICIAL myth-makers changed their tune to say that the steel did NOT melt... except when it was underground flowing in rivers of molten metal... or in the now 'hidden' & 'ignored' unexplained euctectic actions.
Rivers of melted Steel - No evidence produced
- A Complete lie... numerous witnesses ON THE SCENE reported such, and adoucette knows this. Why he is lying about it now is obvious to all.
Molten Steel - Temp of steel at that color shown to be within normal UNFORCED AIR temp for steel.
- Wrong
Thermite - Shown that Tons and Tons would be required, yet no evidence of slag.
- Another Lie. This was never 'shown'. At best it was speculated as a postulation... but never proven, and AS has already been conceded, EVEN IF 'tons & tons' were required that is not evidence nor proof that 'tons & tons' were NOT used.
Disinformation about no steel EXPOSED to temps higher than 600C shown to be false.
- Never once has this been shown by any forensic evidence present by NIST (or it's lying supporters)
Complete Elevator layout shown to PROVE that there was a hollow core running from top to bottom of the WTC towers.
- Total Bullshit - this guy will make un-ending pope-ish proclamations completely without merit, and then claim that because he has made a proclamation his proclamation therefore proves the lie. At best there were ONLY three shaftways which ran from the top of the building to the basement (two of which were occupied in the north tower). The complete elevator layout contrary to the claims of adou-liar show that these were the ONLY 'hollow' sections of the core. The core itself was NOT a 'hollow chimney'
Proved material on each floor sufficient to generate fires to account for collapse.
- Nonsense. Potential energy is not the same as Kinetic energy. The lower undamaged floors contained huge potential energies, but that was not converted to kinetic energy prior to the collapse, so could not account for the collapse.
No evidence of explosives, only noise that SOUNDED like Explosives.
- The evidence for explosions from physics to video and photo documetation, amidst hundreds of reports of explosions & brisant flashes show conclusively that explosives were used.
Lobby basement damage explained via jet fuel in elevator shafts and consistent with multiple fires on other floors, burn injuries and eye witness testimony.
- More lies - poor chap still hanging his hat on the discredited Amazing Super-Sonic Thermobaric Bomb theory, which rational evidence completely refutes.
Showed visual proof that buildings didn't "fall within their footprint"
- WTC 7 fell within it's footprint. While it is true that some still mistakenly claim that the [/b]towers[/b] fell within their base footprint, this is not true. The towers fell into a symettrical blast-damage footprint inconsistent with gravity-driven collapse.
Showed visual proof that some of lower core of building remained for some time after floors pancaked around it.
- Not sure what he's trying to prove here? the spire has been discussed numerous times, and still the gravity-driven collapse CT's, have refused to address the vertical telescoping (which is outside the realms of known physics).
Showed visual proof that some of perimeter stood after floors pancaked within the outer tube.
- Again I have no idea how he feels this supports one theory over another, except by pope-ishly claiming that it does 'somehow'.
Showed how DOZENS of quotes posted by CTers were taken out of context or abbreviated so as to make an invalid point.
- Total bull. Used sophistry to equate abbreviated statements as lies.
Shown through Video evidence that the most visible "Squib" is clearly a POINT ejection of air as it originates from one point and grows in size over several seconds. Thus not at all the characteristics of a HE, i.e. a SUPERSONIC blast front.
- Totally ignores the numerous 'squibbs' or dust ejections which are clearly indicative of material being powderized and blown out of the building far in advance of the descending demolition. The nonsensical statements that these are merely air being blown out by a descending piston-effect, is clearly refuted by the 'squibbs' evident at WTC 7 where they proceeded UP the building (in violation of the physics alledged to be the cause).
Shown how all comparisons to ACTUAL Controlled demolitions are opposite the WTC tower collapse, ie. bottom up vs top down.
- As I have often pointed out... WTC 7 was a controlled IMPLOSION demolition and proceeded from the bottom up. The Towers were controlled EXPLOSIVE demolitions, and hence can NOT be compared to convention building demolitions which for the most part are IMPLOSIVE demolitions. This point is completely without merit.
So, once again... the pope-ish proclamations of the arthurian legends turn into dust just as completely as the towers did.
Foxx will have Arthur on overtime.
Given that scientists, academics et al not only dispute but reject the official explanation and given it is such an important matter -
To use Kyle Hence's words to Spitzer - "What kind of coward, what kind of an American" - would obstruct the call for an independent inquiry?
Given that scientists, academics et al not only dispute but reject the official explanation and given it is such an important matter -
To use Kyle Hence's words to Spitzer - "What kind of coward, what kind of an American" - would obstruct the call for an independent inquiry?
No one who MATTERS disputes the official report.
I'm not even going to bother setting Foxx straight as anyone can go to AJ's site and see where he claims that the QUICKER THAN FREE FALL COLLAPSE TIME WAS DUE TO VACUUM EFFECT OF THE LATERAL EXPLOSIONS (pg 13).
That's my first example to show AJ was disproved, and what do you know, Foxx's first lie about my post.
As for the rest, well this whole thread that takes care of that for me. Any impartial reader will see how the CTers are UNWILLING to accept reality even when it is spelled out for them in precise detail.
Most, like newt, simply don't want to grow up.
So, if neither you or him were smart enough to figure it out the first time through, then too bad.
Over 4 years and you've managed to get 9 New Yorkers to sign that stupid petition.
Pathetic Paranoid Losers is all you are.
Arthur
I'm not even going to bother setting Foxx straight as anyone can go to AJ's site and see where he claims that the QUICKER THAN FREE FALL COLLAPSE TIME WAS DUE TO VACUUM EFFECT OF THE LATERAL EXPLOSIONS (pg 13).
That's my first example to show AJ was disproved, and what do you know, Foxx's first lie about my post.
As for the rest, well this whole thread that takes care of that for me. Any impartial reader will see how the CTers are UNWILLING to accept reality even when it is spelled out for them in precise detail.
Most, like newt, simply don't want to grow up.
So, if neither you or him were smart enough to figure it out the first time through, then too bad.
Over 4 years and you've managed to get 9 New Yorkers to sign that stupid petition.
Pathetic Paranoid Losers is all you are.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 17 2006, 08:26 PM)
No one who MATTERS disputes the official report.
I'm not even going to bother setting Foxx straight.
This whole thread that takes care of that for me.
If neither you or him were smart enough to figure it out the first time through, then too bad.
Over 4 years and you've managed to get 9 New Yorkers to sign that stupid petition.
Pathetic Paranoid Losers is all you are.
Arthur
Desperate Legend turns Loser.
No one who MATTERS disputes the official report. = I ME says so.
I'm not even going to bother setting Foxx straight = stumped again.
This whole thread that takes care of that for me. = I ME right again.
9 New Yorkers = lie.
The rest = loser drivel
If there is an Excalibur handy - fall on it.
I'm not even going to bother setting Foxx straight.
This whole thread that takes care of that for me.
If neither you or him were smart enough to figure it out the first time through, then too bad.
Over 4 years and you've managed to get 9 New Yorkers to sign that stupid petition.
Pathetic Paranoid Losers is all you are.
Arthur
Desperate Legend turns Loser.
No one who MATTERS disputes the official report. = I ME says so.
I'm not even going to bother setting Foxx straight = stumped again.
This whole thread that takes care of that for me. = I ME right again.
9 New Yorkers = lie.
The rest = loser drivel
If there is an Excalibur handy - fall on it.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Sept. 11 theorizing professor speaks out
ANNA CHANG-YEN - Daily Herald
A BYU physics professor said a group he co-founded will ask for a Watergate-style special federal prosecutor to look into unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Steven E. Jones gave a presentation at Brigham Young University on Thursday about his theory that World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition rather than a terrorist attack. Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which Jones co-founded, is putting together a list of questions and will ask for a special prosecutor like the one used to probe the Watergate scandal, he said.
"Remember, I'm not alone anymore. I've got over 100 plus," ----
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Sept. 11 theorizing professor speaks out
ANNA CHANG-YEN - Daily Herald
A BYU physics professor said a group he co-founded will ask for a Watergate-style special federal prosecutor to look into unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Steven E. Jones gave a presentation at Brigham Young University on Thursday about his theory that World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition rather than a terrorist attack. Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which Jones co-founded, is putting together a list of questions and will ask for a special prosecutor like the one used to probe the Watergate scandal, he said.
"Remember, I'm not alone anymore. I've got over 100 plus," ----
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Arthur is a fake!!!
QUOTE (brian+Feb 17 2006, 04:58 PM)
9 New Yorkers = lie.
Yeah, so how come I got that number from their web site?
This is SO PATHETIC.
That petition has been around since the Fall of '04. Here we are 16 months later and you've got a total of 9,062 signatures.
Woooie,
In a city that is OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL and OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATIC you can't get even 1/2 of 1 percent of the people to sign your LOSER petition in well over a year.
Well, all I gotta say, is keep up the good work.
LOSERS.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 17 2006, 08:07 PM)
Showed visual proof that some of lower core of building remained for some time after floors pancaked around it.
- Not sure what he's trying to prove here? the spire has been discussed numerous times, and still the gravity-driven collapse CT's, have refused to address the vertical telescoping (which is outside the realms of known physics).
I found the eyewitness video instructive on this point at least. Toward the end of the north tower collapse the spire and its telescoping collapse can be clearly seen. However, just prior to the collapse of the spire is a demonstration of how it should have come down by any conventional theory. To the left (on the video) are a few long vertical columns that fall over sideways. The spire collapse is one of those endearing mysteries that is still unexplained by any theory of the tower collapse.
I have noticed, as I am sure others have, that Arthur frequently decries the lack of proof of the CD claims. I gather that this is another "tactic" of the official theory crowd, to demand proof of what he already knows cannot be proven in the sense that he demands. Even in the uncontroversial areas of science, this form of proof is impossible, nor even attempted. The best evidence for any claim of inductive reasoning is just that, evidence, and never authoritative, final proof. Presenting evidence for the CD theory has been further made unnecessarily difficult by such things as the loss and destruction of evidence, and the lack of transparency and completeness in the NIST study, not to mention its mandate to arrive at a predetermined conclusion (much like the 911 commission). The irony is in what Arthur and his knights errant offer as "proof" of the official theory: dogmatic appeals to authority (NIST says it, I believe it, that ends it), straw man attacks presenting the weakest CD claims as if they were on par with the strongest, outright lies, unending personal attacks and name calling, and on and on. Since I am sure Arthur knows better on all of these counts, including claims about "proof", I can only conclude that his offerings are for those who might not know any better (which fortunately does not include any of the regulars here).
- Not sure what he's trying to prove here? the spire has been discussed numerous times, and still the gravity-driven collapse CT's, have refused to address the vertical telescoping (which is outside the realms of known physics).
I found the eyewitness video instructive on this point at least. Toward the end of the north tower collapse the spire and its telescoping collapse can be clearly seen. However, just prior to the collapse of the spire is a demonstration of how it should have come down by any conventional theory. To the left (on the video) are a few long vertical columns that fall over sideways. The spire collapse is one of those endearing mysteries that is still unexplained by any theory of the tower collapse.
I have noticed, as I am sure others have, that Arthur frequently decries the lack of proof of the CD claims. I gather that this is another "tactic" of the official theory crowd, to demand proof of what he already knows cannot be proven in the sense that he demands. Even in the uncontroversial areas of science, this form of proof is impossible, nor even attempted. The best evidence for any claim of inductive reasoning is just that, evidence, and never authoritative, final proof. Presenting evidence for the CD theory has been further made unnecessarily difficult by such things as the loss and destruction of evidence, and the lack of transparency and completeness in the NIST study, not to mention its mandate to arrive at a predetermined conclusion (much like the 911 commission). The irony is in what Arthur and his knights errant offer as "proof" of the official theory: dogmatic appeals to authority (NIST says it, I believe it, that ends it), straw man attacks presenting the weakest CD claims as if they were on par with the strongest, outright lies, unending personal attacks and name calling, and on and on. Since I am sure Arthur knows better on all of these counts, including claims about "proof", I can only conclude that his offerings are for those who might not know any better (which fortunately does not include any of the regulars here).
Arthur is a total fake and doesn't even believe his own lies.
If any one watches CNN or other news channels you'll find that congress is battling it out against the white house decision to grant control of the US ports to the Arab company that was stated as having close ties to the 2 hijackers of 9/11.
This is fact, but little arthur is so wrapped up in his behind it's not even worth hearing his opinion
If any one watches CNN or other news channels you'll find that congress is battling it out against the white house decision to grant control of the US ports to the Arab company that was stated as having close ties to the 2 hijackers of 9/11.
This is fact, but little arthur is so wrapped up in his behind it's not even worth hearing his opinion
QUOTE
Pyroclastic Clouds -- provided evidence that the cloud was no way NEAR Hoffman's estimate.
- Nonsense, pure biased opinion. NO factual evidence has been presented which conclusively demonstrates this. Schneibsters howlings in this regard were adequately addressed early on by metamars, which showed Schneibsters contentions suspect (at least) in his mathematical analyses. Schneibster never was able to refute metamars on this account.
- Nonsense, pure biased opinion. NO factual evidence has been presented which conclusively demonstrates this. Schneibsters howlings in this regard were adequately addressed early on by metamars, which showed Schneibsters contentions suspect (at least) in his mathematical analyses. Schneibster never was able to refute metamars on this account.
Hard to know just where to start with Foxx's idiocy in that post but the above does spring out. I posted photos that show a squad car, a parking meter officer's vehicle and a poster all well within the 'pyroclastic' cloud that Hoffman states was 1000 degrees , yet none of those things is even scorched.
Hoffman is an idiot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Pyroclastic Clouds -- provided evidence that the cloud was no way NEAR Hoffman's estimate. - Nonsense, pure biased opinion. NO factual evidence has been presented which conclusively demonstrates this. Schneibsters howlings in this regard were adequately addressed early on by metamars, which showed Schneibsters contentions suspect (at least) in his mathematical analyses. Schneibster never was able to refute metamars on this account. |
Hard to know just where to start with Foxx's idiocy in that post but the above does spring out. I posted photos that show a squad car, a parking meter officer's vehicle and a poster all well within the 'pyroclastic' cloud that Hoffman states was 1000 degrees , yet none of those things is even scorched.
