QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 10 2006, 06:59 PM)
Helloe all, I see that nothing has changed since I was last here. I had to attend an emergency meeting of sorts and have been away for a few days.
Seems to be close to 100 pages since I last read this thread. However I don't believe that I missed anything. Last I looked there was a new wrinkle in that some were attemting to change the design of the towers to solid concrete core walls.
Riiiight,, and a holograph plane actually covered for the bombs planted in the towers too.
You didn't. For instance Christopher is looking expecting to see buckling through the debris cloud.
He insist the core had concrete around it when even the other CTers have pointed out evidence to the contrary.
you REALLY have to get the idea out of your head that 'CTs' agree on avery single aspect, or that they even need to.
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
Seems to be close to 100 pages since I last read this thread. However I don't believe that I missed anything. Last I looked there was a new wrinkle in that some were attemting to change the design of the towers to solid concrete core walls.
Riiiight,, and a holograph plane actually covered for the bombs planted in the towers too.
You didn't. For instance Christopher is looking expecting to see buckling through the debris cloud.
He insist the core had concrete around it when even the other CTers have pointed out evidence to the contrary. you REALLY have to get the idea out of your head that 'CTs' agree on avery single aspect, or that they even need to.
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 03:53 PM)
you REALLY have to get the idea out of your head that 'CTs' agree on avery single aspect, or that they even need to.
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
You are not into THINKING at all.
Your list of the "complicit" doesn't stop there:
For your theories to hold up you need to add in FEMA, NYFD, NYPD, Gov and Mayor of NY, NORAD, FAA, Insurance Companies, Silverstein etc etc etc.
Arthur
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
You are not into THINKING at all.
Your list of the "complicit" doesn't stop there:
For your theories to hold up you need to add in FEMA, NYFD, NYPD, Gov and Mayor of NY, NORAD, FAA, Insurance Companies, Silverstein etc etc etc.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 07:53 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 10 2006, 06:59 PM)
Helloe all, I see that nothing has changed since I was last here. I had to attend an emergency meeting of sorts and have been away for a few days.
Seems to be close to 100 pages since I last read this thread. However I don't believe that I missed anything. Last I looked there was a new wrinkle in that some were attemting to change the design of the towers to solid concrete core walls.
Riiiight,, and a holograph plane actually covered for the bombs planted in the towers too.
You didn't. For instance Christopher is looking expecting to see buckling through the debris cloud. He insist the core had concrete around it when even the other CTers have pointed out evidence to the contrary.
you REALLY have to get the idea out of your head that 'CTs' agree on avery single aspect, or that they even need to.
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
I never said every CT must agree on everything. I don't know where you got that from. I'm only pointing out even people who you say they aren't into "GROUPTHINK" don't believe the core has concrete. Nothing in my post suggest every CTer agrees on everything. I have disagreed with people on my side aswell.
PS: Just because you have a minority view doesn't mean you aren't groupthinking.
Seems to be close to 100 pages since I last read this thread. However I don't believe that I missed anything. Last I looked there was a new wrinkle in that some were attemting to change the design of the towers to solid concrete core walls.
Riiiight,, and a holograph plane actually covered for the bombs planted in the towers too.
You didn't. For instance Christopher is looking expecting to see buckling through the debris cloud.
He insist the core had concrete around it when even the other CTers have pointed out evidence to the contrary. you REALLY have to get the idea out of your head that 'CTs' agree on avery single aspect, or that they even need to.
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
I never said every CT must agree on everything. I don't know where you got that from. I'm only pointing out even people who you say they aren't into "GROUPTHINK" don't believe the core has concrete. Nothing in my post suggest every CTer agrees on everything. I have disagreed with people on my side aswell.
PS: Just because you have a minority view doesn't mean you aren't groupthinking.
QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 6 2005, 04:28 PM)
I am not an Israely information agent, and I take offense.
I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal.
A ht,
I then presume you are aware that The NIST modified the results of the computer models to achieve the "proper" result?
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141;)
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12;)
“the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142;)
To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142;)
-NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177;)
I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal.
A ht,
I then presume you are aware that The NIST modified the results of the computer models to achieve the "proper" result?
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141;)
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12;)
“the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142;)
To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142;)
-NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177;)
Good logic, only hampered by the lack of definitive design configuration.
Gordon wrote
Alternatively and in the absence of that downward movement then the core would have protruded upwards by two and a half stories and interfered with or raised the hat truss and associated roof objects by that amount.
Yes, and the same would be true for WTC 1, although there was less load.
Gordon wrote
Logic would dictate that you are correct since initiation failure must affect the load bearing elements. The core was the main load bearing element and it is this area where any factors likely to initiate collapse had to be effective, rather than be limited only to effects upon the perimeter columns.
What I learned and remembered from that 1990 documentary, the perimeter walls took 50% of the gravity load, the interior box columns took 30% and the concrete core took 20%. The core was mostly there to keep the building from twisting. Steel structures of this size have inherent problems of flex, the engineer, Yamasaki, chose a steel reinforced concrete core in a rectangular tube configuration to deal with this and add a minimum of weight and a maximum of torsion resistance.
The documentary did say that after time is was anticipated that the settling of the steel structure might put up to 50% on the core, but that the core could handle that.
Meaning that after 35 years, the core was taking 1/2 the gravity load so shagsters point and your are well made. “What happened to the buckled wall and the core behind in the crumple zone of tower 2?” The steel core columns if the existed have to buckle or be cut. If they buckle inward the diagonal bracing that was supposed to be there would resist making perpendicular local buckling that would push out adjacent floors on the north side (see image above). As the descent advanced, the dimension outward would increase and the north face would deform as the upper north wall is inside the lower and no longer held by it in the photo. The north east corner of the core was undamaged as was the concrete shear wall on the north end, the narrow end of the core.
The documentary actually went into the mysterious aspects of the core during construction. One was when forced evacuation of the floors took place unannounced, unplanned with serious economic impacts on concrete contractors. There was never any reason for this given other than “inspection”. Which didn’t figure then, or now, because building inspectors inspected everything already
The economic impact were so serious, the video stated, that the main contractor shut down the concrete work for a period of days and threatened a lawsuit. This, it was explained, triggered a re negotiation of the contract based on the port authorities now known agenda of secrecy, adding more mystery to the core in the documentary. The contractor was reimbursed and given enough of a schedule to be able to coordinate many crews movements across the towers through the hallways to accommodate the mysterious inspections.
I remember video of these migrations of workers through the hallways of the tower core with PA security standing in the hallway crossing while the crew ran across the core in single file. There was a stack of white 5 gallon buckets in the hall by the corner.
Phil Jayhan of Let’s Roll 9-11 remembers hearing about these evacuations and said so numerous time in his posts at the bb.
In thinking about my issue regarding the 47, 1,300 foot columns and the fact that if they existed, they had to be cut. Wherein the entire visual event MUST change from a relatively contained, continuous series of detonations producing low frequency booms, to one where there are a high speed series of very sharp, large “crack” spaced at distances over the 1,300 foot length of the supposed steel core columns in order for leaning, buckling core columns to NOT be seen in pictures of the towers demise. The below image should show those steel core columns if the existed. No one has ever given a decent explanation of why those columns are never seen.
The necessity of cutting 47, 1,300 foot tempered steel columns is also applicable to the concrete core, because the 47 hand fabricated, tempered steel columns actually existed ringing the core, as far as I know from the 1990 documentary. Meaning I also need to show how that was done consistent with what I describe as the structure.
I’ve studied high explosives some and have experience with low density high explosives in construction blasting. My studies also included a perusal of demolition techniques associated with civilian work as well as military actions.
A shape charge is the only way to efficiently cut steel with high explosives, and they make a very sharp explosion. Then I thought about the floors and how they might be used to form an enhanced shape charge around the interior box columns because of the restraint of the concrete above a layer of C4 plastic explosive and the steel floor pan below it.
Keep in mind that the concrete over the explosive and the steel under it constrain and direct the explosive force into a narrow jet of gas capable of cutting 2 inches or so of tempered steel. This happens on 3 sides with lower columns and on 4 with upper columns as the tapered core wall gradually moved inward while the tower went up and the columns had to remain plumb so access to 4 sides was possible.
The core was poured in 40 foot tiers. It was noted that there were inspection holes on each rebar randomly placed on the inside walls of the cast concrete core over each of the rebar so that conditions of corrosion could be monitored.
In 2002 on a bb called 9-11pi.com (now gone) someone stated that it was know that for a few weeks following the leasing of the towers that people trying to access lower floors had trouble getting elevators to their floors. They had to go above their floor then come down. This was explained as happening because of maintenance to the elevators required by the elevator company. Has anyone else heard this?
My point being that we have estimated 5 floors compressing on the east face of tower 2 that is close to 40 feet, one tier of concrete pour. If that one tier was detonated first on that side with 1/2 of the north and south faces horizontally, to initiate the beginning of the fall, 200 milliseconds after the floors detonated cutting the interior box columns, then the box columns and the beams connecting to the outer walls could into lower floors without having any deformations on the outside of the building, just as we see in the top image.
Gordon wrote
Alternatively and in the absence of that downward movement then the core would have protruded upwards by two and a half stories and interfered with or raised the hat truss and associated roof objects by that amount.
Yes, and the same would be true for WTC 1, although there was less load.
Gordon wrote
Logic would dictate that you are correct since initiation failure must affect the load bearing elements. The core was the main load bearing element and it is this area where any factors likely to initiate collapse had to be effective, rather than be limited only to effects upon the perimeter columns.
What I learned and remembered from that 1990 documentary, the perimeter walls took 50% of the gravity load, the interior box columns took 30% and the concrete core took 20%. The core was mostly there to keep the building from twisting. Steel structures of this size have inherent problems of flex, the engineer, Yamasaki, chose a steel reinforced concrete core in a rectangular tube configuration to deal with this and add a minimum of weight and a maximum of torsion resistance.