Hoffman is an idiot.
Steel melted (original AJ) - Shown to be false
- The melted steel issue was first promoted by structural engineers to support the fairy tale. After debunkers of the official story proved that could not be the case, the OFFICIAL myth-makers changed their tune to say that the steel did NOT melt... except when it was underground flowing in rivers of molten metal... or in the now 'hidden' & 'ignored' unexplained euctectic actions.
Eager states quite well the melting point of steel and that such was not the cause of the collapses.
The fact that in the first few days some engineers stated that the steel may have melted was taken up by the CT crowd and even though no one in the engineering community now says that the steel melted the CT crowd still use this 'straw-man' arguement. Many first hours estimates were corrected in the days and months following 9/11. Yet the CT crowd wishes to either believe that such first estimates were changed in order to better agree with the CT's or because big bad brother told them to change.
It is odd that there are NO photos of melted steel, NO photos of 'rivers of molten steel'. One wonders why that was not worthy of a shot or two.
Although the CT crowd likes to state that 'molten' means either melted or glowing hot, any reference to 'rivers' would certainly imply the former.
No evidence exists that these 'rivers' existed or that any molten(ie melted) steel existed. Even IF it did it is quite obvious that this occured post-collapse.
QUOTE
Thermite - Shown that Tons and Tons would be required, yet no evidence of slag.
- Another Lie. This was never 'shown'. At best it was speculated as a postulation... but never proven, and AS has already been conceded, EVEN IF 'tons & tons' were required that is not evidence nor proof that 'tons & tons' were NOT used
- Another Lie. This was never 'shown'. At best it was speculated as a postulation... but never proven, and AS has already been conceded, EVEN IF 'tons & tons' were required that is not evidence nor proof that 'tons & tons' were NOT used
It was shown that thermite burns off quickly.
Since it is YOUR contention that thermite melted the steel and kept it melted for weeks then perhaps YOU might feel some responsibility to show how much thermite would be required to do that.
I await your calculations but I will not be holding my breath.
QUOTE (Lon Waters+)
The irony is in what Arthur and his knights errant offer as "proof" of the official theory: dogmatic appeals to authority (NIST says it, I believe it, that ends it), straw man attacks presenting the weakest CD claims as if they were on par with the strongest, outright lies, unending personal attacks and name calling, and on and on.
Actually I have never said that since NIST says it, it must be true. What I have said repeatedly is the CT'ers have not demonstrated that what NIST has said in their report is FALSE.
Big Difference.
As far as presenting the weakest CD claims as if they are on par with the strongest, well that's not only splitting hairs but wishful thinking right there.
There are NO strong CD claims, just WEAK, WEAKER and PATHETIC.
But, hey, in the sense of FAIRNESS Lon, why not list your 3 STRONGEST CD claims and we'll see how well they hold up to scrutiny.
As far as LIES, go ahead, post a single LIE that I have made, keeping in mind that differences of OPINION are not lies.
As far as name calling, I call em as I see em.
Can't help it if most of you CTers act like complete MORONS, posting BS about spires being "powderized", pure fusion micro nukes, shoulder fired missiles in helicopters, Faster than free fall collapses, Pyroclastic flows, rivers of melted steel, tons of thermite etc etc etc
Arthur
Actually I have never said that since NIST says it, it must be true. What I have said repeatedly is the CT'ers have not demonstrated that what NIST has said in their report is FALSE.
Big Difference.
As far as presenting the weakest CD claims as if they are on par with the strongest, well that's not only splitting hairs but wishful thinking right there.
There are NO strong CD claims, just WEAK, WEAKER and PATHETIC.
But, hey, in the sense of FAIRNESS Lon, why not list your 3 STRONGEST CD claims and we'll see how well they hold up to scrutiny.
As far as LIES, go ahead, post a single LIE that I have made, keeping in mind that differences of OPINION are not lies.
As far as name calling, I call em as I see em.
Can't help it if most of you CTers act like complete MORONS, posting BS about spires being "powderized", pure fusion micro nukes, shoulder fired missiles in helicopters, Faster than free fall collapses, Pyroclastic flows, rivers of melted steel, tons of thermite etc etc etc
Arthur
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Feb 17 2006, 10:33 PM)
....
.......
I found the eyewitness video instructive on this point at least. Toward the end of the north tower collapse the spire and its telescoping collapse can be clearly seen. However, just prior to the collapse of the spire is a demonstration of how it should have come down by any conventional theory. To the left (on the video) are a few long vertical columns that fall over sideways. The spire collapse is one of those endearing mysteries that is still unexplained by any theory of the tower collapse.....
......
Hi LonWaters!
Just dropping in again to catch up. Nothing much new regarding the physics arguments as far as I can gather. I did notice the above bit in your post re the 'spire'. I too saw the video showing the 'stripped' steel-framework 'column' oscillating back and forth for a bit before toppling over with some MOMENTUM due to its 'oscillations'. The interesting part is that on one END of its oscillating it topples quickly TOWARDS that 'spire'. And ONLY when it seems that the toppling columns' down-swinging end must have REACHED and HIT somewhere BELOW that 'spire', does that 'spire' ITSELF get 'taken down'. So if the top of the toppling column is ALREADY SWINGING DOWN with force and speed by the time it IMPACTS somewhere into the structure that was keeping that 'spire' up, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the 'LEGS' were literally 'knocked out from under' that 'spire'? And also that whatever was holding that 'spire' up would NOW be caused to 'pull' it DOWN QUICKLY because its supporting members are being THEMSELVES FORCED DOWN by the weight/momentum/impact of the column that toppled into them? And as I said in an earlier post, the speed of down movement of the 'spire' would be VERY FAST, just as the tip of a whip can be made to move supersonically fast by a relatively much smaller movement of the handle it's attached to. So is it so difficult to accept that the 'spire's bottom/support structure was whipped aside/down by the toppling column (which was moving fast by the time it reached that support structure)?......and so 'whipping' the 'spire' TIP VERY FAST from view into the dust cloud?
Knowing this is plausible according to standard physics/mechanics, METAMARS question as to why the 'tip' is not distinguishable as it gets 'whipped down' becomes moot when one considers that IF the VIDEO CAMERA was NOT a FAST FILMING type with 'superfast' shutter speeds, then a very fast moving 'tip' would appear to be there in one exposure frame and THEN NOT THERE THE NEXT EXPOSURE FRAME. Simply because by the time the next image is taken, the 'tip' had ACTUALLY moved out of shot! This could explain metamars' perplexity. Just like, if one takes a video of a racing car with a slow-shutter camera, that car will be a blur or, if the camera is 'fixed', will have sped quickly out of shot by the time the next frame is 'exposed'. And REMEMBER, the camera shooting the 'spire' was 'fixed' on the original spire-position, and at a long distance.
So what do you think, Lon Waters? I'll swing by again in a few days. Cheers!
RC.
.
.......
I found the eyewitness video instructive on this point at least. Toward the end of the north tower collapse the spire and its telescoping collapse can be clearly seen. However, just prior to the collapse of the spire is a demonstration of how it should have come down by any conventional theory. To the left (on the video) are a few long vertical columns that fall over sideways. The spire collapse is one of those endearing mysteries that is still unexplained by any theory of the tower collapse.....
......
Hi LonWaters!
Just dropping in again to catch up. Nothing much new regarding the physics arguments as far as I can gather. I did notice the above bit in your post re the 'spire'. I too saw the video showing the 'stripped' steel-framework 'column' oscillating back and forth for a bit before toppling over with some MOMENTUM due to its 'oscillations'. The interesting part is that on one END of its oscillating it topples quickly TOWARDS that 'spire'. And ONLY when it seems that the toppling columns' down-swinging end must have REACHED and HIT somewhere BELOW that 'spire', does that 'spire' ITSELF get 'taken down'. So if the top of the toppling column is ALREADY SWINGING DOWN with force and speed by the time it IMPACTS somewhere into the structure that was keeping that 'spire' up, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the 'LEGS' were literally 'knocked out from under' that 'spire'? And also that whatever was holding that 'spire' up would NOW be caused to 'pull' it DOWN QUICKLY because its supporting members are being THEMSELVES FORCED DOWN by the weight/momentum/impact of the column that toppled into them? And as I said in an earlier post, the speed of down movement of the 'spire' would be VERY FAST, just as the tip of a whip can be made to move supersonically fast by a relatively much smaller movement of the handle it's attached to. So is it so difficult to accept that the 'spire's bottom/support structure was whipped aside/down by the toppling column (which was moving fast by the time it reached that support structure)?......and so 'whipping' the 'spire' TIP VERY FAST from view into the dust cloud?
Knowing this is plausible according to standard physics/mechanics, METAMARS question as to why the 'tip' is not distinguishable as it gets 'whipped down' becomes moot when one considers that IF the VIDEO CAMERA was NOT a FAST FILMING type with 'superfast' shutter speeds, then a very fast moving 'tip' would appear to be there in one exposure frame and THEN NOT THERE THE NEXT EXPOSURE FRAME. Simply because by the time the next image is taken, the 'tip' had ACTUALLY moved out of shot! This could explain metamars' perplexity. Just like, if one takes a video of a racing car with a slow-shutter camera, that car will be a blur or, if the camera is 'fixed', will have sped quickly out of shot by the time the next frame is 'exposed'. And REMEMBER, the camera shooting the 'spire' was 'fixed' on the original spire-position, and at a long distance.
So what do you think, Lon Waters? I'll swing by again in a few days. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE
Among Jones's tenets -- fueled by research from engineers, scientists and government reports -- is that the Osama bin Laden "smoking gun" confession tape is a fake and that slag from the WTC7 building will prove it was felled by thermite, an 'explosive' {wrong word - actually an incendiary} combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide.... Jones said he will soon receive a sample of the slag, and he believes analysis of the sample using an electron microscope will prove his thermite theory.
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Ahhhh yes... remember that...( in the legends of arthur)... NO SLAG was found... (selectively denying that a photo of alleged 'slag' was already produced in this thread, which he totally ignored)...
Of course (like two monkeys rolled into one), when he has his hands simultaneously over his eyes and his ears... it's easy enough to bypass such inconvenient evidence).
Unlike the third monkey (unfortunately)...he does NOT have his hands over his mouth (as evidenced by his continual proclamations of fantasy).
We all know where you have hidden your tin-hat, arthur...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 01:36 AM)
QUOTE
Among Jones's tenets -- fueled by research from engineers, scientists and government reports -- is that the Osama bin Laden "smoking gun" confession tape is a fake and that [b]slag from the WTC7 building will prove it was felled by thermite, an 'explosive' {wrong word - actually an incendiary} combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide.... Jones said he will soon receive a sample of the slag, and he believes analysis of the sample using an electron microscope will prove his thermite theory[.
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Engineers yeah electrical engineers!!! And since when are engineers (of any sort) and scientists (other then forensic video analysts) qualified to authenticate of falsify a video?
QUOTE
Yosemite Sam looms again
As far as LIES, go ahead, post a single LIE that I have made, keeping in mind that differences of OPINION are not lies.
As far as name calling, I call em as I see em.
Can't help it if most of you CTers act like complete MORONS, posting BS about spires being "powderized", pure fusion micro nukes, shoulder fired missiles in helicopters, Faster than free fall collapses, Pyroclastic flows, rivers of melted steel, tons of thermite etc etc etc
Arthur
As far as LIES, go ahead, post a single LIE that I have made, keeping in mind that differences of OPINION are not lies.
As far as name calling, I call em as I see em.
Can't help it if most of you CTers act like complete MORONS, posting BS about spires being "powderized", pure fusion micro nukes, shoulder fired missiles in helicopters, Faster than free fall collapses, Pyroclastic flows, rivers of melted steel, tons of thermite etc etc etc
Arthur
Methinks, you are losing it arthur.
quote:"differences of opinion are not lies"...
yet (like Schneibster) you claim that everything I post is a "lie" - my posts that you object to can't be just a 'difference of opinion', can they?
They are 'outright LIES' !!!
Like schneibster, you have begun posting so frantically that you don't stop to think about what you are actually saying. You are following the path of degeneration into the 'Schneibster Madness'. Soon you will be posting death threats, and upcoming lawsuits to 'teach me a lesson'.
Silly Goose! Gather your wits about you before spouting off like Yosemite Sam. You are quickly becoming as big a joke as Schneibster.
Take a holiday, and compose yourself, before you get shipped off to duty in Alaska (like Schneibster).
'MORON' is such a subjective word.
As for me I always get pictures of Yosemite Sam when I think 'MORON', and you are fast becoming Yosemite Sam wearing a tin-hat in my estimation.
Now... how about going back to the 'evidence' previously posted in this thread regarding the 'rivers of molten metal', and try to refute those witness claims.
If you recall correctly, there was NOT just one or two 'Loonies' who made these claims.
You wish to just wash those claims away with the wave of the hand, but sorry... I (for one) are immune to your 'Jedi tricks'... hahahahaha
QUOTE (brian+Feb 17 2006, 08:06 PM)
6. Letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle. (November 11, 2004) Ryan, an executive at Underwriters Laboratories ("UL"), wrote to Frank Gayle, the head of the NIST team investigating the World Trade Center collapses -- which is due to issue a draft of its final report in January. UL certified the steel used in building the World Trade Center, and has since tested steel recovered from the Ground Zero site, and also created a model of part of the towers to test the effects of fire on the steel arrays at the WTC. Ryan's letter raises the possibility that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not caused solely by the fuel fires weakening the metal structure. Ryan is not the first scientist to raise common-sense objections to this widespread account, which apparently also has its supporters at NIST. Although Ryan wrote on his own behalf -- his letter is not a company statement -- he does suggest incipient conflicts between UL and NIST with regard to the cause of the collapses. We respectfully call upon the Attorney General to seek advice from UL as well as other independent scientific organizations to resolve whether a steel-beam building can collapse from the relatively foreseeable scenario of a fire fueled by hydrocarbon fuels (including the type that were, apparently, stored in Building 7). If such an independent investigation resolves the issue in favor of the common account attributing the collapses to the effects of fires, the AG should investigate whether other skyscrapers in New York are vulnerable to collapse from fire; and how many others are storing materials that, if exposed to fire, will cause steel beams and structures to fails. (See, Appendix B6)
This little bit of bull$hit is indicative of the intellectual dishonesty of 9/11 CTists. Yeah if the truth isn't on your side bend it till it does.
1) Ryan was head of a UL water testing facility, funny how the CTs ALWAYS seem to omit that. Thus him working for the same company that certefied the WTC's steel is obviously totally irrelevant. He would have standing if he had any metallurgy experience with another company. Saying he worked for UL and not pointing out his work had nothing to do with material certification or metals is intentionally misleading.
2) Saying in his letter he "suggests incipient conflicts between UL and NIST" is more BS - misleading at the least because the author fails to mention he got canned because UL totally repudiated his views.
3) The author claims Ryan's analysis "apparently also has its supporters at NIST" sure and I'm Santa Claus. Any evidence to support this claim?
4) Ryan is referred to as a "scientist" but IIRC he was an administrator not a scientist (though I'm not too sure about this.
5) Saying the AG should consult UL is stupid. UL made their position clear when they fired Ryan. No need to consult "other independent scientific organizations " every scientist with relevent expertise agrees with NIST
Another example of CT's being misleading is their report of Silversteins infamous "pull it" comment. Funny how they almost always forget to mention he was talking to the fire chief and edit the quote as much as possible to furthur remove it from it's context.
This little bit of bull$hit is indicative of the intellectual dishonesty of 9/11 CTists. Yeah if the truth isn't on your side bend it till it does.
1) Ryan was head of a UL water testing facility, funny how the CTs ALWAYS seem to omit that. Thus him working for the same company that certefied the WTC's steel is obviously totally irrelevant. He would have standing if he had any metallurgy experience with another company. Saying he worked for UL and not pointing out his work had nothing to do with material certification or metals is intentionally misleading.
2) Saying in his letter he "suggests incipient conflicts between UL and NIST" is more BS - misleading at the least because the author fails to mention he got canned because UL totally repudiated his views.
3) The author claims Ryan's analysis "apparently also has its supporters at NIST" sure and I'm Santa Claus. Any evidence to support this claim?
4) Ryan is referred to as a "scientist" but IIRC he was an administrator not a scientist (though I'm not too sure about this.
5) Saying the AG should consult UL is stupid. UL made their position clear when they fired Ryan. No need to consult "other independent scientific organizations " every scientist with relevent expertise agrees with NIST
Another example of CT's being misleading is their report of Silversteins infamous "pull it" comment. Funny how they almost always forget to mention he was talking to the fire chief and edit the quote as much as possible to furthur remove it from it's context.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 01:36 AM)
QUOTE
Among Jones's tenets -- fueled by research from engineers, scientists and government reports -- is that the Osama bin Laden "smoking gun" confession tape is a fake and that slag from the WTC7 building will prove it was felled by thermite, an 'explosive' {wrong word - actually an incendiary} combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide.... Jones said he will soon receive a sample of the slag, and he believes analysis of the sample using an electron microscope will prove his thermite theory.
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Ahhhh yes... remember that...( in the legends of arthur)... NO SLAG was found... (selectively denying that a photo of alleged 'slag' was already produced in this thread, which he totally ignored)...
Of course (like two monkeys rolled into one), when he has his hands simultaneously over his eyes and his ears... it's easy enough to bypass such inconvenient evidence).
Unlike the third monkey (unfortunately)...he does NOT have his hands over his mouth (as evidenced by his continual proclamations of fantasy).
We all know where you have hidden your tin-hat, arthur...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
I thought someone pointed out already that this was just some floor sheet/rod steel bits plus concrete slab materials sandwiched[i/] together during the 'pancaking' of the floors; and then further burned and fused together by the rubble fires; and any showing metal then rusted by the salt water put on the fires.
Doesn't look like any Thermite 'slag' I've ever seen in my life.
Did Jones ever 'prove' his thermite theory from his expected 'alleged slag' [i]samples, from both the Twin-Tower piles? Thanks.
WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/s...r2002/k911.html
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...-11_commission/
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DA80994D9404482
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QK...glance&n=283155
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/...002-NewYork.pdf
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...112/ai_n9015802
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87...LDER+FOR+MONTHS
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html
and again on September 21, 2001,
http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Posted : Tuesday, December 06, 2005
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
Of course, what we expect to see from the gov't CT'ers is a simple wave of the hand that ALL of the above is just BS from 'conspiracy theorists' and has absolutely NO bearing on reality. If we are are lucky, they may cherry-pick a statement here or there and address it with sophistry and semantics...
but, don't hold your breath for any point-by-point refutation of ALL the above. It's much easier to follow the lead of the 'Legendarians' and either ignore the above evidence... or to (once again) pope-ishly proclaim... "there IS NO Evidence".
Alternatively, we might be entertained with another rendition of the 'Amazing Underground Bellows Theory'.
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/s...r2002/k911.html
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...-11_commission/
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DA80994D9404482
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QK...glance&n=283155
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/...002-NewYork.pdf
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...112/ai_n9015802
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87...LDER+FOR+MONTHS
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html
and again on September 21, 2001,
http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Posted : Tuesday, December 06, 2005
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
Of course, what we expect to see from the gov't CT'ers is a simple wave of the hand that ALL of the above is just BS from 'conspiracy theorists' and has absolutely NO bearing on reality. If we are are lucky, they may cherry-pick a statement here or there and address it with sophistry and semantics...
but, don't hold your breath for any point-by-point refutation of ALL the above. It's much easier to follow the lead of the 'Legendarians' and either ignore the above evidence... or to (once again) pope-ishly proclaim... "there IS NO Evidence".
Alternatively, we might be entertained with another rendition of the 'Amazing Underground Bellows Theory'.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Feb 18 2006, 02:18 AM)
QUOTE (brian+Feb 17 2006, 08:06 PM)
6. Letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle. (November 11, 2004) Ryan, an executive at Underwriters Laboratories ("UL"), wrote to Frank Gayle, the head of the NIST team investigating the World Trade Center collapses -- which is due to issue a draft of its final report in January. UL certified the steel used in building the World Trade Center, and has since tested steel recovered from the Ground Zero site, and also created a model of part of the towers to test the effects of fire on the steel arrays at the WTC. Ryan's letter raises the possibility that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not caused solely by the fuel fires weakening the metal structure. Ryan is not the first scientist to raise common-sense objections to this widespread account, which apparently also has its supporters at NIST. Although Ryan wrote on his own behalf -- his letter is not a company statement -- he does suggest incipient conflicts between UL and NIST with regard to the cause of the collapses. We respectfully call upon the Attorney General to seek advice from UL as well as other independent scientific organizations to resolve whether a steel-beam building can collapse from the relatively foreseeable scenario of a fire fueled by hydrocarbon fuels (including the type that were, apparently, stored in Building 7). If such an independent investigation resolves the issue in favor of the common account attributing the collapses to the effects of fires, the AG should investigate whether other skyscrapers in New York are vulnerable to collapse from fire; and how many others are storing materials that, if exposed to fire, will cause steel beams and structures to fails. (See, Appendix B6)
This little bit of bull$hit is indicative of the intellectual dishonesty of 9/11 CTists. Yeah if the truth isn't on your side bend it till it does.
1) Ryan was head of a UL water testing facility, funny how the CTs ALWAYS seem to omit that. Thus him working for the same company that certefied the WTC's steel is obviously totally irrelevant. He would have standing if he had any metallurgy experience with another company. Saying he worked for UL and not pointing out his work had nothing to do with material certification or metals is intentionally misleading.
2) Saying in his letter he "suggests incipient conflicts between UL and NIST" is more BS - misleading at the least because the author fails to mention he got canned because UL totally repudiated his views.
3) The author claims Ryan's analysis "apparently also has its supporters at NIST" sure and I'm Santa Claus. Any evidence to support this claim?
4) Ryan is referred to as a "scientist" but IIRC he was an administrator not a scientist (though I'm not too sure about this.
5) Saying the AG should consult UL is stupid. UL made their position clear when they fired Ryan. No need to consult "other independent scientific organizations " every scientist with relevent expertise agrees with NIST
Another example of CT's being misleading is their report of Silversteins infamous "pull it" comment. Funny how they almost always forget to mention he was talking to the fire chief and edit the quote as much as possible to furthur remove it from it's context.
Lenbrazil is SOOOO Far behind in this discussion. that he thinks he is 'leading' with this already-refuted straw-man nonsense.
Because of Ryan's letter, (and the ensuing publicity)... the NIST report was delayed for months, and when the 'updated' DRAFT version was produced for 'public discussion', it confirmed exactly the issues that Ryan brought up... (pretending that they had 'discovered' this on their own).
Either catch up, or go back to the moon, Lenny boy.
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Ahhhh yes... remember that...( in the legends of arthur)... NO SLAG was found... (selectively denying that a photo of alleged 'slag' was already produced in this thread, which he totally ignored)...
Of course (like two monkeys rolled into one), when he has his hands simultaneously over his eyes and his ears... it's easy enough to bypass such inconvenient evidence).
Unlike the third monkey (unfortunately)...he does NOT have his hands over his mouth (as evidenced by his continual proclamations of fantasy).
We all know where you have hidden your tin-hat, arthur...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
I thought someone pointed out already that this was just some floor sheet/rod steel bits plus concrete slab materials sandwiched[i/] together during the 'pancaking' of the floors; and then further burned and fused together by the rubble fires; and any showing metal then rusted by the salt water put on the fires.
Doesn't look like any Thermite 'slag' I've ever seen in my life.
Did Jones ever 'prove' his thermite theory from his expected 'alleged slag' [i]samples, from both the Twin-Tower piles? Thanks.
Yeah,
That was me,
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=5130&#
So contrary to Foxx, I didn't IGNORE his supposed picture of "slag".
Because it ISN'T a picture of SLAG.
Slag doesn't have pieces of REBAR sticking out of it.
Foxx will now post just about anything in his desperation.
Arthur
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Ahhhh yes... remember that...( in the legends of arthur)... NO SLAG was found... (selectively denying that a photo of alleged 'slag' was already produced in this thread, which he totally ignored)...
Of course (like two monkeys rolled into one), when he has his hands simultaneously over his eyes and his ears... it's easy enough to bypass such inconvenient evidence).
Unlike the third monkey (unfortunately)...he does NOT have his hands over his mouth (as evidenced by his continual proclamations of fantasy).
We all know where you have hidden your tin-hat, arthur...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
I thought someone pointed out already that this was just some floor sheet/rod steel bits plus concrete slab materials sandwiched[i/] together during the 'pancaking' of the floors; and then further burned and fused together by the rubble fires; and any showing metal then rusted by the salt water put on the fires.
Doesn't look like any Thermite 'slag' I've ever seen in my life.
Did Jones ever 'prove' his thermite theory from his expected 'alleged slag' [i]samples, from both the Twin-Tower piles? Thanks.
Yeah,
That was me,
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=5130?
So contrary to Foxx, I didn't IGNORE his supposed picture of "slag".
Because it ISN'T a picture of SLAG.
Slag doesn't have pieces of REBAR sticking out of it.
Foxx will now post just about anything in his desperation.
Arthur
Oh, yes. Sorry sir, but I couldn't remember who or where that had been pointed out. Thanks.
This little bit of bull$hit is indicative of the intellectual dishonesty of 9/11 CTists. Yeah if the truth isn't on your side bend it till it does.
1) Ryan was head of a UL water testing facility, funny how the CTs ALWAYS seem to omit that. Thus him working for the same company that certefied the WTC's steel is obviously totally irrelevant. He would have standing if he had any metallurgy experience with another company. Saying he worked for UL and not pointing out his work had nothing to do with material certification or metals is intentionally misleading.
2) Saying in his letter he "suggests incipient conflicts between UL and NIST" is more BS - misleading at the least because the author fails to mention he got canned because UL totally repudiated his views.
3) The author claims Ryan's analysis "apparently also has its supporters at NIST" sure and I'm Santa Claus. Any evidence to support this claim?
4) Ryan is referred to as a "scientist" but IIRC he was an administrator not a scientist (though I'm not too sure about this.
5) Saying the AG should consult UL is stupid. UL made their position clear when they fired Ryan. No need to consult "other independent scientific organizations " every scientist with relevent expertise agrees with NIST
Another example of CT's being misleading is their report of Silversteins infamous "pull it" comment. Funny how they almost always forget to mention he was talking to the fire chief and edit the quote as much as possible to furthur remove it from it's context.
Lenbrazil is SOOOO Far behind in this discussion. that he thinks he is 'leading' with this already-refuted straw-man nonsense.
Because of Ryan's letter, (and the ensuing publicity)... the NIST report was delayed for months, and when the 'updated' DRAFT version was produced for 'public discussion', it confirmed exactly the issues that Ryan brought up... (pretending that they had 'discovered' this on their own).
Either catch up, or go back to the moon, Lenny boy.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 03:10 AM)
WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/s...r2002/k911.html
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...-11_commission/
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DA80994D9404482
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QK...glance&n=283155
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/...002-NewYork.pdf
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...112/ai_n9015802
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87...LDER+FOR+MONTHS
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html
and again on September 21, 2001,
http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Posted : Tuesday, December 06, 2005
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
Of course, what we expect to see from the gov't CT'ers is a simple wave of the hand that ALL of the above is just BS from 'conspiracy theorists' and has absolutely NO bearing on reality. If we are are lucky, they may cherry-pick a statement here or there and address it with sophistry and semantics...
but, don't hold your breath for any point-by-point refutation of ALL the above. It's much easier to follow the lead of the 'Legendarians' and either ignore the above evidence... or to (once again) pope-ishly proclaim... "there IS NO Evidence".