The documentary did say that after time is was anticipated that the settling of the steel structure might put up to 50% on the core, but that the core could handle that.
Meaning that after 35 years, the core was taking 1/2 the gravity load so shagsters point and your are well made. “What happened to the buckled wall and the core behind in the crumple zone of tower 2?” The steel core columns if the existed have to buckle or be cut. If they buckle inward the diagonal bracing that was supposed to be there would resist making perpendicular local buckling that would push out adjacent floors on the north side (see image above). As the descent advanced, the dimension outward would increase and the north face would deform as the upper north wall is inside the lower and no longer held by it in the photo. The north east corner of the core was undamaged as was the concrete shear wall on the north end, the narrow end of the core.
The documentary actually went into the mysterious aspects of the core during construction. One was when forced evacuation of the floors took place unannounced, unplanned with serious economic impacts on concrete contractors. There was never any reason for this given other than “inspection”. Which didn’t figure then, or now, because building inspectors inspected everything already
The economic impact were so serious, the video stated, that the main contractor shut down the concrete work for a period of days and threatened a lawsuit. This, it was explained, triggered a re negotiation of the contract based on the port authorities now known agenda of secrecy, adding more mystery to the core in the documentary. The contractor was reimbursed and given enough of a schedule to be able to coordinate many crews movements across the towers through the hallways to accommodate the mysterious inspections.
I remember video of these migrations of workers through the hallways of the tower core with PA security standing in the hallway crossing while the crew ran across the core in single file. There was a stack of white 5 gallon buckets in the hall by the corner.
Phil Jayhan of Let’s Roll 9-11 remembers hearing about these evacuations and said so numerous time in his posts at the bb.
In thinking about my issue regarding the 47, 1,300 foot columns and the fact that if they existed, they had to be cut. Wherein the entire visual event MUST change from a relatively contained, continuous series of detonations producing low frequency booms, to one where there are a high speed series of very sharp, large “crack” spaced at distances over the 1,300 foot length of the supposed steel core columns in order for leaning, buckling core columns to NOT be seen in pictures of the towers demise. The below image should show those steel core columns if the existed. No one has ever given a decent explanation of why those columns are never seen.
The necessity of cutting 47, 1,300 foot tempered steel columns is also applicable to the concrete core, because the 47 hand fabricated, tempered steel columns actually existed ringing the core, as far as I know from the 1990 documentary. Meaning I also need to show how that was done consistent with what I describe as the structure.
I’ve studied high explosives some and have experience with low density high explosives in construction blasting. My studies also included a perusal of demolition techniques associated with civilian work as well as military actions.
A shape charge is the only way to efficiently cut steel with high explosives, and they make a very sharp explosion. Then I thought about the floors and how they might be used to form an enhanced shape charge around the interior box columns because of the restraint of the concrete above a layer of C4 plastic explosive and the steel floor pan below it.
Keep in mind that the concrete over the explosive and the steel under it constrain and direct the explosive force into a narrow jet of gas capable of cutting 2 inches or so of tempered steel. This happens on 3 sides with lower columns and on 4 with upper columns as the tapered core wall gradually moved inward while the tower went up and the columns had to remain plumb so access to 4 sides was possible.
The core was poured in 40 foot tiers. It was noted that there were inspection holes on each rebar randomly placed on the inside walls of the cast concrete core over each of the rebar so that conditions of corrosion could be monitored.
In 2002 on a bb called 9-11pi.com (now gone) someone stated that it was know that for a few weeks following the leasing of the towers that people trying to access lower floors had trouble getting elevators to their floors. They had to go above their floor then come down. This was explained as happening because of maintenance to the elevators required by the elevator company. Has anyone else heard this?
My point being that we have estimated 5 floors compressing on the east face of tower 2 that is close to 40 feet, one tier of concrete pour. If that one tier was detonated first on that side with 1/2 of the north and south faces horizontally, to initiate the beginning of the fall, 200 milliseconds after the floors detonated cutting the interior box columns, then the box columns and the beams connecting to the outer walls could into lower floors without having any deformations on the outside of the building, just as we see in the top image.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 07:53 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 10 2006, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 10 2006, 06:59 PM)
Helloe all, I see that nothing has changed since I was last here. I had to attend an emergency meeting of sorts and have been away for a few days.
Seems to be close to 100 pages since I last read this thread. However I don't believe that I missed anything. Last I looked there was a new wrinkle in that some were attemting to change the design of the towers to solid concrete core walls.
Riiiight,, and a holograph plane actually covered for the bombs planted in the towers too.
You didn't. For instance Christopher is looking expecting to see buckling through the debris cloud. He insist the core had concrete around it when even the other CTers have pointed out evidence to the contrary.
you REALLY have to get the idea out of your head that 'CTs' agree on avery single aspect, or that they even need to.
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
I never said every CT must agree on everything. I don't know where you got that from. I'm only pointing out even people who you say they aren't into "GROUPTHINK" don't believe the core has concrete. Nothing in my post suggest every CTer agrees on everything. I have disagreed with people on my side aswell.
PS: Just because you have a minority view doesn't mean you aren't groupthinking.
For instance Christopher is looking expecting to see buckling through the debris cloud. He insist the core had concrete around it when even the other CTers have pointed out evidence to the contrary.
To say I think the core had concrete around it misrepresents my position. Why do you do this, why are you here?
If anyone has posted raw evidence contrary to the core I have not seen it. If such exists, why haven't you posted it?
Um how about this picture?
I don't see any concrete there..... or any concrete pouring operation.... do you?
Seems to be close to 100 pages since I last read this thread. However I don't believe that I missed anything. Last I looked there was a new wrinkle in that some were attemting to change the design of the towers to solid concrete core walls.
Riiiight,, and a holograph plane actually covered for the bombs planted in the towers too.
You didn't. For instance Christopher is looking expecting to see buckling through the debris cloud.
He insist the core had concrete around it when even the other CTers have pointed out evidence to the contrary. you REALLY have to get the idea out of your head that 'CTs' agree on avery single aspect, or that they even need to.
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
I never said every CT must agree on everything. I don't know where you got that from. I'm only pointing out even people who you say they aren't into "GROUPTHINK" don't believe the core has concrete. Nothing in my post suggest every CTer agrees on everything. I have disagreed with people on my side aswell.
PS: Just because you have a minority view doesn't mean you aren't groupthinking.
QUOTE
For instance Christopher is looking expecting to see buckling through the debris cloud.
He insist the core had concrete around it when even the other CTers have pointed out evidence to the contrary. To say I think the core had concrete around it misrepresents my position. Why do you do this, why are you here?
If anyone has posted raw evidence contrary to the core I have not seen it. If such exists, why haven't you posted it?
QUOTE
If anyone has posted raw evidence contrary to the core I have not seen it. If such exists, why haven't you posted it?
Um how about this picture?
I don't see any concrete there..... or any concrete pouring operation.... do you?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 08:08 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 03:53 PM)
you REALLY have to get the idea out of your head that 'CTs' agree on avery single aspect, or that they even need to.
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
You are not into THINKING at all.
Your list of the "complicit" doesn't stop there:
For your theories to hold up you need to add in FEMA, NYFD, NYPD, Gov and Mayor of NY, NORAD, FAA, Insurance Companies, Silverstein etc etc etc.
Arthur
only key players. most of the soldiers in those armies 'just follow orders'.
there was a lot of chaos, that day, too.
where is your proof that every one with a firemen's outfit and gear was a real fireman, and not a mercenary? same goes for cops and, well, FEMA are mercenary already.
the insurance company has been implicated.
silverstian has been implicated.
the mayor has been implicated.
pataki? probably. don't know enough. i hate politics.
anthrax, anyone?
anthrax, anyone?
Oh the arabs did the anthrax for sure, newton. Didn't you see the letters that came with them?
Very convincing stuff.
you see, the whole reason we're 'CTs' in the beginning, is because we're not into GROUPTHINK
we all agree on the most important thing. the towers were demolished. the exact how, why and who is still not nailed down, although the admin is obviously complicit, as is arsoNIST and the 911 Ommission.
You are not into THINKING at all.
Your list of the "complicit" doesn't stop there:
For your theories to hold up you need to add in FEMA, NYFD, NYPD, Gov and Mayor of NY, NORAD, FAA, Insurance Companies, Silverstein etc etc etc.
Arthur
only key players. most of the soldiers in those armies 'just follow orders'.
there was a lot of chaos, that day, too.
where is your proof that every one with a firemen's outfit and gear was a real fireman, and not a mercenary? same goes for cops and, well, FEMA are mercenary already.
the insurance company has been implicated.
silverstian has been implicated.
the mayor has been implicated.
pataki? probably. don't know enough. i hate politics.
anthrax, anyone?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 08:57 PM)
anthrax, anyone?
Oh the arabs did the anthrax for sure, newton. Didn't you see the letters that came with them?
Very convincing stuff.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 10 2006, 02:07 PM)
Not if you were going to be 'in control' of the collapse.
Doesn't matter if it was collapsed by way of CD.
No one could have predicted what damage the plane would do and what impact that would have on the "control" aspect.
So, once it started downhill, no one would be "in control" of it.
As it was, WTC 7 took some pretty serious licks, it could just as easily been flattened by upwards of 50 stories of WTC 1 landing on top of it.
Arthur
so, the top fifty stories could just jump on over, eh?
sure. why not. lol.
i guess, then, you agree with me that it was a silly place to put an 'emergency command bunker'?
Not unless you are also questioning the height of each floor. The accepted height of each floor is 12.4 feet.
That makes 5 floors 62 feet, or if you accept 12 feet as a floor height then it is 60 feet. 150% greater than 40 feet.
40 feet is closer to 3.2 floors in height.
Doesn't matter if it was collapsed by way of CD.
No one could have predicted what damage the plane would do and what impact that would have on the "control" aspect.