Alternatively, we might be entertained with another rendition of the 'Amazing Underground Bellows Theory'.
Again, didn't someone point out that if the ruins were still settling after many weeks, then there would have been [b]even more[b] spaces in the pile from the outset, through which plenty of air could have fed the fires in the rubble?
Also, the above reports all seem to hinge on a melodramatic pronouncement by that person on the still settling pile. I mean, if they were standing on the pile and not under it, how could they have 'seen' those molten rivers of steel? And if the molten rivers of steel were visible at any stage, why were there no pictures of these things? It seems like another 'urban legend' that took off from someone using poetic or literary licence to make dramatic and flowery speeches rather than scientific reports.
Do you have any comment to make regarding my last post about the alleged 'slag' photo you posted? Thanks.
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/s...r2002/k911.html
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...-11_commission/
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DA80994D9404482
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QK...glance&n=283155
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/...002-NewYork.pdf
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...112/ai_n9015802
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87...LDER+FOR+MONTHS
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html
and again on September 21, 2001,
http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Posted : Tuesday, December 06, 2005
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
Of course, what we expect to see from the gov't CT'ers is a simple wave of the hand that ALL of the above is just BS from 'conspiracy theorists' and has absolutely NO bearing on reality. If we are are lucky, they may cherry-pick a statement here or there and address it with sophistry and semantics...
but, don't hold your breath for any point-by-point refutation of ALL the above. It's much easier to follow the lead of the 'Legendarians' and either ignore the above evidence... or to (once again) pope-ishly proclaim... "there IS NO Evidence".
Alternatively, we might be entertained with another rendition of the 'Amazing Underground Bellows Theory'.
Again, didn't someone point out that if the ruins were still settling after many weeks, then there would have been [b]even more[b] spaces in the pile from the outset, through which plenty of air could have fed the fires in the rubble?
Also, the above reports all seem to hinge on a melodramatic pronouncement by that person on the still settling pile. I mean, if they were standing on the pile and not under it, how could they have 'seen' those molten rivers of steel? And if the molten rivers of steel were visible at any stage, why were there no pictures of these things? It seems like another 'urban legend' that took off from someone using poetic or literary licence to make dramatic and flowery speeches rather than scientific reports.
Do you have any comment to make regarding my last post about the alleged 'slag' photo you posted? Thanks.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 17 2006, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 01:36 AM)
QUOTE
Among Jones's tenets -- fueled by research from engineers, scientists and government reports -- is that the Osama bin Laden "smoking gun" confession tape is a fake and that slag from the WTC7 building will prove it was felled by thermite, an 'explosive' {wrong word - actually an incendiary} combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide.... Jones said he will soon receive a sample of the slag, and he believes analysis of the sample using an electron microscope will prove his thermite theory.
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Ahhhh yes... remember that...( in the legends of arthur)... NO SLAG was found... (selectively denying that a photo of alleged 'slag' was already produced in this thread, which he totally ignored)...
Of course (like two monkeys rolled into one), when he has his hands simultaneously over his eyes and his ears... it's easy enough to bypass such inconvenient evidence).
Unlike the third monkey (unfortunately)...he does NOT have his hands over his mouth (as evidenced by his continual proclamations of fantasy).
We all know where you have hidden your tin-hat, arthur...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
I thought someone pointed out already that this was just some floor sheet/rod steel bits plus concrete slab materials sandwiched[i/] together during the 'pancaking' of the floors; and then further burned and fused together by the rubble fires; and any showing metal then rusted by the salt water put on the fires.
Doesn't look like any Thermite 'slag' I've ever seen in my life.
Did Jones ever 'prove' his thermite theory from his expected 'alleged slag' [i]samples, from both the Twin-Tower piles? Thanks.
Yeah,
That was me,
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=5130&#
So contrary to Foxx, I didn't IGNORE his supposed picture of "slag".
Because it ISN'T a picture of SLAG.
Slag doesn't have pieces of REBAR sticking out of it.
Foxx will now post just about anything in his desperation.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 18 2006, 03:32 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 17 2006, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 01:36 AM)
QUOTE
Among Jones's tenets -- fueled by research from engineers, scientists and government reports -- is that the Osama bin Laden "smoking gun" confession tape is a fake and that slag from the WTC7 building will prove it was felled by thermite, an 'explosive' {wrong word - actually an incendiary} combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide.... Jones said he will soon receive a sample of the slag, and he believes analysis of the sample using an electron microscope will prove his thermite theory.
Daily Herald - Feb 17, 2006
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/166195/4/
Ahhhh yes... remember that...( in the legends of arthur)... NO SLAG was found... (selectively denying that a photo of alleged 'slag' was already produced in this thread, which he totally ignored)...
Of course (like two monkeys rolled into one), when he has his hands simultaneously over his eyes and his ears... it's easy enough to bypass such inconvenient evidence).
Unlike the third monkey (unfortunately)...he does NOT have his hands over his mouth (as evidenced by his continual proclamations of fantasy).
We all know where you have hidden your tin-hat, arthur...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
I thought someone pointed out already that this was just some floor sheet/rod steel bits plus concrete slab materials sandwiched[i/] together during the 'pancaking' of the floors; and then further burned and fused together by the rubble fires; and any showing metal then rusted by the salt water put on the fires.
Doesn't look like any Thermite 'slag' I've ever seen in my life.
Did Jones ever 'prove' his thermite theory from his expected 'alleged slag' [i]samples, from both the Twin-Tower piles? Thanks.
Yeah,
That was me,
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=5130?
So contrary to Foxx, I didn't IGNORE his supposed picture of "slag".
Because it ISN'T a picture of SLAG.
Slag doesn't have pieces of REBAR sticking out of it.
Foxx will now post just about anything in his desperation.
Arthur
Oh, yes. Sorry sir, but I couldn't remember who or where that had been pointed out. Thanks.
Oh great... now arthur has taken up the Schneiby psyopts of talking to himself through 'Guest posts'...
The end is near, arthur.
When you are prepared to post evidence (apart from speculation and innuendo, let me know).
I suppose you can not back-up that statement with any photos of thermite slag you have seen in your life. Care to tell us where you have seen this thermite slag before?
--------------------
In 'other' 9/11 news from Russia...
------------------
Pilot wrongly jailed in Britain over 9/11 attacks can seek compensation, court rules
News From Russia - Feb 17, 2006
From Pravda.Ru...
I suppose you can not back-up that statement with any photos of thermite slag you have seen in your life. Care to tell us where you have seen this thermite slag before?
--------------------
In 'other' 9/11 news from Russia...
------------------
Pilot wrongly jailed in Britain over 9/11 attacks can seek compensation, court rules
News From Russia - Feb 17, 2006
From Pravda.Ru...
An Algerian-born pilot wrongly jailed in Britain on accusations that he trained the Sept. 11 hijackers won the right Friday to challenge for compensation.
An appeal hearing at London's High Court granted Raissi the right to challenge a government decision that he was not eligible for compensation.
Lotfi Raissi, 32, was arrested near London's Heathrow Airport shortly after the 2001 attacks, having been indicted by a federal grand jury in Arizona.
United States prosecutors described him as a prime suspect in the 9/11 case, claiming he offered pilot training to the hijackers.
But a British judge refused to extradite Raissi to face trial and released him from custody, claiming there was no evidence to link him with terrorism.
The former commercial pilot was told last year by Britain's Home Office interior ministry he was not eligible for compensation for his 4˝ month detention, as he waited for the decision on a U.S. request to extradite him.
"My life has been destroyed. I chose to become an airline pilot, I worked hard for it and I starved for it," Raissi said outside court, following the hearing.
"But the reality is that because of my profile of being Algerian, Muslim, Arabic and an airline pilot, I suffered this miscarriage of justice."
He said he hoped British Home Secretary would take the court's decision "very seriously and think again."
Raissi was arrested on Sept. 23 2001 and held until February 2002, when he was released on bail pending the outcome of the extradition hearing in April that year.
Appeal judge Duncan Ouseley ruled that a compensation scheme for those wrongfully held in British custody should apply to extradition cases and said Raissi was entitled to a full hearing, reports AP.
Again, didn't someone point out that if the ruins were still settling after many weeks, then there would have been even more spaces in the pile from the outset, through which plenty of air could have fed the fires in the rubble?
Also, the above reports all seem to hinge on a melodramatic pronouncement by that person on the still settling pile. I mean, if they were standing on the pile and not under it, how could they have 'seen' those molten rivers of steel? And if the molten rivers of steel were visible at any stage, why were there no pictures of these things? It seems like another 'urban legend' that took off from someone using poetic or literary licence to make dramatic and flowery speeches rather than scientific reports.
Do you have any comment to make regarding my last post about the alleged 'slag' photo you posted? Thanks.
The real question is considering the hundreds and hundreds of pictures taken at ground zero, why are NO pictures of these flowing streams of metal to be found?
Clearly the photogs had free run of the place and having looked at all the photos that FEMA has published along with all the ones posted in these 300+ pages + all the links to all the various sites, guess what, NOT ONE PICTURE OF MELTED METAL.
But then Foxx posts this:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
Which comes from this:
“The [NYFD] people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. She wore a respirator to filter out the smoke, dust, and fumes, but Anna worked without a mask to sniff out places where the broken dead lay. Anna is a live-find dog, but she developed a “truly intent stare” that Atlas came to recognize as her response to catching the scent of a corpse. Mostly they found parts.
Now note the part
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.
is NOT an actual quote, its the editorializing of the writer, and the writer isn't even identified.
Now take most of the other quotes. Most deal with MOLTEN metal. And as we have found out, MOLTEN, doesn't mean MELTED. Turns out MOLTEN is often used in a LITERARY sense to just mean damn hot.
Now the other interesting things is that a number of reports aren't of melted STEEL but simply of molten or melted METAL. Now this is quite a bit more believable, simply because there was quite a bit of metal that one would expect to melt. Which brings one to the point, if one SEES melted metal, how does one KNOW what type of metal it is? I mean if you see a "river of metal flowing" how would one KNOW that is a river of STEEL???
Most curious, but not at all convincing that there were "rivers of steel" under the WTC tower, weeks after the collapse.
Arthur
Because of Ryan's letter, (and the ensuing publicity)... the NIST report was delayed for months, and when the 'updated' DRAFT version was produced for 'public discussion', it confirmed exactly the issues that Ryan brought up... (pretending that they had 'discovered' this on their own).
Foxx,
Are you claiming that at some point NIST believed the FUEL FIRE ALONE caused the failure that led to the WTC tower collapse?????
If so, provide proof.
If not, what are you talking about?
Arthur
Again, didn't someone point out that if the ruins were still settling after many weeks, then there would have been even more[b] spaces in the pile from the outset, through which plenty of air could have fed the fires in the rubble?
Also, the above reports all seem to hinge on a melodramatic pronouncement by that person on the still settling pile. I mean, if they were standing on the pile and not under it, how could they have 'seen' those molten rivers of steel? And if the molten rivers of steel were visible at any stage, why were there no pictures of these things? It seems like another 'urban legend' that took off from someone using poetic or literary licence to make dramatic and flowery speeches rather than scientific reports.
Do you have any comment to make regarding my last post about the alleged 'slag' photo you posted? Thanks.
The real question is considering the hundreds and hundreds of pictures taken at ground zero, why are NO pictures of these flowing streams of metal to be found?
Clearly the photogs had free run of the place and having looked at all the photos that FEMA has published along with all the ones posted in these 300+ pages + all the links to all the various sites, guess what, NOT ONE PICTURE OF MELTED METAL.
But then Foxx posts this:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed[b] "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
Which comes from this:
“The [NYFD] people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. She wore a respirator to filter out the smoke, dust, and fumes, but Anna worked without a mask to sniff out places where the broken dead lay. Anna is a live-find dog, but she developed a “truly intent stare” that Atlas came to recognize as her response to catching the scent of a corpse. Mostly they found parts.
Now note the part
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.
is NOT an actual quote, its the editorializing of the writer, and the writer isn't even identified.
Now take most of the other quotes. Most deal with MOLTEN metal. And as we have found out, MOLTEN, doesn't mean MELTED. Turns out MOLTEN is often used in a LITERARY sense to just mean damn hot.
Now the other interesting things is that a number of reports aren't of melted STEEL but simply of molten or melted METAL. Now this is quite a bit more believable, simply because there was quite a bit of metal that one would expect to melt. Which brings one to the point, if one SEES melted metal, how does one KNOW what type of metal it is? I mean if you see a "river of metal flowing" how would one KNOW that is a river of STEEL???
Most curious, but not at all convincing that there were "rivers of steel" under the WTC tower, weeks after the collapse.
Arthur
Again, thanks. Most enlightening. I still can't see where anyone could have spied 'rivers' of 'melted' any metal, since that 'melt' would have seeped downwards in the pile and no-one on TOP of that pile could have seen it in a melted state, especially after the pile was cooled and extinguished to be able to work on it at all safely. And if there had been cooled metal slag or melt at the bottom of the pile, then there would surely have been photographs of LOTS of it, as you rightly point out.
Does anyone have any comments on the point that the stil settling ruins would have allowed plenty of aeration of the pile fire from the earliest to the last stages?
By the way, sir, this Foxx personna seems to have me confused with yourself. Is there any reason for this that I don't know about? Have I accidently usurped your PhysOrg account/identity? Is this fellow OK? Or is this a running gag of some sort that I'm not yet privy to? If so, my apologies for intruding into your "in joke". Salute and thanks, sir.
This guy never quits with his lies, obfuscations, and bs.
We have been over this too many times to re-address this bull.
People were arrested for trying to take pictures of GZ. The pics we DO see have all been filtered through censors, (or were from those who had no up-close access).
Guiliani enforced a law that NO pictures were permitted.
Now, the 're-writer of history' comes along and tells us that... "THERE SHOULD BE PICTURES" !!!
Meanwhile, performing the same acrobatic dance as I predicted... cherry-picking quotes... instead of addressing the full evidence 'point-by-point'.
Need I say more?
Later... I don't need to spar with tin-hat idiots, 24-7. I have other things to do, and am not getting paid to sit and listen to lies.
Yeah nice touch with the 'sir' bs there, 'Schneiby-crew'.
I expected we would not see much more of you.
Very Coincidental how adoucette either has these 300+ pages memorized OR... instantly knew exactly which post you were referring to (without your mentioning of it).
You are NOT fooling many of us here... 'Homeland Security'.
You may be able to fool a few passers-by, but that's the best you'll do with your oxymoronic...
'military intelligence'.
Say 'Hi' to the PNAC crew back at the office.
Yeah nice touch with the 'sir' bs there, 'Schneiby-crew'.
I expected we would not see much more of you.
Very Coincidental how adoucette either has these 300+ pages memorized OR... instantly knew exactly which post you were referring to (without your mentioning of it).
You are NOT fooling many of us here... 'Homeland Security'.
You may be able to fool a few passers-by, but that's the best you'll do with your oxymoronic...
'military intelligence'.
Say 'Hi' to the PNAC crew back at the office.
Mr Foxx. I had not intended to make another post, but I couldn't resist looking one more time before I ended this excursion (into what on further inspection appears to be a cyber insane asylum for cyber 'clients'). Before you 'see' something 'sinister' in my posting again this one more time, note that I myself see nothing sinister in you changing your mind just now, and posting again after you had said 'later' because you didn't have time to sit and listen to lies. So please do not upset yourself further with your paranoid visions of me being some sort of nemesis of yours. I think there must surely be enough of those in real life if your behaviour towards a complete stranger is any indication of your preferred method for 'making friends and influencing people'. Goodbye, sir. Try not to let this paranoia of yours run away with you. Peace.
Gee, the point seems to have sailed right past your head whilst you had your eyes & ears covered...
GZ was NOT a 'public place'... it was a crime-scene... and the last I heard there were laws against taking un-authorized photos of a crime-scene (even by independant 'investigators')...
but, I guess you still wish to maintain your BS that we SHOULD HAVE UN-CENSORED PHOTOS of molten metal at GZ... and IF NOT... THAT (in itself) is 'evidence' that there wasn't any...
regardless of the massive amounts of witness testimony in support of the same...
regardless of the evidence from the USGS thermographs...
regardless of the testimony from Pyrocool (who boasts that the 'fires' could NOT be suppressed WITHOUT their product)...
regardless of the photos of 'yellow-hot' metal...
regardless of ALL 'evidence' - we should just 'forget' that it ever happened, and consider this a 'non-event'...
"Nothing to SEE here, folks... Just move along now... go on home... Jerry Springer is about to start".
The end is near, arthur.
When you are prepared to post evidence (apart from speculation and innuendo, let me know).
QUOTE
Doesn't look like any Thermite 'slag' I've ever seen in my life.
I suppose you can not back-up that statement with any photos of thermite slag you have seen in your life. Care to tell us where you have seen this thermite slag before?
--------------------
In 'other' 9/11 news from Russia...
------------------
Pilot wrongly jailed in Britain over 9/11 attacks can seek compensation, court rules
News From Russia - Feb 17, 2006
From Pravda.Ru...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Doesn't look like any Thermite 'slag' I've ever seen in my life. |
I suppose you can not back-up that statement with any photos of thermite slag you have seen in your life. Care to tell us where you have seen this thermite slag before?
--------------------
In 'other' 9/11 news from Russia...
------------------
Pilot wrongly jailed in Britain over 9/11 attacks can seek compensation, court rules
News From Russia - Feb 17, 2006
From Pravda.Ru...
An Algerian-born pilot wrongly jailed in Britain on accusations that he trained the Sept. 11 hijackers won the right Friday to challenge for compensation.
An appeal hearing at London's High Court granted Raissi the right to challenge a government decision that he was not eligible for compensation.
Lotfi Raissi, 32, was arrested near London's Heathrow Airport shortly after the 2001 attacks, having been indicted by a federal grand jury in Arizona.
United States prosecutors described him as a prime suspect in the 9/11 case, claiming he offered pilot training to the hijackers.
But a British judge refused to extradite Raissi to face trial and released him from custody, claiming there was no evidence to link him with terrorism.
The former commercial pilot was told last year by Britain's Home Office interior ministry he was not eligible for compensation for his 4˝ month detention, as he waited for the decision on a U.S. request to extradite him.
"My life has been destroyed. I chose to become an airline pilot, I worked hard for it and I starved for it," Raissi said outside court, following the hearing.
"But the reality is that because of my profile of being Algerian, Muslim, Arabic and an airline pilot, I suffered this miscarriage of justice."
He said he hoped British Home Secretary would take the court's decision "very seriously and think again."
Raissi was arrested on Sept. 23 2001 and held until February 2002, when he was released on bail pending the outcome of the extradition hearing in April that year.
Appeal judge Duncan Ouseley ruled that a compensation scheme for those wrongfully held in British custody should apply to extradition cases and said Raissi was entitled to a full hearing, reports AP.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 17 2006, 11:27 PM)
Again, didn't someone point out that if the ruins were still settling after many weeks, then there would have been even more spaces in the pile from the outset, through which plenty of air could have fed the fires in the rubble?
Also, the above reports all seem to hinge on a melodramatic pronouncement by that person on the still settling pile. I mean, if they were standing on the pile and not under it, how could they have 'seen' those molten rivers of steel? And if the molten rivers of steel were visible at any stage, why were there no pictures of these things? It seems like another 'urban legend' that took off from someone using poetic or literary licence to make dramatic and flowery speeches rather than scientific reports.
Do you have any comment to make regarding my last post about the alleged 'slag' photo you posted? Thanks.
The real question is considering the hundreds and hundreds of pictures taken at ground zero, why are NO pictures of these flowing streams of metal to be found?
Clearly the photogs had free run of the place and having looked at all the photos that FEMA has published along with all the ones posted in these 300+ pages + all the links to all the various sites, guess what, NOT ONE PICTURE OF MELTED METAL.
But then Foxx posts this:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
Which comes from this:
“The [NYFD] people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. She wore a respirator to filter out the smoke, dust, and fumes, but Anna worked without a mask to sniff out places where the broken dead lay. Anna is a live-find dog, but she developed a “truly intent stare” that Atlas came to recognize as her response to catching the scent of a corpse. Mostly they found parts.
Now note the part
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.
is NOT an actual quote, its the editorializing of the writer, and the writer isn't even identified.
Now take most of the other quotes. Most deal with MOLTEN metal. And as we have found out, MOLTEN, doesn't mean MELTED. Turns out MOLTEN is often used in a LITERARY sense to just mean damn hot.
Now the other interesting things is that a number of reports aren't of melted STEEL but simply of molten or melted METAL. Now this is quite a bit more believable, simply because there was quite a bit of metal that one would expect to melt. Which brings one to the point, if one SEES melted metal, how does one KNOW what type of metal it is? I mean if you see a "river of metal flowing" how would one KNOW that is a river of STEEL???
Most curious, but not at all convincing that there were "rivers of steel" under the WTC tower, weeks after the collapse.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 17 2006, 11:22 PM)
Because of Ryan's letter, (and the ensuing publicity)... the NIST report was delayed for months, and when the 'updated' DRAFT version was produced for 'public discussion', it confirmed exactly the issues that Ryan brought up... (pretending that they had 'discovered' this on their own).
Foxx,
QUOTE
Ryan's letter raises the possibility that the collapse of the Twin Towers was not caused solely by the fuel fires weakening the metal structure.
Are you claiming that at some point NIST believed the FUEL FIRE ALONE caused the failure that led to the WTC tower collapse?????
If so, provide proof.
If not, what are you talking about?
Arthur
Further to the above...
Spanish Prosecutor wants Sept 11 conviction quashed
Man the whole 9/11 'official' fairy tale is falling apart FAST.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....&archived=False
Spanish Prosecutor wants Sept 11 conviction quashed
Man the whole 9/11 'official' fairy tale is falling apart FAST.
QUOTE
MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's public prosecutor urged a court on Thursday to overturn an alleged al Qaeda leader's conviction for conspiring with the September 11 plotters, calling the evidence weak and unconvincing.
If the Supreme Court agrees with the prosecutor, it would mean that a high-profile trial of 24 alleged al Qaeda members in Spain last year had failed to convict anyone in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities....
In a legal filing published on Thursday, the public prosecutor at the Supreme Court agreed with Yarkas that the conviction for conspiracy should be overturned but said the conviction for leading a terrorist group should remain intact.
"The evidence considered by the court ... is weak and inconsistent ... and does not fulfil the level of requirement that it must reasonably and necessarily meet to persuade and convince," the prosecutor said of the conspiracy conviction.
If the Supreme Court agrees with the prosecutor, it would mean that a high-profile trial of 24 alleged al Qaeda members in Spain last year had failed to convict anyone in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities....
In a legal filing published on Thursday, the public prosecutor at the Supreme Court agreed with Yarkas that the conviction for conspiracy should be overturned but said the conviction for leading a terrorist group should remain intact.
"The evidence considered by the court ... is weak and inconsistent ... and does not fulfil the level of requirement that it must reasonably and necessarily meet to persuade and convince," the prosecutor said of the conspiracy conviction.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....&archived=False
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 17 2006, 11:57 PM)
Oh great... now arthur has taken up the Schneiby psyopts of taking to himself through 'Guest posts'...
The end is near, arthur.
When you are prepared to post evidence (apart from speculation and innuendo, let me know).
I suppose you can not back-up that statement with any photos of thermite slag you have seen in your life. Care to tell us where you have seen this thermite slag before?
Foxx,
Whoever "Guest" is it ain't me.
Nice to see you are as Paranoid as ever though.
I'm not overly familiar with slag, though I have seen it from my days of dabbling in pyrotechnics. I do believe I posted a picture of actual slag a while back though.
The point is SLAG is mainly ALUMINUM OXIDE, thus it doesn't have the RUST color (Iron Oxide) of the "slag" that you posted.
Arthur
The end is near, arthur.
When you are prepared to post evidence (apart from speculation and innuendo, let me know).
QUOTE
Doesn't look like any Thermite 'slag' I've ever seen in my life.
I suppose you can not back-up that statement with any photos of thermite slag you have seen in your life. Care to tell us where you have seen this thermite slag before?
Foxx,
Whoever "Guest" is it ain't me.
Nice to see you are as Paranoid as ever though.
I'm not overly familiar with slag, though I have seen it from my days of dabbling in pyrotechnics. I do believe I posted a picture of actual slag a while back though.
The point is SLAG is mainly ALUMINUM OXIDE, thus it doesn't have the RUST color (Iron Oxide) of the "slag" that you posted.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 18 2006, 04:02 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 17 2006, 11:27 PM)
Again, didn't someone point out that if the ruins were still settling after many weeks, then there would have been even more[b] spaces in the pile from the outset, through which plenty of air could have fed the fires in the rubble?
Also, the above reports all seem to hinge on a melodramatic pronouncement by that person on the still settling pile. I mean, if they were standing on the pile and not under it, how could they have 'seen' those molten rivers of steel? And if the molten rivers of steel were visible at any stage, why were there no pictures of these things? It seems like another 'urban legend' that took off from someone using poetic or literary licence to make dramatic and flowery speeches rather than scientific reports.
Do you have any comment to make regarding my last post about the alleged 'slag' photo you posted? Thanks.
The real question is considering the hundreds and hundreds of pictures taken at ground zero, why are NO pictures of these flowing streams of metal to be found?
Clearly the photogs had free run of the place and having looked at all the photos that FEMA has published along with all the ones posted in these 300+ pages + all the links to all the various sites, guess what, NOT ONE PICTURE OF MELTED METAL.
But then Foxx posts this:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed[b] "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
Which comes from this:
“The [NYFD] people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. She wore a respirator to filter out the smoke, dust, and fumes, but Anna worked without a mask to sniff out places where the broken dead lay. Anna is a live-find dog, but she developed a “truly intent stare” that Atlas came to recognize as her response to catching the scent of a corpse. Mostly they found parts.
Now note the part
Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.
is NOT an actual quote, its the editorializing of the writer, and the writer isn't even identified.
Now take most of the other quotes. Most deal with MOLTEN metal. And as we have found out, MOLTEN, doesn't mean MELTED. Turns out MOLTEN is often used in a LITERARY sense to just mean damn hot.
Now the other interesting things is that a number of reports aren't of melted STEEL but simply of molten or melted METAL. Now this is quite a bit more believable, simply because there was quite a bit of metal that one would expect to melt. Which brings one to the point, if one SEES melted metal, how does one KNOW what type of metal it is? I mean if you see a "river of metal flowing" how would one KNOW that is a river of STEEL???
Most curious, but not at all convincing that there were "rivers of steel" under the WTC tower, weeks after the collapse.
Arthur
Again, thanks. Most enlightening. I still can't see where anyone could have spied 'rivers' of 'melted' any metal, since that 'melt' would have seeped downwards in the pile and no-one on TOP of that pile could have seen it in a melted state, especially after the pile was cooled and extinguished to be able to work on it at all safely. And if there had been cooled metal slag or melt at the bottom of the pile, then there would surely have been photographs of LOTS of it, as you rightly point out.
Does anyone have any comments on the point that the stil settling ruins would have allowed plenty of aeration of the pile fire from the earliest to the last stages?
By the way, sir, this Foxx personna seems to have me confused with yourself. Is there any reason for this that I don't know about? Have I accidently usurped your PhysOrg account/identity? Is this fellow OK? Or is this a running gag of some sort that I'm not yet privy to? If so, my apologies for intruding into your "in joke". Salute and thanks, sir.
QUOTE
more pope-ish bs
Clearly the photogs had free run of the place.
Clearly the photogs had free run of the place.
This guy never quits with his lies, obfuscations, and bs.
We have been over this too many times to re-address this bull.
People were arrested for trying to take pictures of GZ. The pics we DO see have all been filtered through censors, (or were from those who had no up-close access).
Guiliani enforced a law that NO pictures were permitted.
Now, the 're-writer of history' comes along and tells us that... "THERE SHOULD BE PICTURES" !!!