So, once it started downhill, no one would be "in control" of it.
As it was, WTC 7 took some pretty serious licks, it could just as easily been flattened by upwards of 50 stories of WTC 1 landing on top of it.
Arthur
so, the top fifty stories could just jump on over, eh?
sure. why not. lol.
i guess, then, you agree with me that it was a silly place to put an 'emergency command bunker'?
QUOTE
My point being that we have estimated 5 floors compressing on the east face of tower 2 that is close to 40 feet, one tier of concrete pour.
Not unless you are also questioning the height of each floor. The accepted height of each floor is 12.4 feet.
That makes 5 floors 62 feet, or if you accept 12 feet as a floor height then it is 60 feet. 150% greater than 40 feet.
40 feet is closer to 3.2 floors in height.
QUOTE (newt+)
where is your proof that every one with a firemen's outfit and gear was a real fireman
TOO FUNNY.
Arthur
TOO FUNNY.
Arthur
I just can't let christopher get away with this any more. Sorry, but he is now saying "My studies also included a perusal of demolition techniques associated with civilian work as well as military actions."
It appears he is blaming someone for hypnotizing him...
"Finally, it is important to understand that there is no scientific data, whatsoever, to support the notion that hypnosis could possibly involve telepathy."
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/apabarabasz.jpg
Here Christopher asks Consumer Affairs to take some kind of action against native American people who hypnotize medical personnel...
"Your concerns about various medical professionals who have been influenced in their care of the public with post hypnotic suggestion administered by native American people.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/conaffair.jpeg
It looks like he suggested hypnotizing people people under Nitrous Oxide.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/confirmsbcomh.jpg
He wanted to hypnotize sex offenders and drug addicts...
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/foiarequestmh.gif
Here he wants the arrest and booking record of people going back 100 years. An observant senator didn't buy the reason.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/oconnell.jpeg
I'm thinking he pretened to be a mental health professional. I'm thinking hes the one who needs help.
That he is now an expert in explosives is laughable.
It appears he is blaming someone for hypnotizing him...
"Finally, it is important to understand that there is no scientific data, whatsoever, to support the notion that hypnosis could possibly involve telepathy."
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/apabarabasz.jpg
Here Christopher asks Consumer Affairs to take some kind of action against native American people who hypnotize medical personnel...
"Your concerns about various medical professionals who have been influenced in their care of the public with post hypnotic suggestion administered by native American people.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/conaffair.jpeg
It looks like he suggested hypnotizing people people under Nitrous Oxide.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/confirmsbcomh.jpg
He wanted to hypnotize sex offenders and drug addicts...
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/foiarequestmh.gif
Here he wants the arrest and booking record of people going back 100 years. An observant senator didn't buy the reason.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/oconnell.jpeg
I'm thinking he pretened to be a mental health professional. I'm thinking hes the one who needs help.
That he is now an expert in explosives is laughable.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 05:08 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 10 2006, 02:07 PM)
Not if you were going to be 'in control' of the collapse.
Doesn't matter if it was collapsed by way of CD.
No one could have predicted what damage the plane would do and what impact that would have on the "control" aspect.
So, once it started downhill, no one would be "in control" of it.
As it was, WTC 7 took some pretty serious licks, it could just as easily been flattened by upwards of 50 stories of WTC 1 landing on top of it.
Arthur
so, the top fifty stories could just jump on over, eh?
sure. why not. lol.
i guess, then, you agree with me that it was a silly place to put an 'emergency command bunker'?
So does this makes the NY contingent the ringleaders?
I mean this command bunker was finished in '99, thus planning started, oh '98 or so?
So they must have been planning ahead.
Top 50 stories just Jump over?
No, think about it newt, you are in the 23rd floor of a 47 story building that stands a couple of hundred feet from a 110 story building that is going to be run into by a jet and then allowed to burn for an hour or so and then explosives will get set off to bring it down.
Do ANY of the possible outcomes involve you being squashed?
Arthur
Doesn't matter if it was collapsed by way of CD.
No one could have predicted what damage the plane would do and what impact that would have on the "control" aspect.
So, once it started downhill, no one would be "in control" of it.
As it was, WTC 7 took some pretty serious licks, it could just as easily been flattened by upwards of 50 stories of WTC 1 landing on top of it.
Arthur
so, the top fifty stories could just jump on over, eh?
sure. why not. lol.
i guess, then, you agree with me that it was a silly place to put an 'emergency command bunker'?
So does this makes the NY contingent the ringleaders?
I mean this command bunker was finished in '99, thus planning started, oh '98 or so?
So they must have been planning ahead.
Top 50 stories just Jump over?
No, think about it newt, you are in the 23rd floor of a 47 story building that stands a couple of hundred feet from a 110 story building that is going to be run into by a jet and then allowed to burn for an hour or so and then explosives will get set off to bring it down.
Do ANY of the possible outcomes involve you being squashed?
Arthur
BTW jackovsky, I don't talk about your mother because you don't like it. I talk about her because you like it. Why else whould you come back for more?
Speaking of your mother, how is the whore?
(He said it doesn't bother him...)
Speaking of your mother, how is the whore?
(He said it doesn't bother him...)
QUOTE (???+Mar 10 2006, 09:22 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 09:08 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 10 2006, 02:07 PM)
Not if you were going to be 'in control' of the collapse.
Doesn't matter if it was collapsed by way of CD.
No one could have predicted what damage the plane would do and what impact that would have on the "control" aspect.
So, once it started downhill, no one would be "in control" of it.
As it was, WTC 7 took some pretty serious licks, it could just as easily been flattened by upwards of 50 stories of WTC 1 landing on top of it.
Arthur
so, the top fifty stories could just jump on over, eh?
sure. why not. lol.
i guess, then, you agree with me that it was a silly place to put an 'emergency command bunker'?
Are you on crack??
The only way that having a command center there is "silly" is if you assume that the WTC towers, the only buildings close by that are taller than WTC7 are going to crash down on it.
When the command center was established that was not considered likely.
why are you ignoring the elephant in the room?
i tried crack once, about 20 yrs. ago. i didn't like it.
'when the command center was established'.
okay, here comes the elephant....
why would they establish a command center at all? do any other cities in the ENTIRE WORLD that you know of, have emergency command centres (outside of the military)?
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
are YOU on crack?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
Doesn't matter if it was collapsed by way of CD.
No one could have predicted what damage the plane would do and what impact that would have on the "control" aspect.
So, once it started downhill, no one would be "in control" of it.
As it was, WTC 7 took some pretty serious licks, it could just as easily been flattened by upwards of 50 stories of WTC 1 landing on top of it.
Arthur
so, the top fifty stories could just jump on over, eh?
sure. why not. lol.
i guess, then, you agree with me that it was a silly place to put an 'emergency command bunker'?
Are you on crack??
The only way that having a command center there is "silly" is if you assume that the WTC towers, the only buildings close by that are taller than WTC7 are going to crash down on it.
When the command center was established that was not considered likely.
why are you ignoring the elephant in the room?
i tried crack once, about 20 yrs. ago. i didn't like it.
'when the command center was established'.
okay, here comes the elephant....
why would they establish a command center at all? do any other cities in the ENTIRE WORLD that you know of, have emergency command centres (outside of the military)?
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
are YOU on crack?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 10:07 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 05:08 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 07:38 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Mar 10 2006, 02:07 PM)
Not if you were going to be 'in control' of the collapse.
Doesn't matter if it was collapsed by way of CD.
No one could have predicted what damage the plane would do and what impact that would have on the "control" aspect.
So, once it started downhill, no one would be "in control" of it.
As it was, WTC 7 took some pretty serious licks, it could just as easily been flattened by upwards of 50 stories of WTC 1 landing on top of it.
Arthur
so, the top fifty stories could just jump on over, eh?
sure. why not. lol.
i guess, then, you agree with me that it was a silly place to put an 'emergency command bunker'?
So does this makes the NY contingent the ringleaders?
I mean this command bunker was finished in '99, thus planning started, oh '98 or so?
So they must have been planning ahead.
Top 50 stories just Jump over?
No, think about it newt, you are in the 23rd floor of a 47 story building that stands a couple of hundred feet from a 110 story building that is going to be run into by a jet and then allowed to burn for an hour or so and then explosives will get set off to bring it down.
Do ANY of the possible outcomes involve you being squashed?
Arthur
minted in 1998.
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml
p.s this was the first hit on a google search.....
http://www.google.com/search?q=american+twenty+dollar+bill
think about that, androids.
p.s. 1998 is 666 X 3, and also if you do the alphanumerics(a=1, b=2, c=3, etc.) for nineteen ninety eight and add the value of the letters, it equals 666.
interestingly(to me), i just noticed that the owners of at least one of the (alleged) planes used on 911, have the zip code 60666.
nothing to see here. move along.
Doesn't matter if it was collapsed by way of CD.
No one could have predicted what damage the plane would do and what impact that would have on the "control" aspect.
So, once it started downhill, no one would be "in control" of it.
As it was, WTC 7 took some pretty serious licks, it could just as easily been flattened by upwards of 50 stories of WTC 1 landing on top of it.
Arthur
so, the top fifty stories could just jump on over, eh?
sure. why not. lol.
i guess, then, you agree with me that it was a silly place to put an 'emergency command bunker'?
So does this makes the NY contingent the ringleaders?
I mean this command bunker was finished in '99, thus planning started, oh '98 or so?
So they must have been planning ahead.
Top 50 stories just Jump over?
No, think about it newt, you are in the 23rd floor of a 47 story building that stands a couple of hundred feet from a 110 story building that is going to be run into by a jet and then allowed to burn for an hour or so and then explosives will get set off to bring it down.
Do ANY of the possible outcomes involve you being squashed?
Arthur
minted in 1998.