Meanwhile, performing the same acrobatic dance as I predicted... cherry-picking quotes... instead of addressing the full evidence 'point-by-point'.
Need I say more?
Later... I don't need to spar with tin-hat idiots, 24-7. I have other things to do, and am not getting paid to sit and listen to lies.
Guest,
Foxx is just Paranoid, he thinks that I am posting both under my name and under "Guest", so as to create the illusion that someone agrees with me, or at least doesn't agree with him.
Since one can't prove a negative, i.e. I can't prove I'm NOT posting as Guest, its a reasonably effective charge for Foxx to make.
Which is one of the reason he makes it I'm sure.
Now you could register and take credit for your posts, also if you register, then one can search on your posts, send you PMs etc. Its very quick and you don't have to provide personal details etc.
Arthur
Foxx is just Paranoid, he thinks that I am posting both under my name and under "Guest", so as to create the illusion that someone agrees with me, or at least doesn't agree with him.
Since one can't prove a negative, i.e. I can't prove I'm NOT posting as Guest, its a reasonably effective charge for Foxx to make.
Which is one of the reason he makes it I'm sure.
Now you could register and take credit for your posts, also if you register, then one can search on your posts, send you PMs etc. Its very quick and you don't have to provide personal details etc.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+)
People were arrested for trying to take pictures of GZ.
ARRESTED ON WHAT CHARGE?????
Since WHEN is taking pictures of PUBLIC places an ILLEGAL ACT????
Censored? BS, NIST will sell them all to you at ~ 50c each, less than $14,000 for the complete set, including videos.
WHAT EVIDENCE, you MORON? You've got some words, which when you look at them are totally non-specific.
What kind of metal? How much metal? Where was it? What happened to it?
The point is, since we can't Cross Examine these people, without a PICTURE you really don't have much now do you?
If there was melted metal it could have been LEAD for all you know.
Arthur
ARRESTED ON WHAT CHARGE?????
Since WHEN is taking pictures of PUBLIC places an ILLEGAL ACT????
Censored? BS, NIST will sell them all to you at ~ 50c each, less than $14,000 for the complete set, including videos.
WHAT EVIDENCE, you MORON? You've got some words, which when you look at them are totally non-specific.
What kind of metal? How much metal? Where was it? What happened to it?
The point is, since we can't Cross Examine these people, without a PICTURE you really don't have much now do you?
If there was melted metal it could have been LEAD for all you know.
Arthur
Yellow-hot metal, regardless of the kind of metal, is always the same temperature.
Anyone who has seen the pic and video of yellow-hot metal being removed from the WTC site knows there were temperatures in the sub-ground levels that were WAY hotter than could possibly be reached by a normal building fire.
Claiming the yellow-hot metal could have been aluminum or lead shows that someone doesn't know basic metallurgy. Neither aluminum nor lead can get that hot without being a liquid.
So anyone who claims that the yellow-hot metal might be anything but steel should perhaps re-think their position.
In any case, what possible difference could it make WHAT kind of metal it was? This is called obfuscation. ANYTHING that reached yellow-hot temperature proves there was a source of heat FAR above a building fire.
And what possible difference could it make whether there was ten thousand pounds, or one ounce, of yellow-hot metal.
Obfuscation, as practiced by people with an agends outside of the truth.
I'd like to see some evidence proving what I just said is incorrect.
Anyone who has seen the pic and video of yellow-hot metal being removed from the WTC site knows there were temperatures in the sub-ground levels that were WAY hotter than could possibly be reached by a normal building fire.
Claiming the yellow-hot metal could have been aluminum or lead shows that someone doesn't know basic metallurgy. Neither aluminum nor lead can get that hot without being a liquid.
So anyone who claims that the yellow-hot metal might be anything but steel should perhaps re-think their position.
In any case, what possible difference could it make WHAT kind of metal it was? This is called obfuscation. ANYTHING that reached yellow-hot temperature proves there was a source of heat FAR above a building fire.
And what possible difference could it make whether there was ten thousand pounds, or one ounce, of yellow-hot metal.
Obfuscation, as practiced by people with an agends outside of the truth.
I'd like to see some evidence proving what I just said is incorrect.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 18 2006, 04:32 AM)
Guest,
Foxx is just Paranoid, he thinks that I am posting both under my name and under "Guest", so as to create the illusion that someone agrees with me, or at least doesn't agree with him.
Since one can't prove a negative, i.e. I can't prove I'm NOT posting as Guest, its a reasonably effective charge for Foxx to make.
Which is one of the reason he makes it I'm sure.
Now you could register and take credit for your posts, also if you register, then one can search on your posts, send you PMs etc. Its very quick and you don't have to provide personal details etc.
Arthur
I WILL have to agree with 'arthur' that I have no respect for 'Guest' posts... (no matter which side of the fence they are coming from).
It takes about 30 seconds to register, and anyone who does NOT is 'suspect' in my books. If you have something legitimate to say or state, what reason would you have for NOT registering?
Your IP address can be tracked whether or not you actually register, so there is no 'excuse' there.
Any 'Guest' who favours (or coddles-up-to / adds support) to a 'registered' poster is not worthy of direct response, and (in my opinion) is highly suspect.
Your choice... 'Guest- Coastal / Schneibster / CommenSeNse / (or any other idiots who wish to play pubescent games on the web)...
register and be accepted as an individual 'personality' with your own personal opinions & viewpoints... or...
be considered just another 'sock-puppet'... (and there ARE unfortunately MANY here).
Cheers
Foxx is just Paranoid, he thinks that I am posting both under my name and under "Guest", so as to create the illusion that someone agrees with me, or at least doesn't agree with him.
Since one can't prove a negative, i.e. I can't prove I'm NOT posting as Guest, its a reasonably effective charge for Foxx to make.
Which is one of the reason he makes it I'm sure.
Now you could register and take credit for your posts, also if you register, then one can search on your posts, send you PMs etc. Its very quick and you don't have to provide personal details etc.
Arthur
I WILL have to agree with 'arthur' that I have no respect for 'Guest' posts... (no matter which side of the fence they are coming from).
It takes about 30 seconds to register, and anyone who does NOT is 'suspect' in my books. If you have something legitimate to say or state, what reason would you have for NOT registering?
Your IP address can be tracked whether or not you actually register, so there is no 'excuse' there.
Any 'Guest' who favours (or coddles-up-to / adds support) to a 'registered' poster is not worthy of direct response, and (in my opinion) is highly suspect.
Your choice... 'Guest- Coastal / Schneibster / CommenSeNse / (or any other idiots who wish to play pubescent games on the web)...
register and be accepted as an individual 'personality' with your own personal opinions & viewpoints... or...
be considered just another 'sock-puppet'... (and there ARE unfortunately MANY here).
Cheers
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 18 2006, 04:32 AM)
Guest,
Foxx is just Paranoid, he thinks that I am posting both under my name and under "Guest", so as to create the illusion that someone agrees with me, or at least doesn't agree with him.
Since one can't prove a negative, i.e. I can't prove I'm NOT posting as Guest, its a reasonably effective charge for Foxx to make.
Which is one of the reason he makes it I'm sure.
Now you could register and take credit for your posts, also if you register, then one can search on your posts, send you PMs etc. Its very quick and you don't have to provide personal details etc.
Arthur
Thank you, sir, but I have access to my friend's computer for a brief time. Also I'm not that interested. I'm just killing time before we go on the road again with the band (I produce the pyrotechnics and special effects on stage). Won't have much time for armchair science then! No offence meant, sir. This just caught my eye as I was cruisin, that's all.
BTW, it appears to me that this Foxx personna has more faith than I have in the 'effective policing' of the Mayor's 'no pictures' edicts. In the real world of the media, I come across all sorts in the 'freelance' game, and there's practically no limit to the many and ingenious ways they 'get their picture' if they really want it. And in the midst of trucks and hordes of people of all sorts with all sorts of 'passes' going to and from such 'busy' places, it is usually no biggie to fake an ID or PASS. They have even been known to (ahem, you didn't hear it from me, right?) BRIBE their way to a picure-story (not that I've ever done such a thing, mind you! It's a sort of 'challenge' with them, as far as I can make out, that the more they are 'banned' the more they will get their photo if it kills them. I take it that the paparazzi in NYC are just as 'mad' as they are elsewhere in the 'free' world.
I won't be back after this post, so thanks and good luck, sir. I appreciated your friendly invite anyhow. Salute.
Foxx is just Paranoid, he thinks that I am posting both under my name and under "Guest", so as to create the illusion that someone agrees with me, or at least doesn't agree with him.
Since one can't prove a negative, i.e. I can't prove I'm NOT posting as Guest, its a reasonably effective charge for Foxx to make.
Which is one of the reason he makes it I'm sure.
Now you could register and take credit for your posts, also if you register, then one can search on your posts, send you PMs etc. Its very quick and you don't have to provide personal details etc.
Arthur
Thank you, sir, but I have access to my friend's computer for a brief time. Also I'm not that interested. I'm just killing time before we go on the road again with the band (I produce the pyrotechnics and special effects on stage). Won't have much time for armchair science then! No offence meant, sir. This just caught my eye as I was cruisin, that's all.
BTW, it appears to me that this Foxx personna has more faith than I have in the 'effective policing' of the Mayor's 'no pictures' edicts. In the real world of the media, I come across all sorts in the 'freelance' game, and there's practically no limit to the many and ingenious ways they 'get their picture' if they really want it. And in the midst of trucks and hordes of people of all sorts with all sorts of 'passes' going to and from such 'busy' places, it is usually no biggie to fake an ID or PASS. They have even been known to (ahem, you didn't hear it from me, right?) BRIBE their way to a picure-story (not that I've ever done such a thing, mind you! It's a sort of 'challenge' with them, as far as I can make out, that the more they are 'banned' the more they will get their photo if it kills them. I take it that the paparazzi in NYC are just as 'mad' as they are elsewhere in the 'free' world.
I won't be back after this post, so thanks and good luck, sir. I appreciated your friendly invite anyhow. Salute.
molten aluminum is silver.
QUOTE
I won't be back after this post, so thanks and good luck, sir. I appreciated your friendly invite anyhow. Salute.
Yeah nice touch with the 'sir' bs there, 'Schneiby-crew'.
I expected we would not see much more of you.
Very Coincidental how adoucette either has these 300+ pages memorized OR... instantly knew exactly which post you were referring to (without your mentioning of it).
You are NOT fooling many of us here... 'Homeland Security'.
You may be able to fool a few passers-by, but that's the best you'll do with your oxymoronic...
'military intelligence'.
Say 'Hi' to the PNAC crew back at the office.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 05:13 AM)
QUOTE
I won't be back after this post, so thanks and good luck, sir. I appreciated your friendly invite anyhow. Salute.
Yeah nice touch with the 'sir' bs there, 'Schneiby-crew'.
I expected we would not see much more of you.
Very Coincidental how adoucette either has these 300+ pages memorized OR... instantly knew exactly which post you were referring to (without your mentioning of it).
You are NOT fooling many of us here... 'Homeland Security'.
You may be able to fool a few passers-by, but that's the best you'll do with your oxymoronic...
'military intelligence'.
Say 'Hi' to the PNAC crew back at the office.
Mr Foxx. I had not intended to make another post, but I couldn't resist looking one more time before I ended this excursion (into what on further inspection appears to be a cyber insane asylum for cyber 'clients'). Before you 'see' something 'sinister' in my posting again this one more time, note that I myself see nothing sinister in you changing your mind just now, and posting again after you had said 'later' because you didn't have time to sit and listen to lies. So please do not upset yourself further with your paranoid visions of me being some sort of nemesis of yours. I think there must surely be enough of those in real life if your behaviour towards a complete stranger is any indication of your preferred method for 'making friends and influencing people'. Goodbye, sir. Try not to let this paranoia of yours run away with you. Peace.
walk a day in a "CT's" mocassins before you label them paranoid.
for example, molten aluminum is silver, LOL!
for example, molten aluminum is silver, LOL!
QUOTE
more Legends
Since WHEN is taking pictures of PUBLIC places an ILLEGAL ACT????
Since WHEN is taking pictures of PUBLIC places an ILLEGAL ACT????
Gee, the point seems to have sailed right past your head whilst you had your eyes & ears covered...
GZ was NOT a 'public place'... it was a crime-scene... and the last I heard there were laws against taking un-authorized photos of a crime-scene (even by independant 'investigators')...
but, I guess you still wish to maintain your BS that we SHOULD HAVE UN-CENSORED PHOTOS of molten metal at GZ... and IF NOT... THAT (in itself) is 'evidence' that there wasn't any...
regardless of the massive amounts of witness testimony in support of the same...
regardless of the evidence from the USGS thermographs...
regardless of the testimony from Pyrocool (who boasts that the 'fires' could NOT be suppressed WITHOUT their product)...
regardless of the photos of 'yellow-hot' metal...
regardless of ALL 'evidence' - we should just 'forget' that it ever happened, and consider this a 'non-event'...
"Nothing to SEE here, folks... Just move along now... go on home... Jerry Springer is about to start".
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:28 AM)
Goodbye, sir.
Beat it, punk.
Beat it, punk.
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:28 AM)
Goodbye, sir.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Gee, the point seems to have sailed right past your head whilst you had your eyes & ears covered...
GZ was NOT a 'public place'... it was a crime-scene... and the last I heard there were laws against taking un-authorized photos of a crime-scene (even by independant 'investigators')...
but, I guess you still wish to maintain your BS that we SHOULD HAVE UN-CENSORED PHOTOS of molten metal at GZ... and IF NOT... THAT (in itself) is 'evidence' that there wasn't any...
regardless of the massive amounts of witness testimony in support of the same...
regardless of the evidence from the USGS thermographs...
regardless of the testimony from Pyrocool (who boasts that the 'fires' could NOT be suppressed WITHOUT their product)...
regardless of the photos of 'yellow-hot' metal...
regardless of ALL 'evidence' - we should just 'forget' that it ever happened, and consider this a 'non-event'...