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml
p.s this was the first hit on a google search.....
http://www.google.com/search?q=american+twenty+dollar+bill
think about that, androids.
p.s. 1998 is 666 X 3, and also if you do the alphanumerics(a=1, b=2, c=3, etc.) for nineteen ninety eight and add the value of the letters, it equals 666.
interestingly(to me), i just noticed that the owners of at least one of the (alleged) planes used on 911, have the zip code 60666.
nothing to see here. move along.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 06:18 PM)
why would they establish a command center at all? do any other cities in the ENTIRE WORLD that you know of, have emergency command centres (outside of the military)?
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
Don't know about the entire world.
Do know that NYC is larger than the next 3 largest cities in the US combined though.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
So what they "need" in NYC might not be the same as other cities need (or can afford). I searched on the web a bit and couldn't find any good articles explaining the "need". I did find some bitching about it though.
Why go up? My guess is because if you go DOWN in NYC you got water problems.
As to the Pentagon. Are you sure about that? I thought that it had was just finishing renovation, but that it wasn't the first to be renovated.
Arthur
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
Don't know about the entire world.
Do know that NYC is larger than the next 3 largest cities in the US combined though.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
So what they "need" in NYC might not be the same as other cities need (or can afford). I searched on the web a bit and couldn't find any good articles explaining the "need". I did find some bitching about it though.
Why go up? My guess is because if you go DOWN in NYC you got water problems.
As to the Pentagon. Are you sure about that? I thought that it had was just finishing renovation, but that it wasn't the first to be renovated.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 06:18 PM)
why would they establish a command center at all? do any other cities in the ENTIRE WORLD that you know of, have emergency command centres (outside of the military)?
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
Don't know about the entire world.
Do know that NYC is larger than the next 3 largest cities in the US combined though.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
So what they "need" in NYC might not be the same as other cities need (or can afford). I searched on the web a bit and couldn't find any good articles explaining the "need". I did find some bitching about it though.
Why go up? My guess is because if you go DOWN in NYC you got water problems.
As to the Pentagon. Are you sure about that? I thought that it had was just finishing renovation, but that it wasn't the first to be renovated.
Arthur
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
Don't know about the entire world.
Do know that NYC is larger than the next 3 largest cities in the US combined though.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
So what they "need" in NYC might not be the same as other cities need (or can afford). I searched on the web a bit and couldn't find any good articles explaining the "need". I did find some bitching about it though.
Why go up? My guess is because if you go DOWN in NYC you got water problems.
As to the Pentagon. Are you sure about that? I thought that it had was just finishing renovation, but that it wasn't the first to be renovated.
Arthur
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 06:18 PM)
why would they establish a command center at all? do any other cities in the ENTIRE WORLD that you know of, have emergency command centres (outside of the military)?
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
Don't know about the entire world.
Do know that NYC is larger than the next 3 largest cities in the US combined though.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
So what they "need" in NYC might not be the same as other cities need (or can afford). I searched on the web a bit and couldn't find any good articles explaining the "need". I did find some bitching about it though.
Why go up? My guess is because if you go DOWN in NYC you got water problems.
As to the Pentagon. Are you sure about that? I thought that it had was just finishing renovation, but that it wasn't the first to be renovated.
Arthur
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
That IS sort of backward logic. "I want to hit the pentagon so let me aim it at the reinforced section..." DUH!
Sort of like flying an airliner into a building then blowing it up. Heh! Decisions, decisions...
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
Don't know about the entire world.
Do know that NYC is larger than the next 3 largest cities in the US combined though.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
So what they "need" in NYC might not be the same as other cities need (or can afford). I searched on the web a bit and couldn't find any good articles explaining the "need". I did find some bitching about it though.
Why go up? My guess is because if you go DOWN in NYC you got water problems.
As to the Pentagon. Are you sure about that? I thought that it had was just finishing renovation, but that it wasn't the first to be renovated.
Arthur
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
That IS sort of backward logic. "I want to hit the pentagon so let me aim it at the reinforced section..." DUH!
Sort of like flying an airliner into a building then blowing it up. Heh! Decisions, decisions...
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 12:21 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 10 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 10 2006, 06:18 PM)
why would they establish a command center at all? do any other cities in the ENTIRE WORLD that you know of, have emergency command centres (outside of the military)?
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
Don't know about the entire world.
Do know that NYC is larger than the next 3 largest cities in the US combined though.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
So what they "need" in NYC might not be the same as other cities need (or can afford). I searched on the web a bit and couldn't find any good articles explaining the "need". I did find some bitching about it though.
Why go up? My guess is because if you go DOWN in NYC you got water problems.
As to the Pentagon. Are you sure about that? I thought that it had was just finishing renovation, but that it wasn't the first to be renovated.
Arthur
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
That IS sort of backward logic. "I want to hit the pentagon so let me aim it at the reinforced section..." DUH!
Sort of like flying an airliner into a building then blowing it up. Heh! Decisions, decisions...
Hahahahehehe......Well, CS, you just paid me back in full for that time " I slayed you", hehehe. That did me more good than a walk on the beach, Thanks! hehehe.
what would make mayor crook think that he needed blast proof windows when he is way up in the air?
why would mayor crook decide to spend FIFTEEN MILLION!? of taxpayer money on something so frivolous and impractical?
why would anyone with foresight think that the world trade center(a proven target) would be the best place to put such a BIZARRE BUNKER IN THE SKY?
-----------of course, the reinforcement at the pentagon on the ONE WALL that was struck is completely unrelated, although a nearly IDENTICAL COINCIDENCE, right?
Don't know about the entire world.
Do know that NYC is larger than the next 3 largest cities in the US combined though.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
So what they "need" in NYC might not be the same as other cities need (or can afford). I searched on the web a bit and couldn't find any good articles explaining the "need". I did find some bitching about it though.
Why go up? My guess is because if you go DOWN in NYC you got water problems.
As to the Pentagon. Are you sure about that? I thought that it had was just finishing renovation, but that it wasn't the first to be renovated.
Arthur
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
That IS sort of backward logic. "I want to hit the pentagon so let me aim it at the reinforced section..." DUH!
Sort of like flying an airliner into a building then blowing it up. Heh! Decisions, decisions...
Hahahahehehe......Well, CS, you just paid me back in full for that time " I slayed you", hehehe. That did me more good than a walk on the beach, Thanks! hehehe.
Scholars Call for Release of 9/11 Information
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:*
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the Undersigned Scholars for 9/11 Truth Hereby Petitions for, and hereby demands, Release of the Following kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence to the public for study by experts and scholars investigating the events of 9/11:
1. Immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tapes, of which five frames (only) have been released via the official ASCE report, as Judicial Watch has also requested. We further demand release of the video tape seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit, from the fuel service station near the Pentagon, as well as any other videotape which shows the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon.
See
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...repentagon.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2000/b...0_bt218-00.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2000/20005022a.jpg
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pa...fct-videos.html
2. Immediate release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST, largely from private photographers, regarding the collapses of WTC buildings on 9/11/2001 (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, all footage relating to the collapse of WTC 7 (including shots before, during and after the collapse) must be released immediately, without waiting for the NIST report on WTC 7, which is long overdue and may be prolonged indefinitely.
3. An explanation from Vice President Richard Cheney regarding the "orders" described by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in his testimony before The 9/11 Commission. Secretary Mineta stated that while in an underground bunker at the White House, he watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as a plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The officer should be identified and allowed to testify at a deposition under oath.
See http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv
:
: 4-10
11. Release of a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from flights 11, 77, 93 or 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to:
a - the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;
b - a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items; and
c - a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items, including reports of such tests or examinations.
12. Release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal or other material from the World Trade Centers, including, but not limited to:
a - the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;
b - a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items; and
c - a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items, including reports of such tests or examinations.
On behalf of the People of the United States of America, we demand that the cover-up in this case end and that the kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence described above be provided to the public for experts and scholars to evaluate and assess in their efforts to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about events on 9/11.
FOR THE SOCIETY:
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Sign the petition
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:*
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the Undersigned Scholars for 9/11 Truth Hereby Petitions for, and hereby demands, Release of the Following kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence to the public for study by experts and scholars investigating the events of 9/11:
1. Immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tapes, of which five frames (only) have been released via the official ASCE report, as Judicial Watch has also requested. We further demand release of the video tape seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit, from the fuel service station near the Pentagon, as well as any other videotape which shows the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon.
See
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...repentagon.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2000/b...0_bt218-00.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2000/20005022a.jpg
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pa...fct-videos.html
2. Immediate release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST, largely from private photographers, regarding the collapses of WTC buildings on 9/11/2001 (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, all footage relating to the collapse of WTC 7 (including shots before, during and after the collapse) must be released immediately, without waiting for the NIST report on WTC 7, which is long overdue and may be prolonged indefinitely.
3. An explanation from Vice President Richard Cheney regarding the "orders" described by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in his testimony before The 9/11 Commission. Secretary Mineta stated that while in an underground bunker at the White House, he watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as a plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The officer should be identified and allowed to testify at a deposition under oath.
See http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv
:
: 4-10
11. Release of a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from flights 11, 77, 93 or 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to:
a - the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;
b - a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items; and
c - a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items, including reports of such tests or examinations.
12. Release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal or other material from the World Trade Centers, including, but not limited to:
a - the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;
b - a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items; and
c - a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items, including reports of such tests or examinations.
On behalf of the People of the United States of America, we demand that the cover-up in this case end and that the kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence described above be provided to the public for experts and scholars to evaluate and assess in their efforts to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about events on 9/11.
FOR THE SOCIETY:
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Sign the petition
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 11 2006, 01:46 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Notice my DEFT use of CAPITALS to help RC UNDERSTAND my post.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Notice my DEFT use of CAPITALS to help RC UNDERSTAND my post.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 10 2006, 06:59 PM)
Helloe all, I see that nothing has changed since I was last here. I had to attend an emergency meeting of sorts and have been away for a few days.