"Nothing to SEE here, folks... Just move along now... go on home... Jerry Springer is about to start".
Foxx,
Your a real idiot, you know that?
There is NO FRIGGIN LAW against taking pictures of a crime scene.
Now the police CAN keep you OUT of a crime scene, which can limit your ability to take pictures, but they CAN'T arrest you for taking all the damn pictures you want.
As to GZ, they had MULTIPLE photographers taking pictures all over the place all the way until the last piece of debris was removed. Yet with ALL those pictures, not one shows any evidence of MELTED metal. Censored hell, NIST will sell you all of them.
The ONE picture you do have of MOLTEN steel, was taken at night, and the color of the metal is clearly within the temp range of a normal fire.
And yes, one would expect that fires burning in what was the largest debris pile in history would create very hot pockets.
SO WHAT?????
You claim that these hot spots couldn't have happened NORMALLY?????
Based on WHAT reasoning??? Do you have anyone ASSOCIATED WITH THE NYFD who has claimed that? Any one from a reputable engineering shop?
So as opposed to posting these quotes about how hot the fire was or how steel was running in rivers, how about some evidence that it SHOULDN'T have been that hot. That what was seen COULDN'T have happened without a lot of Thermite or some other such BS.
Arthur
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 01:33 AM)
QUOTE
more Legends
Since WHEN is taking pictures of PUBLIC places an ILLEGAL ACT????
Since WHEN is taking pictures of PUBLIC places an ILLEGAL ACT????
Gee, the point seems to have sailed right past your head whilst you had your eyes & ears covered...
GZ was NOT a 'public place'... it was a crime-scene... and the last I heard there were laws against taking un-authorized photos of a crime-scene (even by independant 'investigators')...
but, I guess you still wish to maintain your BS that we SHOULD HAVE UN-CENSORED PHOTOS of molten metal at GZ... and IF NOT... THAT (in itself) is 'evidence' that there wasn't any...
regardless of the massive amounts of witness testimony in support of the same...
regardless of the evidence from the USGS thermographs...
regardless of the testimony from Pyrocool (who boasts that the 'fires' could NOT be suppressed WITHOUT their product)...
regardless of the photos of 'yellow-hot' metal...
regardless of ALL 'evidence' - we should just 'forget' that it ever happened, and consider this a 'non-event'...
"Nothing to SEE here, folks... Just move along now... go on home... Jerry Springer is about to start".
Foxx,
Your a real idiot, you know that?
There is NO FRIGGIN LAW against taking pictures of a crime scene.
Now the police CAN keep you OUT of a crime scene, which can limit your ability to take pictures, but they CAN'T arrest you for taking all the damn pictures you want.
As to GZ, they had MULTIPLE photographers taking pictures all over the place all the way until the last piece of debris was removed. Yet with ALL those pictures, not one shows any evidence of MELTED metal. Censored hell, NIST will sell you all of them.
The ONE picture you do have of MOLTEN steel, was taken at night, and the color of the metal is clearly within the temp range of a normal fire.
And yes, one would expect that fires burning in what was the largest debris pile in history would create very hot pockets.
SO WHAT?????
You claim that these hot spots couldn't have happened NORMALLY?????
Based on WHAT reasoning??? Do you have anyone ASSOCIATED WITH THE NYFD who has claimed that? Any one from a reputable engineering shop?
So as opposed to posting these quotes about how hot the fire was or how steel was running in rivers, how about some evidence that it SHOULDN'T have been that hot. That what was seen COULDN'T have happened without a lot of Thermite or some other such BS.
Arthur
QUOTE (another guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:28 AM)
Goodbye, sir.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
Claiming the yellow-hot metal could have been aluminum or lead shows that someone doesn't know basic metallurgy. Neither aluminum nor lead can get that hot without being a liquid.
I said the RIVERS OF METAL could be lead or aluminum.
The yellow piece is clearly steel, but notice its SOLID.
And it is ALSO well within the temperature range you can achieve in a large debris pile, all you need is a decent draft.
And that is certainly possible.
Arthur
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
QUOTE (computer fogie+Feb 18 2006, 12:51 AM)
Claiming the yellow-hot metal could have been aluminum or lead shows that someone doesn't know basic metallurgy. Neither aluminum nor lead can get that hot without being a liquid.
I said the RIVERS OF METAL could be lead or aluminum.
The yellow piece is clearly steel, but notice its SOLID.
And it is ALSO well within the temperature range you can achieve in a large debris pile, all you need is a decent draft.
And that is certainly possible.
Arthur
QUOTE (observers+Feb 18 2006, 05:54 AM)
QUOTE (another guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:28 AM)
Goodbye, sir.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (observers+Feb 18 2006, 05:54 AM)
QUOTE (another guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:28 AM)
Goodbye, sir.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Still trying to get Schneibster's attentions, JamesDweeb? What's the matter, he ain't havin any of what you're selling? Dweeb.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Still trying to get Schneibster's attentions, JamesDweeb? What's the matter, he ain't havin any of what you're selling? Dweeb.
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (observers+Feb 18 2006, 05:54 AM)
QUOTE (another guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:28 AM)
Goodbye, sir.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Heh...
yeah... once I seen the reference to "JamesDweeb", I knew we could track down the identity of the 'anonymous Guest'... (adou-liar supporter).
These guys don't really cover their tracks all that well... (as can be seen by the holes they left in the 9/11 'Official' fairy tale).
Not too surprising he doesn't 'register' after the azz-kicking he's received here.
Perhaps he is getting more support at GNN from his buddy 'Shogon' over there.
Sooooo... you just can't resist one more 'dig', eh Schneibster?...
but have to do it 'covertly'
You were VERY vocal about the 'upcoming lawsuit'... how I was going to pay your credit card bills ...
(I would suspect those PPV sites are quite an expensive habit ?)...
How's that coming along? I still haven't heard from your legal team yet... or perhaps you have decided to go with the 'para-legal' team... and just adjust the brakes on my vehicle
I'm surprised, really that 'they' are allowing you to post from the asylum. Let me know which asylum you are posting from, and I'll put in a 'good-word' for you.
AS IF the 'adou-liar' was NOT already aware of WHO mysterious "GUEST" WAS...
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Heh...
yeah... once I seen the reference to "JamesDweeb", I knew we could track down the identity of the 'anonymous Guest'... (adou-liar supporter).
These guys don't really cover their tracks all that well... (as can be seen by the holes they left in the 9/11 'Official' fairy tale).
Not too surprising he doesn't 'register' after the azz-kicking he's received here.
Perhaps he is getting more support at GNN from his buddy 'Shogon' over there.
Sooooo... you just can't resist one more 'dig', eh Schneibster?...
but have to do it 'covertly'
You were VERY vocal about the 'upcoming lawsuit'... how I was going to pay your credit card bills ...
(I would suspect those PPV sites are quite an expensive habit ?)...
How's that coming along? I still haven't heard from your legal team yet... or perhaps you have decided to go with the 'para-legal' team... and just adjust the brakes on my vehicle
I'm surprised, really that 'they' are allowing you to post from the asylum. Let me know which asylum you are posting from, and I'll put in a 'good-word' for you.
AS IF the 'adou-liar' was NOT already aware of WHO mysterious "GUEST" WAS...
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 06:47 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (observers+Feb 18 2006, 05:54 AM)
QUOTE (another guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:28 AM)
Goodbye, sir.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Heh...
yeah... once I seen the reference to "JamesDweeb", I knew we could track down the identity of the 'anonymous Guest'... (adou-liar supporter).
These guys don't really cover their tracks all that well... (as can be seen by the holes they left in the 9/11 'Official' fairy tale).
Not too surprising he doesn't 'register' after the azz-kicking he's received here.
Perhaps he is getting more support at GNN from his buddy 'Shogon' over there.
Sooooo... you just can't resist one more 'dig', eh Schneibster?...
but have to do it 'covertly'
You were VERY vocal about the 'upcoming lawsuit'... how I was going to pay your credit card bills ...
(I would suspect those PPV sites are quite an expensive habit ?)...
How's that coming along? I still haven't heard from your legal team yet... or perhaps you have decided to go with the 'para-legal' team... and just adjust the brakes on my vehicle
I'm surprised, really that 'they' are allowing you to post from the asylum. Let me know which asylum you are posting from, and I'll put in a 'good-word' for you.
AS IF the 'adou-liar' was NOT already aware of WHO mysterious "GUEST" WAS...
And the paranoia goes on-an-on, whoa...and it comes out Foxx!
Guffaws from the observers, hahahahaha!
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Heh...
yeah... once I seen the reference to "JamesDweeb", I knew we could track down the identity of the 'anonymous Guest'... (adou-liar supporter).
These guys don't really cover their tracks all that well... (as can be seen by the holes they left in the 9/11 'Official' fairy tale).
Not too surprising he doesn't 'register' after the azz-kicking he's received here.
Perhaps he is getting more support at GNN from his buddy 'Shogon' over there.
Sooooo... you just can't resist one more 'dig', eh Schneibster?...
but have to do it 'covertly'
You were VERY vocal about the 'upcoming lawsuit'... how I was going to pay your credit card bills ...
(I would suspect those PPV sites are quite an expensive habit ?)...
How's that coming along? I still haven't heard from your legal team yet... or perhaps you have decided to go with the 'para-legal' team... and just adjust the brakes on my vehicle
I'm surprised, really that 'they' are allowing you to post from the asylum. Let me know which asylum you are posting from, and I'll put in a 'good-word' for you.
AS IF the 'adou-liar' was NOT already aware of WHO mysterious "GUEST" WAS...
And the paranoia goes on-an-on, whoa...and it comes out Foxx!
Guffaws from the observers, hahahahaha!
QUOTE (another guest+Feb 18 2006, 06:43 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (observers+Feb 18 2006, 05:54 AM)
QUOTE (another guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:28 AM)
Goodbye, sir.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Still trying to get Schneibster's attentions, JamesDweeb? What's the matter, he ain't havin any of what you're selling? Dweeb.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Still trying to get Schneibster's attentions, JamesDweeb? What's the matter, he ain't havin any of what you're selling? Dweeb.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 06:47 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 06:15 AM)
QUOTE (observers+Feb 18 2006, 05:54 AM)
QUOTE (another guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 05:28 AM)
Goodbye, sir.
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Heh...
yeah... once I seen the reference to "JamesDweeb", I knew we could track down the identity of the 'anonymous Guest'... (adou-liar supporter).
These guys don't really cover their tracks all that well... (as can be seen by the holes they left in the 9/11 'Official' fairy tale).
Not too surprising he doesn't 'register' after the azz-kicking he's received here.
Perhaps he is getting more support at GNN from his buddy 'Shogon' over there.
Sooooo... you just can't resist one more 'dig', eh Schneibster?...
but have to do it 'covertly'
You were VERY vocal about the 'upcoming lawsuit'... how I was going to pay your credit card bills ...
(I would suspect those PPV sites are quite an expensive habit ?)...
How's that coming along? I still haven't heard from your legal team yet... or perhaps you have decided to go with the 'para-legal' team... and just adjust the brakes on my vehicle
I'm surprised, really that 'they' are allowing you to post from the asylum. Let me know which asylum you are posting from, and I'll put in a 'good-word' for you.
AS IF the 'adou-liar' was NOT already aware of WHO mysterious "GUEST" WAS...
What's the matter Foxx? You whackos can't believe I can read and see where someone else came up with the JamesDweeb description for your sycophantic hanger-on? It sounded s-o-o-o right that I might use it ALL the time. You two really ARE paranoid, aren't you? Creepy Foxx and Dweeby James. A fine match made in paranoia heaven. "Married' life suits you both. No wonder you're a laughing stock with everyone at Physorg. MMC's just crazy, but you're downright creepy.
Thanks for the meter Cosmo! Now we can tell immediately when Foxx is anywhere near PhysorgForums. The way that thing's going, it must mean that Foxx is lying again, because according to the reading, Foxx hasn't gone home at all, but is practically on top of you! Watch out he doesn't unload a load all over you before you can escape!
Well, Schneiby... I really don't think that I am the 'laughing stock' of anywhere...
Heh....
If only you knew.
What says Arthur? Sorry Foxx you were right all along?
fraters SEPTEMBERGATE buzz word may yet catch on eh?
"A BYU physics professor said a group he co-founded will ask for a Watergate-style special federal prosecutor to look into unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
You CT's are so detached from reality you don't realize when you come up with info that undermines your case note the DATELINE of the article Sept. 26 which means the "ban" probably did go into effect till the 25th. In other words for the first 2 weeks after the attacks anyone who wanted to could snap pix or videotape . Some cover up! LOL.
Also note that photography and video taping was allowed with permission from the police commissioner and presumably would be granted to members of the press. You guys are so loony tunes you probably think the mayor and PC were in on it too.
What they probably wanted to prevent was bus loads of tourists from getting in the way by climbing on top of stuff to take photos
What says Arthur? Sorry Foxx you were right all along?
fraters SEPTEMBERGATE buzz word may yet catch on eh?
"A BYU physics professor said a group he co-founded will ask for a Watergate-style special federal prosecutor to look into unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
Yeah, he is sorta right.
What he leaves off his post is that the mayor's ban wasn't made for 2 weeks.
Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Giuliani was obviously exercising power because there is NO CRIME in taking pictures of a crime scene. Come on CT'ers, you guys are paranoid enough to know that.
To top it off, the Mayor really came out swinging on this one. The ban was a CLASS B MISDEMEANOR.
Other Class B misdemeanors in NYC penal code:
Section 255.17 Adultery
A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.
Adultery is a class B misdemeanor.
I'm sure this is prosecuted vigorously as well (Wait a minute, doesn't Clinton have an office in NYC???) .... Oh well, never mind.
Now this had NO IMPACT ON THE MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS that WERE allowed free run of the WTC area, who also took many detailed, hi-res pictures all the way until the site was cleared.
Which is why my argument, that THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PICTURES is still VALID. Even though I was unaware that Guiliani tried to put an ILLEGAL ban of picture taking into effect over 2 weeks after the towers fell.