Seems to be close to 100 pages since I last read this thread. However I don't believe that I missed anything. Last I looked there was a new wrinkle in that some were attemting to change the design of the towers to solid concrete core walls.
Riiiight,, and a holograph plane actually covered for the bombs planted in the towers too.
Curious,
All this denial and no evidence to support the contention that the FEMA diagram show the core that existed.
Well, there is evidence a plenty for the steel reinforced, rectangular, tubular concrete core.
The below is the core of WTC 2. To reasonably say this is not concrete, one must explain why there are no steel core columns seen.
Seems to be close to 100 pages since I last read this thread. However I don't believe that I missed anything. Last I looked there was a new wrinkle in that some were attemting to change the design of the towers to solid concrete core walls.
Riiiight,, and a holograph plane actually covered for the bombs planted in the towers too.
Curious,
All this denial and no evidence to support the contention that the FEMA diagram show the core that existed.
Well, there is evidence a plenty for the steel reinforced, rectangular, tubular concrete core.
The below is the core of WTC 2. To reasonably say this is not concrete, one must explain why there are no steel core columns seen.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 08:18 PM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 10 2006, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Here is the diagram that NIST alleges shows the placement of columns and sizes in the towers. Note that in the diagram which shows placement the numbers in the ovals represent the column number, and the numbers below those allegedly show the floor height at which the columns changed from box columns to wide flange columns.
I provide this merely as represented by NIST, but that does not mean that I agree with it. For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_untitled3.html
Gordon, Great stuff. The lie becomes blatantly obvious through your knowledgeable posts, but I do understand 'Schneiby-Sense' thinking you are speaking in riddles. The engineering and structural issues you are discussing will go over John Q Publics level of understanding.
ScottS, I will post some photos and enlargements of those areas later, hopefully if I can find the time later this afternoon... unlike some, (whose 'job' seems to be to sit here and have instantaneous responses) some of us have real jobs which detract from that ability.
Arthur, Your original post was almost scientifically objective, and I thank you for that... perhaps if you were to lose the constant assailing of opponents with insults and false allegations there will be hope for you. Such comments do not add at all to your position, and your bias comes through clearly in such remarks. Do you think two scientists with opposing viewpoints will convince others that one (or the other) is right by the amount of vitriolic attacks lodged against another, rather than by the actual facts presented? I will address your concerns once I have time to put together all the relevant info. You list numerous photos as references. I do have them all, but why don't you post your own pictures. As I said before it is easy to 'capture' the photos ---
While you have the adobe document open, press the print screen button on your keyboard. That will copy your whole screen to the clipboard. Open your photo editor and import from clipboard. Crop and resize as you see fit.
It does take some effort to do this, but observers will see who is actually interested in taking the time to present a well-founded case... as opposed to those who merely wish to make as many posts and comments in a stream of unsupported allegations. This is not a case of ...he who posts the most 'wins' the arguement.
You waste far too much time in slandering others with no qualitative data to support your case, and you will only convince people like RC & CS with such behaviour. But, again... Your post here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=72552
was an improvement over 90% of your posts.
EDIT to add: - Just got a reply from Professor Jones on that mysterious slag photo, so I'm going to be distracted with some of his suggestions before I get back. Arthur, who did you say were CENAN PAO? {or whoever the people were who hosted those photos?}
Such an important point must be made again and again, THX.
Foxx wrote
For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
An absolute fact. No doubt in this.
My point here is that NO box columns are seen inside the core area. They only surround the core.
The NIST diagram is pure fiction, an intentional lie designed to confuse and mislead the public. There has been mass murder and this lie disguises the real act.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 10 2006, 05:43 PM)
QUOTE
by shagster
Anyone know if there is supposed to be 1x3 box columns at the 83 floor? I haven't read everything about the WTC documents and the NIST reports.
One of the diagrams states that floor 83 is the point where some box columns change to wide flange columns.
Anyone know if there is supposed to be 1x3 box columns at the 83 floor? I haven't read everything about the WTC documents and the NIST reports.
One of the diagrams states that floor 83 is the point where some box columns change to wide flange columns.
Here is the diagram that NIST alleges shows the placement of columns and sizes in the towers. Note that in the diagram which shows placement the numbers in the ovals represent the column number, and the numbers below those allegedly show the floor height at which the columns changed from box columns to wide flange columns.
I provide this merely as represented by NIST, but that does not mean that I agree with it. For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_untitled3.html
Gordon, Great stuff. The lie becomes blatantly obvious through your knowledgeable posts, but I do understand 'Schneiby-Sense' thinking you are speaking in riddles. The engineering and structural issues you are discussing will go over John Q Publics level of understanding.
ScottS, I will post some photos and enlargements of those areas later, hopefully if I can find the time later this afternoon... unlike some, (whose 'job' seems to be to sit here and have instantaneous responses) some of us have real jobs which detract from that ability.
Arthur, Your original post was almost scientifically objective, and I thank you for that... perhaps if you were to lose the constant assailing of opponents with insults and false allegations there will be hope for you. Such comments do not add at all to your position, and your bias comes through clearly in such remarks. Do you think two scientists with opposing viewpoints will convince others that one (or the other) is right by the amount of vitriolic attacks lodged against another, rather than by the actual facts presented? I will address your concerns once I have time to put together all the relevant info. You list numerous photos as references. I do have them all, but why don't you post your own pictures. As I said before it is easy to 'capture' the photos ---
While you have the adobe document open, press the print screen button on your keyboard. That will copy your whole screen to the clipboard. Open your photo editor and import from clipboard. Crop and resize as you see fit.
It does take some effort to do this, but observers will see who is actually interested in taking the time to present a well-founded case... as opposed to those who merely wish to make as many posts and comments in a stream of unsupported allegations. This is not a case of ...he who posts the most 'wins' the arguement.
You waste far too much time in slandering others with no qualitative data to support your case, and you will only convince people like RC & CS with such behaviour. But, again... Your post here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=72552
was an improvement over 90% of your posts.
EDIT to add: - Just got a reply from Professor Jones on that mysterious slag photo, so I'm going to be distracted with some of his suggestions before I get back. Arthur, who did you say were CENAN PAO? {or whoever the people were who hosted those photos?}
Such an important point must be made again and again, THX.
Foxx wrote
For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
An absolute fact. No doubt in this.
My point here is that NO box columns are seen inside the core area. They only surround the core.
The NIST diagram is pure fiction, an intentional lie designed to confuse and mislead the public. There has been mass murder and this lie disguises the real act.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 10 2006, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
It should therefore comes as no SHOCK to you, Arthur, that your RESPONSE has likewise been fully ANTICIPATED.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
It should therefore comes as no SHOCK to you, Arthur, that your RESPONSE has likewise been fully ANTICIPATED.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 10 2006, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' that 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' that 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 08:18 PM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Um how about this picture?
I don't see any concrete there..... or any concrete pouring operation.... do you?
There are no "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" shown inside the core in the helicopter photos.
The vertical steel elements seen inside the core area are elevator guide rails. Ironically the image I post is from a site that believed the official story related to the core of the tower and, ............. they had the simple integrity to not try to note massive columns where they did not exist.
I had notated a similar image, but theirs has better resolution. Mine labels all the features.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 10 2006, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE
If anyone has posted raw evidence contrary to the core I have not seen it. If such exists, why haven't you posted it?
Um how about this picture?
I don't see any concrete there..... or any concrete pouring operation.... do you?
There are no "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" shown inside the core in the helicopter photos.
The vertical steel elements seen inside the core area are elevator guide rails. Ironically the image I post is from a site that believed the official story related to the core of the tower and, ............. they had the simple integrity to not try to note massive columns where they did not exist.
I had notated a similar image, but theirs has better resolution. Mine labels all the features.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:06 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 10 2006, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' that 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
I am highly entertained that there is no post so ridiculous or off-topic (see previous guest posts) that they do not elicit a response from the OCT police (they live inside my head). What IS it that DRIVES them? Perhaps nothing more sinister than a desire to have the most posts on this forum (you GO Arthur). Then again....
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' that 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
I am highly entertained that there is no post so ridiculous or off-topic (see previous guest posts) that they do not elicit a response from the OCT police (they live inside my head). What IS it that DRIVES them? Perhaps nothing more sinister than a desire to have the most posts on this forum (you GO Arthur). Then again....
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 08:18 PM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc. that you keep using, it seems that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media that you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe)......
If "they" wanted to be safe "they" would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section while the plane would be directed at some other section....or "they" would have been altogether outside/away on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc. that you keep using, it seems that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media that you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe)......
If "they" wanted to be safe "they" would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section while the plane would be directed at some other section....or "they" would have been altogether outside/away on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 11 2006, 02:37 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:06 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 10 2006, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' that 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
I am highly entertained that there is no post so ridiculous or off-topic (see previous guest posts) that they do not elicit a response from the OCT police (they live inside my head). What IS it that DRIVES them? Perhaps nothing more sinister than a desire to have the most posts on this forum (you GO Arthur). Then again....
Hi Guest! Unless a poster is 'beyond the pale'....which yours wasn't (and especially when one's name is mentioned), it is only common courtesy to respond if one has seen the relevant post. OK by you?
RC.
.
Does this model show the sequence where the upper sections exerted a force upwards while simultaneously travelling downwards? Or is that explanation pending?
Gordon.
It looked like it was relatively easy for the towers to become unzippered. The rubble didn't look like a mass of still-connected twisted metal on the ground. There were many free pieces unbent. Many perimeter panels broke away from the floor connections. It looked more like a tinker toy that came apart. The fact that a core spire about 40 or more floors and tall sections of perimeter panels remained standing with nothing connected to them is a testament to how easy it was to unzipper floors from the columns.
Absolutely, like a tinker toy that came apart. Not nearly enough tangled steel for a collapse.
Altough there is something connected to the spire. Consistency with the rest of the photographic evidence says that piece to the left is part of the shear wall of the concrete core.