PS an old mayoral trick, is to make announcement, "such and such is banned without permission of "some high muckty muck", penalty is "whatever", but then never enforce it because you can't really prosecute as there is no statute making it illegal.
The MAYOR is the head of the EXECUTIVE branch. He doesn't MAKE laws, he only ENFORCES EXISTING laws.
Which is why you find quotes like this:
Bill Homan, standing two blocks from the twisted metal and concrete, said he was going to take pictures anyway. ... There were no reports of seized equipment as of early Wednesday, police spokeswoman Sgt. Marian Messina said
Arthur
Beat it, punk.
Real brave words from JamesDweeb, to someone who will probably never know just how close he came to a cyber beating by the mighty JamesDweeb, the biggest and fastest toothless mouth in the West! Dweeb.
Observer A: Hahahahahaha!
Observer B: Hahahahahahahaha!
LMAO... I knew it was the fatass psychotic schizoid Schnoob!
Can't stay away from the fire that burned you, huh?
Seen 'Sane Engineer' or 'Candy' around lately?
How's the lawsuit going, buddy?
Hurry now, don't be late for your pyrotechnics tour!
Heh...
yeah... once I seen the reference to "JamesDweeb", I knew we could track down the identity of the 'anonymous Guest'... (adou-liar supporter).
These guys don't really cover their tracks all that well... (as can be seen by the holes they left in the 9/11 'Official' fairy tale).
Not too surprising he doesn't 'register' after the azz-kicking he's received here.
Perhaps he is getting more support at GNN from his buddy 'Shogon' over there.
Sooooo... you just can't resist one more 'dig', eh Schneibster?...
but have to do it 'covertly'
You were VERY vocal about the 'upcoming lawsuit'... how I was going to pay your credit card bills ...
(I would suspect those PPV sites are quite an expensive habit ?)...
How's that coming along? I still haven't heard from your legal team yet... or perhaps you have decided to go with the 'para-legal' team... and just adjust the brakes on my vehicle
I'm surprised, really that 'they' are allowing you to post from the asylum. Let me know which asylum you are posting from, and I'll put in a 'good-word' for you.
AS IF the 'adou-liar' was NOT already aware of WHO mysterious "GUEST" WAS...
What's the matter Foxx? You whackos can't believe I can read and see where someone else came up with the JamesDweeb description for your sycophantic hanger-on? It sounded s-o-o-o right that I might use it ALL the time. You two really ARE paranoid, aren't you? Creepy Foxx and Dweeby James. A fine match made in paranoia heaven. "Married' life suits you both. No wonder you're a laughing stock with everyone at Physorg. MMC's just crazy, but you're downright creepy.
I think it should be pretty obvious to all readers here that we have an immature and seriously emotionally-disturbed individual posting here under numerous 'guest' identities.
Some (like the 'legendarians') lap up this bs as if it is legitimate discourse, and woo & coddle these losers as if they are kin.
It is waaaay too obvious to those of us who do NOT wear tin-foil hats.
Very sad, that losers like this are permitted to pollute any intelligent and un-biased discussions related to 9/11 events...
but that IS freedom of expression, and we can't deny it.
Any objective un-biased readers will quickly see through the scams, though... (that is the bright spot).
Cheers
Edit to add --- I see mystery guest schneibster has added more taunts...
Well, Schneiby... I really don't think that I am the 'laughing stock' of anywhere...
But perhaps you'd like to take a poll of phsyorg readers and see how we match up?
Please feel free to post the poll anywhere... (perhaps CNN can be convinced to run the poll...)
Based upon reading this full thread who is the idiot here...?
(a)Schneibster
or
(b)Foxx
Do you feel 'lucky' ?
Well do ya'???...punk
Some (like the 'legendarians') lap up this bs as if it is legitimate discourse, and woo & coddle these losers as if they are kin.
It is waaaay too obvious to those of us who do NOT wear tin-foil hats.
Very sad, that losers like this are permitted to pollute any intelligent and un-biased discussions related to 9/11 events...
but that IS freedom of expression, and we can't deny it.
Any objective un-biased readers will quickly see through the scams, though... (that is the bright spot).
Cheers
Edit to add --- I see mystery guest schneibster has added more taunts...
QUOTE
No wonder you're a laughing stock with everyone at Physorg.
Well, Schneiby... I really don't think that I am the 'laughing stock' of anywhere...
But perhaps you'd like to take a poll of phsyorg readers and see how we match up?
Please feel free to post the poll anywhere... (perhaps CNN can be convinced to run the poll...)
Based upon reading this full thread who is the idiot here...?
(a)Schneibster
or
(b)Foxx
Do you feel 'lucky' ?
Well do ya'???...punk
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 07:20 AM)
I think it should be pretty obvious to all readers here that we have an immature and seriously emotionally-disturbed individual posting here under numerous 'guest' identities.
Some (like the 'legendarians') lap up this bs as if it is legitimate discourse, and woo & coddle these losers as if they are kin.
It is waaaay too obvious to those of us who do NOT wear tin-foil hats.
Very sad, that losers like this are permitted to pollute any intelligent and un-biased discussions related to 9/11 events... but that IS freedom of expression, and we can't deny it.
Any objective un-biased readers will quickly see through the scams, though... (that is the bright spot).
Cheers
You flatter yourself, Foxx. All the intelligence is on one side and the all the bias on the other. Two guesses what we Physorg Regulars think about which side is which and which side you and your cronies are on. You've no physics and no evidence; but you've plenty of politics and plenty of paranoia. Pathetic. But entertaining in a 'sad clown' way. Carry on, mcDuff, the eyes of Physorg are upon you...such as you are! Whatever happened to all the UFO's I wonder? Oh, that's right, the CTers have moved on to the 9/11 bandwagon. Sickos.
Some (like the 'legendarians') lap up this bs as if it is legitimate discourse, and woo & coddle these losers as if they are kin.
It is waaaay too obvious to those of us who do NOT wear tin-foil hats.
Very sad, that losers like this are permitted to pollute any intelligent and un-biased discussions related to 9/11 events... but that IS freedom of expression, and we can't deny it.
Any objective un-biased readers will quickly see through the scams, though... (that is the bright spot).
Cheers
You flatter yourself, Foxx. All the intelligence is on one side and the all the bias on the other. Two guesses what we Physorg Regulars think about which side is which and which side you and your cronies are on. You've no physics and no evidence; but you've plenty of politics and plenty of paranoia. Pathetic. But entertaining in a 'sad clown' way. Carry on, mcDuff, the eyes of Physorg are upon you...such as you are! Whatever happened to all the UFO's I wonder? Oh, that's right, the CTers have moved on to the 9/11 bandwagon. Sickos.
Uh oh, now he's more than one person AT THE SAME TIME! 
QUOTE
City: No more photographs of World Trade Center site
By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01
...
NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.
The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.
Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.
...
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm
By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01
...
NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.
The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.
Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.
...
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm
Well... I guess that settles it then...
The 'Physorg Regulars' / (unregistered 'guests') have spoken.
in utter defeat & humiliation i will have to sign off now and hit the hay...
manyana
The 'Physorg Regulars' / (unregistered 'guests') have spoken.
in utter defeat & humiliation i will have to sign off now and hit the hay...
manyana
QUOTE
All the intelligence is on one side and the all the bias on the other. Two guesses what we Physorg Regulars think about which side is which and which side you and your cronies are on. You've no physics and no evidence; but you've plenty of politics and plenty of paranoia.
QUOTE (JamesX+Feb 18 2006, 07:52 AM)
Uh oh, now he's more than one person AT THE SAME TIME!
Oh JamesDweeb, JamesDweeb, JamesDweeb. Three times the Dweeb than usual, I see. What would you know about anything? You don't even register on the Physorg 'intelligence' meter. But don't worry, Cosmo has just posted a meter that is registering your 'Dweebyness' right now. Man, look at that sucker go! So now we know what you bring to Physorg; no physics, just Bullsh*t and inanity. Go-o-o daDweeb! Man, we really got you pegged! You're a liability to Foxx and that's a fact. Useless Dweeb.
Oh JamesDweeb, JamesDweeb, JamesDweeb. Three times the Dweeb than usual, I see. What would you know about anything? You don't even register on the Physorg 'intelligence' meter. But don't worry, Cosmo has just posted a meter that is registering your 'Dweebyness' right now. Man, look at that sucker go! So now we know what you bring to Physorg; no physics, just Bullsh*t and inanity. Go-o-o daDweeb! Man, we really got you pegged! You're a liability to Foxx and that's a fact. Useless Dweeb.
QUOTE (cosmo+Feb 18 2006, 08:05 AM)
QUOTE
All the intelligence is on one side and the all the bias on the other. Two guesses what we Physorg Regulars think about which side is which and which side you and your cronies are on. You've no physics and no evidence; but you've plenty of politics and plenty of paranoia.
Thanks for the meter Cosmo! Now we can tell immediately when Foxx is anywhere near PhysorgForums. The way that thing's going, it must mean that Foxx is lying again, because according to the reading, Foxx hasn't gone home at all, but is practically on top of you! Watch out he doesn't unload a load all over you before you can escape!
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 07:53 AM)
Well... I guess that settles it then...
The 'Physorg Regulars' / (unregistered 'guests') have spoken.
in utter defeat & humiliation i will have to sign off now and hit the hay...
manyana
Defeat & Humiliation? I thought you was going to let your "irrefutable evidence" and your brilliant physics arguments speak for you CTers? What happened, opened the UFO/CT bag of stock idiocy and political propaganda and found you used it all up without ONE 'convert' at Physorg? You are delusional as well as paranoid, if you really believed that people at a PHYSICS/SCIENCE discussion forum would swallow your tripe and agenda that has nothing to offer PHYSICS or SCIENCE discussion. Better scrounge round the 911 CT sites for more idiocy if you can find any that you haven't already tried on us. The sad and certain truth is that we don't expect any physics or evidence to come of it. Sad but true.
The 'Physorg Regulars' / (unregistered 'guests') have spoken.
in utter defeat & humiliation i will have to sign off now and hit the hay...
manyana
Defeat & Humiliation? I thought you was going to let your "irrefutable evidence" and your brilliant physics arguments speak for you CTers? What happened, opened the UFO/CT bag of stock idiocy and political propaganda and found you used it all up without ONE 'convert' at Physorg? You are delusional as well as paranoid, if you really believed that people at a PHYSICS/SCIENCE discussion forum would swallow your tripe and agenda that has nothing to offer PHYSICS or SCIENCE discussion. Better scrounge round the 911 CT sites for more idiocy if you can find any that you haven't already tried on us. The sad and certain truth is that we don't expect any physics or evidence to come of it. Sad but true.
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 07:20 AM)
Well, Schneiby... I really don't think that I am the 'laughing stock' of anywhere...
Heh....
If only you knew.
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE
City: No more photographs of World Trade Center site
By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01
...
NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.
The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.
Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.
...
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm
By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01
...
NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.
The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.
Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.
...
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm
What says Arthur? Sorry Foxx you were right all along?
fraters SEPTEMBERGATE buzz word may yet catch on eh?
"A BYU physics professor said a group he co-founded will ask for a Watergate-style special federal prosecutor to look into unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE
City: No more photographs of World Trade Center site
By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01
...
NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.
The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.
Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.
...
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm
By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01
...
NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.
The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.
Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.
...
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm
You CT's are so detached from reality you don't realize when you come up with info that undermines your case note the DATELINE of the article Sept. 26 which means the "ban" probably did go into effect till the 25th. In other words for the first 2 weeks after the attacks anyone who wanted to could snap pix or videotape . Some cover up! LOL.
Also note that photography and video taping was allowed with permission from the police commissioner and presumably would be granted to members of the press. You guys are so loony tunes you probably think the mayor and PC were in on it too.
What they probably wanted to prevent was bus loads of tourists from getting in the way by climbing on top of stuff to take photos
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 18 2006, 05:13 AM)
Very Coincidental how adoucette either has these 300+ pages memorized OR... instantly knew exactly which post you were referring to (without your mentioning of it).
Foxx you genius this forum has a search feature.
Foxx you genius this forum has a search feature.
QUOTE (brian+Feb 18 2006, 09:38 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 18 2006, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE
City: No more photographs of World Trade Center site
By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01
...
NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.
The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.
Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.
...
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm
By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01
...
NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.
The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.
Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.
...
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm
What says Arthur? Sorry Foxx you were right all along?
fraters SEPTEMBERGATE buzz word may yet catch on eh?
"A BYU physics professor said a group he co-founded will ask for a Watergate-style special federal prosecutor to look into unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
Yeah, he is sorta right.
What he leaves off his post is that the mayor's ban wasn't made for 2 weeks.
Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Giuliani was obviously exercising power because there is NO CRIME in taking pictures of a crime scene. Come on CT'ers, you guys are paranoid enough to know that.
To top it off, the Mayor really came out swinging on this one. The ban was a CLASS B MISDEMEANOR.
Other Class B misdemeanors in NYC penal code:
Section 255.17 Adultery
A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.
Adultery is a class B misdemeanor.
I'm sure this is prosecuted vigorously as well (Wait a minute, doesn't Clinton have an office in NYC???) .... Oh well, never mind.
Now this had NO IMPACT ON THE MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS that WERE allowed free run of the WTC area, who also took many detailed, hi-res pictures all the way until the site was cleared.
Which is why my argument, that THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PICTURES is still VALID. Even though I was unaware that Guiliani tried to put an ILLEGAL ban of picture taking into effect over 2 weeks after the towers fell.
PS an old mayoral trick, is to make announcement, "such and such is banned without permission of "some high muckty muck", penalty is "whatever", but then never enforce it because you can't really prosecute as there is no statute making it illegal.
The MAYOR is the head of the EXECUTIVE branch. He doesn't MAKE laws, he only ENFORCES EXISTING laws.
Which is why you find quotes like this:
Bill Homan, standing two blocks from the twisted metal and concrete, said he was going to take pictures anyway. ... There were no reports of seized equipment as of early Wednesday, police spokeswoman Sgt. Marian Messina said
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.