It is way too thick to be drywall which would never survive what the steel and concrete seen have survived to stand,
momentarily.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' that 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
I am highly entertained that there is no post so ridiculous or off-topic (see previous guest posts) that they do not elicit a response from the OCT police (they live inside my head). What IS it that DRIVES them? Perhaps nothing more sinister than a desire to have the most posts on this forum (you GO Arthur). Then again....
Hi Guest! Unless a poster is 'beyond the pale'....which yours wasn't (and especially when one's name is mentioned), it is only common courtesy to respond if one has seen the relevant post. OK by you?
RC.
.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 10 2006, 10:37 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 10 2006, 02:14 AM)
Does this model show the sequence where the upper sections exerted a force upwards while simultaneously travelling downwards? Or is that explanation pending?
Gordon.
It looked like it was relatively easy for the towers to become unzippered. The rubble didn't look like a mass of still-connected twisted metal on the ground. There were many free pieces unbent. Many perimeter panels broke away from the floor connections. It looked more like a tinker toy that came apart. The fact that a core spire about 40 or more floors and tall sections of perimeter panels remained standing with nothing connected to them is a testament to how easy it was to unzipper floors from the columns.
Absolutely, like a tinker toy that came apart. Not nearly enough tangled steel for a collapse.
Altough there is something connected to the spire. Consistency with the rest of the photographic evidence says that piece to the left is part of the shear wall of the concrete core.
It is way too thick to be drywall which would never survive what the steel and concrete seen have survived to stand,
momentarily.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 08:18 PM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 03:05 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 08:18 PM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
Hehehe. You seem to have read all the good stuff....but where is the 'balance' which will ensure you don't go completely down the 'paranoia/pessimism' gurgler? Lighten up!
About your 'movies' and 'shagging'. It's OK by me. It's what's it doing to YOU that I find myself caring about (although it's none of my business). I have some advice: It's not the 'quantity' so much as the 'quality' we should appreciate....otherwise you're just another one of those 'mindless consumers' which the 'neo-cons' you rail against just love to 'mind control', heh?
Discretion is not only the better part of valour...it is IMPERATIVE for survival both physically and mentally in this 'eat it up' and 'consume, consume, consume' society that we westerners live in today. But as you will expect, I have no right to dictate anything to you....so I will gladly leave both the frequency and quantity of your own movie-watching and shagging to your better judgement. I have enough to be going on with my own movie-watching......
Cheers! (sincerely, lighten up, mate! I'm beginning to worry about a complete stranger!....how weird is that?).
RC.
.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
Hehehe. You seem to have read all the good stuff....but where is the 'balance' which will ensure you don't go completely down the 'paranoia/pessimism' gurgler? Lighten up!
About your 'movies' and 'shagging'. It's OK by me. It's what's it doing to YOU that I find myself caring about (although it's none of my business). I have some advice: It's not the 'quantity' so much as the 'quality' we should appreciate....otherwise you're just another one of those 'mindless consumers' which the 'neo-cons' you rail against just love to 'mind control', heh?
Discretion is not only the better part of valour...it is IMPERATIVE for survival both physically and mentally in this 'eat it up' and 'consume, consume, consume' society that we westerners live in today. But as you will expect, I have no right to dictate anything to you....so I will gladly leave both the frequency and quantity of your own movie-watching and shagging to your better judgement. I have enough to be going on with my own movie-watching......
Cheers! (sincerely, lighten up, mate! I'm beginning to worry about a complete stranger!....how weird is that?).
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 03:05 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 08:18 PM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
Hehehe. You seem to have read all the good stuff....but where is the 'balance' which will ensure you don't go completely down the 'paranoia/pessimism' gurgler? Lighten up!
About your 'movies' and 'shagging'. It's OK by me. It's what's it doing to YOU that I find myself caring about (although it's none of my business). I have some advice: It's not the 'quantity' so much as the 'quality' we should appreciate....otherwise you're just another one of those 'mindless consumers' which the 'neo-cons' you rail against just love to 'mind control', heh?
Discretion is not only the better part of valour...it is IMPERATIVE for survival both physically and mentally in this 'eat it up' and 'consume, consume, consume' society that we westerners live in today. But as you will expect, I have no right to dictate anything to you....so I will gladly leave both the frequency and quantity of your own movie-watching and shagging to your better judgement. I have enough to be going on with my own movie-watching......
Cheers! (sincerely, lighten up, mate! I'm beginning to worry about a complete stranger!....how weird is that?).
RC.
.
"...we westerners..."?
A little slip-up, RC? heheheh!
Here is the diagram that NIST alleges shows the placement of columns and sizes in the towers. Note that in the diagram which shows placement the numbers in the ovals represent the column number, and the numbers below those allegedly show the floor height at which the columns changed from box columns to wide flange columns.
I provide this merely as represented by NIST, but that does not mean that I agree with it. For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_untitled3.html
Gordon, Great stuff. The lie becomes blatantly obvious through your knowledgeable posts, but I do understand 'Schneiby-Sense' thinking you are speaking in riddles. The engineering and structural issues you are discussing will go over John Q Publics level of understanding.
ScottS, I will post some photos and enlargements of those areas later, hopefully if I can find the time later this afternoon... unlike some, (whose 'job' seems to be to sit here and have instantaneous responses) some of us have real jobs which detract from that ability.
Arthur, Your original post was almost scientifically objective, and I thank you for that... perhaps if you were to lose the constant assailing of opponents with insults and false allegations there will be hope for you. Such comments do not add at all to your position, and your bias comes through clearly in such remarks. Do you think two scientists with opposing viewpoints will convince others that one (or the other) is right by the amount of vitriolic attacks lodged against another, rather than by the actual facts presented? I will address your concerns once I have time to put together all the relevant info. You list numerous photos as references. I do have them all, but why don't you post your own pictures. As I said before it is easy to 'capture' the photos ---
While you have the adobe document open, press the print screen button on your keyboard. That will copy your whole screen to the clipboard. Open your photo editor and import from clipboard. Crop and resize as you see fit.
It does take some effort to do this, but observers will see who is actually interested in taking the time to present a well-founded case... as opposed to those who merely wish to make as many posts and comments in a stream of unsupported allegations. This is not a case of ...he who posts the most 'wins' the arguement.
You waste far too much time in slandering others with no qualitative data to support your case, and you will only convince people like RC & CS with such behaviour. But, again... Your post here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=72552
was an improvement over 90% of your posts.
EDIT to add: - Just got a reply from Professor Jones on that mysterious slag photo, so I'm going to be distracted with some of his suggestions before I get back. Arthur, who did you say were CENAN PAO? {or whoever the people were who hosted those photos?}
--------------
Here is the diagram that NIST alleges shows the placement of columns and sizes in the towers. Note that in the diagram which shows placement the numbers in the ovals represent the column number, and the numbers below those allegedly show the floor height at which the columns changed from box columns to wide flange columns.
I provide this merely as represented by NIST, but that does not mean that I agree with it. For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_untitled3.html
Gordon, Great stuff. The lie becomes blatantly obvious through your knowledgeable posts, but I do understand 'Schneiby-Sense' thinking you are speaking in riddles. The engineering and structural issues you are discussing will go over John Q Publics level of understanding.
ScottS, I will post some photos and enlargements of those areas later, hopefully if I can find the time later this afternoon... unlike some, (whose 'job' seems to be to sit here and have instantaneous responses) some of us have real jobs which detract from that ability.
Arthur, Your original post was almost scientifically objective, and I thank you for that... perhaps if you were to lose the constant assailing of opponents with insults and false allegations there will be hope for you. Such comments do not add at all to your position, and your bias comes through clearly in such remarks. Do you think two scientists with opposing viewpoints will convince others that one (or the other) is right by the amount of vitriolic attacks lodged against another, rather than by the actual facts presented? I will address your concerns once I have time to put together all the relevant info. You list numerous photos as references. I do have them all, but why don't you post your own pictures. As I said before it is easy to 'capture' the photos ---
While you have the adobe document open, press the print screen button on your keyboard. That will copy your whole screen to the clipboard. Open your photo editor and import from clipboard. Crop and resize as you see fit.
It does take some effort to do this, but observers will see who is actually interested in taking the time to present a well-founded case... as opposed to those who merely wish to make as many posts and comments in a stream of unsupported allegations. This is not a case of ...he who posts the most 'wins' the arguement.
You waste far too much time in slandering others with no qualitative data to support your case, and you will only convince people like RC & CS with such behaviour. But, again... Your post here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=72552
was an improvement over 90% of your posts.
EDIT to add: - Just got a reply from Professor Jones on that mysterious slag photo, so I'm going to be distracted with some of his suggestions before I get back. Arthur, who did you say were CENAN PAO? {or whoever the people were who hosted those photos?}
--------------
posted by Christophera
Such an important point must be made again and again, THX.
Foxx wrote
For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
An absolute fact. No doubt in this.
My point here is that NO box columns are seen inside the core area. The only surround the core.
The NIST diagram is pure fiction, an intentional lie designed to confuse and mislead the public. There has been mass murder and this lie disguises the real act.
The pictures above show for a fact that the 1 x 3 box columns did in fact exist. The NIST diagram shows for a fact that NIST has NOT provided for these in their drawing linked above.
Surely, those of you who support the idea that NIST is an honest arm of the government, and would never even consider disseminating false information will have an answer for this.
However, Christophera... I do not see any evidence that can be deduced from the above photos that the interior box columns were not there.
I see about 4 of the massive 1 x 3 outer central core columns and what appears to be the reinforced concrete lower section of a stairwell (that some survivors were pulled out of, IIRC).
But the above photos only show a very small section of the central core. The other massive 1 x 3 columns are also gone. I think what we are looking at in the above photos is just a small corner section of the core, so we shouldn't really expect to see any of the other 'interior' core columns in that small area. If you look again at the schematic diagram provided by NIST the photos are only revealing whats left of one small corner of that. So, although the above photos DO show that NIST is ... shall we say...'mistaken' on this point, they don't really support the concrete core theory... (as far as I can see).
I consider it a given that there was a massive concrete / steel structure at the base of the buildings - The underground areas were all lined with steel reinforced concrete and I suspect that in the core area this structure was surrounding the core up to the first skylobby area. I have yet to see any real evidence that it extended any higher, although I will say that the one photo you post seems incongruous - the one after the collapse that you point to and say is the concrete core.
However IF such photo actually shows a concrete core structure, such a massive structure still standing as the dust cloud dissipates would surely have been caught from other angles or in other videos, and I have seen no evidence of that at all, which makes me sceptical of that one photo. Find some from other perspectives, in the photo video archives and you might have a chance of convincing me. Until then all this talk about concrete-core is nothing more than a red herring (to me).
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Some hold tenaciously to the theory that there were missile pods on the planes, {or that 19 evil arabs pulled this off}.
I have investigated both theories and found both, sadly lacking in any real evidence. I'm afraid as far as I am concerned the concrete-core theory is about on par at the moment.
I just gotta ask... where on earth did you come up with this idea that the concrete (in the photo you have added comments to) was 17 feet thick !... I'm somehow sure I'm going to regret asking that.
Forgive me if I don't respond to your answer... I tend to not spend a lot of time talking about missile pods either, but I'm just curious.
Missile pods, holograms, or concrete cores don't change the demolition facts, and in my opinion those who promote such theories only detract from the main issue, whether that is their intention or not.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
Hehehe. You seem to have read all the good stuff....but where is the 'balance' which will ensure you don't go completely down the 'paranoia/pessimism' gurgler? Lighten up!
About your 'movies' and 'shagging'. It's OK by me. It's what's it doing to YOU that I find myself caring about (although it's none of my business). I have some advice: It's not the 'quantity' so much as the 'quality' we should appreciate....otherwise you're just another one of those 'mindless consumers' which the 'neo-cons' you rail against just love to 'mind control', heh?
Discretion is not only the better part of valour...it is IMPERATIVE for survival both physically and mentally in this 'eat it up' and 'consume, consume, consume' society that we westerners live in today. But as you will expect, I have no right to dictate anything to you....so I will gladly leave both the frequency and quantity of your own movie-watching and shagging to your better judgement. I have enough to be going on with my own movie-watching......
Cheers! (sincerely, lighten up, mate! I'm beginning to worry about a complete stranger!....how weird is that?).
RC.
.
"...we westerners..."?
A little slip-up, RC? heheheh!
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 10 2006, 05:43 PM)
QUOTE
by shagster
Anyone know if there is supposed to be 1x3 box columns at the 83 floor? I haven't read everything about the WTC documents and the NIST reports.
One of the diagrams states that floor 83 is the point where some box columns change to wide flange columns.
Anyone know if there is supposed to be 1x3 box columns at the 83 floor? I haven't read everything about the WTC documents and the NIST reports.
One of the diagrams states that floor 83 is the point where some box columns change to wide flange columns.
Here is the diagram that NIST alleges shows the placement of columns and sizes in the towers. Note that in the diagram which shows placement the numbers in the ovals represent the column number, and the numbers below those allegedly show the floor height at which the columns changed from box columns to wide flange columns.
I provide this merely as represented by NIST, but that does not mean that I agree with it. For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_untitled3.html
Gordon, Great stuff. The lie becomes blatantly obvious through your knowledgeable posts, but I do understand 'Schneiby-Sense' thinking you are speaking in riddles. The engineering and structural issues you are discussing will go over John Q Publics level of understanding.
ScottS, I will post some photos and enlargements of those areas later, hopefully if I can find the time later this afternoon... unlike some, (whose 'job' seems to be to sit here and have instantaneous responses) some of us have real jobs which detract from that ability.
Arthur, Your original post was almost scientifically objective, and I thank you for that... perhaps if you were to lose the constant assailing of opponents with insults and false allegations there will be hope for you. Such comments do not add at all to your position, and your bias comes through clearly in such remarks. Do you think two scientists with opposing viewpoints will convince others that one (or the other) is right by the amount of vitriolic attacks lodged against another, rather than by the actual facts presented? I will address your concerns once I have time to put together all the relevant info. You list numerous photos as references. I do have them all, but why don't you post your own pictures. As I said before it is easy to 'capture' the photos ---
While you have the adobe document open, press the print screen button on your keyboard. That will copy your whole screen to the clipboard. Open your photo editor and import from clipboard. Crop and resize as you see fit.
It does take some effort to do this, but observers will see who is actually interested in taking the time to present a well-founded case... as opposed to those who merely wish to make as many posts and comments in a stream of unsupported allegations. This is not a case of ...he who posts the most 'wins' the arguement.
You waste far too much time in slandering others with no qualitative data to support your case, and you will only convince people like RC & CS with such behaviour. But, again... Your post here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=72552
was an improvement over 90% of your posts.
EDIT to add: - Just got a reply from Professor Jones on that mysterious slag photo, so I'm going to be distracted with some of his suggestions before I get back. Arthur, who did you say were CENAN PAO? {or whoever the people were who hosted those photos?}
--------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by shagster Anyone know if there is supposed to be 1x3 box columns at the 83 floor? I haven't read everything about the WTC documents and the NIST reports. One of the diagrams states that floor 83 is the point where some box columns change to wide flange columns. |
Here is the diagram that NIST alleges shows the placement of columns and sizes in the towers. Note that in the diagram which shows placement the numbers in the ovals represent the column number, and the numbers below those allegedly show the floor height at which the columns changed from box columns to wide flange columns.
I provide this merely as represented by NIST, but that does not mean that I agree with it. For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_untitled3.html
Gordon, Great stuff. The lie becomes blatantly obvious through your knowledgeable posts, but I do understand 'Schneiby-Sense' thinking you are speaking in riddles. The engineering and structural issues you are discussing will go over John Q Publics level of understanding.
ScottS, I will post some photos and enlargements of those areas later, hopefully if I can find the time later this afternoon... unlike some, (whose 'job' seems to be to sit here and have instantaneous responses) some of us have real jobs which detract from that ability.
Arthur, Your original post was almost scientifically objective, and I thank you for that... perhaps if you were to lose the constant assailing of opponents with insults and false allegations there will be hope for you. Such comments do not add at all to your position, and your bias comes through clearly in such remarks. Do you think two scientists with opposing viewpoints will convince others that one (or the other) is right by the amount of vitriolic attacks lodged against another, rather than by the actual facts presented? I will address your concerns once I have time to put together all the relevant info. You list numerous photos as references. I do have them all, but why don't you post your own pictures. As I said before it is easy to 'capture' the photos ---
While you have the adobe document open, press the print screen button on your keyboard. That will copy your whole screen to the clipboard. Open your photo editor and import from clipboard. Crop and resize as you see fit.
It does take some effort to do this, but observers will see who is actually interested in taking the time to present a well-founded case... as opposed to those who merely wish to make as many posts and comments in a stream of unsupported allegations. This is not a case of ...he who posts the most 'wins' the arguement.
You waste far too much time in slandering others with no qualitative data to support your case, and you will only convince people like RC & CS with such behaviour. But, again... Your post here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=72552
was an improvement over 90% of your posts.
EDIT to add: - Just got a reply from Professor Jones on that mysterious slag photo, so I'm going to be distracted with some of his suggestions before I get back. Arthur, who did you say were CENAN PAO? {or whoever the people were who hosted those photos?}
--------------
posted by Christophera
Such an important point must be made again and again, THX.
Foxx wrote
For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
An absolute fact. No doubt in this.
My point here is that NO box columns are seen inside the core area. The only surround the core.
The NIST diagram is pure fiction, an intentional lie designed to confuse and mislead the public. There has been mass murder and this lie disguises the real act.
The pictures above show for a fact that the 1 x 3 box columns did in fact exist. The NIST diagram shows for a fact that NIST has NOT provided for these in their drawing linked above.
Surely, those of you who support the idea that NIST is an honest arm of the government, and would never even consider disseminating false information will have an answer for this.
However, Christophera... I do not see any evidence that can be deduced from the above photos that the interior box columns were not there.
I see about 4 of the massive 1 x 3 outer central core columns and what appears to be the reinforced concrete lower section of a stairwell (that some survivors were pulled out of, IIRC).
But the above photos only show a very small section of the central core. The other massive 1 x 3 columns are also gone. I think what we are looking at in the above photos is just a small corner section of the core, so we shouldn't really expect to see any of the other 'interior' core columns in that small area. If you look again at the schematic diagram provided by NIST the photos are only revealing whats left of one small corner of that. So, although the above photos DO show that NIST is ... shall we say...'mistaken' on this point, they don't really support the concrete core theory... (as far as I can see).
I consider it a given that there was a massive concrete / steel structure at the base of the buildings - The underground areas were all lined with steel reinforced concrete and I suspect that in the core area this structure was surrounding the core up to the first skylobby area. I have yet to see any real evidence that it extended any higher, although I will say that the one photo you post seems incongruous - the one after the collapse that you point to and say is the concrete core.
However IF such photo actually shows a concrete core structure, such a massive structure still standing as the dust cloud dissipates would surely have been caught from other angles or in other videos, and I have seen no evidence of that at all, which makes me sceptical of that one photo. Find some from other perspectives, in the photo video archives and you might have a chance of convincing me. Until then all this talk about concrete-core is nothing more than a red herring (to me).
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Some hold tenaciously to the theory that there were missile pods on the planes, {or that 19 evil arabs pulled this off}.
I have investigated both theories and found both, sadly lacking in any real evidence. I'm afraid as far as I am concerned the concrete-core theory is about on par at the moment.
I just gotta ask... where on earth did you come up with this idea that the concrete (in the photo you have added comments to) was 17 feet thick !... I'm somehow sure I'm going to regret asking that.
Forgive me if I don't respond to your answer... I tend to not spend a lot of time talking about missile pods either, but I'm just curious.
Missile pods, holograms, or concrete cores don't change the demolition facts, and in my opinion those who promote such theories only detract from the main issue, whether that is their intention or not.
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 11 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 03:05 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 08:18 PM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
Hehehe. You seem to have read all the good stuff....but where is the 'balance' which will ensure you don't go completely down the 'paranoia/pessimism' gurgler? Lighten up!
About your 'movies' and 'shagging'. It's OK by me. It's what's it doing to YOU that I find myself caring about (although it's none of my business). I have some advice: It's not the 'quantity' so much as the 'quality' we should appreciate....otherwise you're just another one of those 'mindless consumers' which the 'neo-cons' you rail against just love to 'mind control', heh?
Discretion is not only the better part of valour...it is IMPERATIVE for survival both physically and mentally in this 'eat it up' and 'consume, consume, consume' society that we westerners live in today. But as you will expect, I have no right to dictate anything to you....so I will gladly leave both the frequency and quantity of your own movie-watching and shagging to your better judgement. I have enough to be going on with my own movie-watching......
Cheers! (sincerely, lighten up, mate! I'm beginning to worry about a complete stranger!....how weird is that?).
RC.
.
"...we westerners..."?
A little slip-up, RC? heheheh!
Hi Mel! How's tricks? (that's a benign greeting here in Aussie...it has nothing to do with other meanings of 'tricks', hehehe).
So tell me Mel, how does a CTer read a 'slip-up' into my use of the perfectly factual phrase 'we westerners' when addressing newton....seeing as how I am an Aussie and newton is a Canadian....and both our 'societies' are commonly classified as 'western' as well as 'consumer'?
RC.
.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
Hehehe. You seem to have read all the good stuff....but where is the 'balance' which will ensure you don't go completely down the 'paranoia/pessimism' gurgler? Lighten up!
About your 'movies' and 'shagging'. It's OK by me. It's what's it doing to YOU that I find myself caring about (although it's none of my business). I have some advice: It's not the 'quantity' so much as the 'quality' we should appreciate....otherwise you're just another one of those 'mindless consumers' which the 'neo-cons' you rail against just love to 'mind control', heh?
Discretion is not only the better part of valour...it is IMPERATIVE for survival both physically and mentally in this 'eat it up' and 'consume, consume, consume' society that we westerners live in today. But as you will expect, I have no right to dictate anything to you....so I will gladly leave both the frequency and quantity of your own movie-watching and shagging to your better judgement. I have enough to be going on with my own movie-watching......
Cheers! (sincerely, lighten up, mate! I'm beginning to worry about a complete stranger!....how weird is that?).
RC.
.
"...we westerners..."?
A little slip-up, RC? heheheh!
Hi Mel! How's tricks? (that's a benign greeting here in Aussie...it has nothing to do with other meanings of 'tricks', hehehe).
So tell me Mel, how does a CTer read a 'slip-up' into my use of the perfectly factual phrase 'we westerners' when addressing newton....seeing as how I am an Aussie and newton is a Canadian....and both our 'societies' are commonly classified as 'western' as well as 'consumer'?
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:06 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 10 2006, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' that 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
Problem is things usually never fit anyway.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' that 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
Problem is things usually never fit anyway.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 11 2006, 03:41 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 03:30 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 03:05 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:39 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 11 2006, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 10 2006, 08:18 PM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
Hehehe. You seem to have read all the good stuff....but where is the 'balance' which will ensure you don't go completely down the 'paranoia/pessimism' gurgler? Lighten up!
About your 'movies' and 'shagging'. It's OK by me. It's what's it doing to YOU that I find myself caring about (although it's none of my business). I have some advice: It's not the 'quantity' so much as the 'quality' we should appreciate....otherwise you're just another one of those 'mindless consumers' which the 'neo-cons' you rail against just love to 'mind control', heh?
Discretion is not only the better part of valour...it is IMPERATIVE for survival both physically and mentally in this 'eat it up' and 'consume, consume, consume' society that we westerners live in today. But as you will expect, I have no right to dictate anything to you....so I will gladly leave both the frequency and quantity of your own movie-watching and shagging to your better judgement. I have enough to be going on with my own movie-watching......
Cheers! (sincerely, lighten up, mate! I'm beginning to worry about a complete stranger!....how weird is that?).
RC.
.
"...we westerners..."?
A little slip-up, RC? heheheh!
Hi Mel! How's tricks? (that's a benign greeting here in Aussie...it has nothing to do with other meanings of 'tricks', hehehe).
So tell me Mel, how does a CTer read a 'slip-up' into my use of the perfectly factual phrase 'we westerners' when addressing newton....seeing as how I am an Aussie and newton is a Canadian....and both our 'societies' are commonly classified as 'western' as well as 'consumer'?
RC.
.
Blame American education. It's the main reason I'm a liberal. I'm trying to keep people like Mel from becoming the norm.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
From what I can find out the renovation was planned after the Murrah building was bombed in Oklahoma. Apparently only one 'wedge' had been partially done. The exterior of the Wedge that was hit.
The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.
Which as you and CS have pointed out is a tad backwards if you are a CT'er.
Arthur
i think guest said it best.
'they' are smarter than 'you', and 'they' anticipate ALL the arguments, and then purposely plant disinfo to 'poison the well'.
the reaon they wanted the wall reinforced, was so they could off their opponents at the pentagon, while simultaneously ensuring that the pentagon itself was RELATIVELY safe, and be DEFINITELY safe themselves in the areas 'they' themselves were in.
ditto tower seven.
it's like one of those movie scenarios where one guy punches his buddy in the head, or a secret agent stabs his fellow agent in a non-critical area to give an 'alibi bruise', or 'proof of alliegance' wound.
p.s. if movies did not have 'matching' with real life, noone would watch them, so please don't start with that life's not a movie bull. art imitates life, and life imitates art.
Mate, was it you who announced that TV etc "sucks your brains"? From all these examples gleaned from movies etc., it seemes that you may be right! As you already heard, I hardly watch TV/movies/infotainment media at all. Perhaps if you watched less of the TV/media you rail against, you might see that your 'argument' doesn't 'fit' (hehehe).
If "they" wanted to be safe they would have made sure to be IN THE RE-INFORCED section....or altogether outside on some pretext or other (since you CTers seem to ascribe "them" an "infinite" ability to "manufacture" pretexts to 'wire up' the towers etc, hehehe).
BTW, newt, do you think that the Pentagon was 'wired up' to explode after the 'planned' plane hit? (Just messing with ya, mate! I know you COULDN'T be SO 'brain-sucked' as all THAT!).
How's things otherwise, newt?
RC.
.
television is not the same as movies, first of all.
i used to watch television, because there was little else to do when i was young. i only had two stations, so quite often, there was nothing on, and so the tv was off.
i like movies. there are no commercials. there is an underlying message, usually. and it's eye/ear candy(i do have all five senses{at least}), and a chance to relax and not think. there are also hidden illuminati messages in hollywood productions(although, that's crazy CT talk, so you don't wanna know).
however, i only watch about one a month. is that okay, RC? if YOU have time and facility, check out the animated movie called, 'ghost in the shell'. watch it with the subtitles on, too, as the depth is, well, ....deeper.
in most of my adult spare time, i've read and listened to music or shagged. lots of shagging. love shagging.
but, i've always enjoyed sci-fi and fact, whether movies or books.
'ender's game' by orson scott card was my fave book of all time. it is the single best lesson in how to get good people to do evil things that i have ever read.
larry niven had great stuff, because his grasp and extrapolation of science was BELIEVEABLE, SIMPLE and PRACTICAL('heh', we should BOTH get capital punishment, eh, RC?). ringworld, the integral trees, the puppetmasters, a mote in god's eye.....
stranger in a strange land was killer, too. 'grok', 'fair witness'. good stuff.
Hehehe. You seem to have read all the good stuff....but where is the 'balance' which will ensure you don't go completely down the 'paranoia/pessimism' gurgler? Lighten up!
About your 'movies' and 'shagging'. It's OK by me. It's what's it doing to YOU that I find myself caring about (although it's none of my business). I have some advice: It's not the 'quantity' so much as the 'quality' we should appreciate....otherwise you're just another one of those 'mindless consumers' which the 'neo-cons' you rail against just love to 'mind control', heh?
Discretion is not only the better part of valour...it is IMPERATIVE for survival both physically and mentally in this 'eat it up' and 'consume, consume, consume' society that we westerners live in today. But as you will expect, I have no right to dictate anything to you....so I will gladly leave both the frequency and quantity of your own movie-watching and shagging to your better judgement. I have enough to be going on with my own movie-watching......
Cheers! (sincerely, lighten up, mate! I'm beginning to worry about a complete stranger!....how weird is that?).
RC.
.
"...we westerners..."?
A little slip-up, RC? heheheh!
Hi Mel! How's tricks? (that's a benign greeting here in Aussie...it has nothing to do with other meanings of 'tricks', hehehe).
So tell me Mel, how does a CTer read a 'slip-up' into my use of the perfectly factual phrase 'we westerners' when addressing newton....seeing as how I am an Aussie and newton is a Canadian....and both our 'societies' are commonly classified as 'western' as well as 'consumer'?
RC.
.
Blame American education. It's the main reason I'm a liberal. I'm trying to keep people like Mel from becoming the norm.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:06 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 11 2006, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 10 2006, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 12:18 AM)
Hi guys! Just speculating as to 'logic' for Pentagon 'conspiracy' to hit a recently RENOVATED/RE-INFORCED section.
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' than 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
Problem is things usually never fit anyway.
How are ya? Hehehe. Yes, there is that. Well spotted, CS! BTW, I like your 'evolved bible' observation elsewhere. I'm sure that will hit some where it hurts the most at the moment, heh?
Why would the alleged conspirators want to take out a section that had just cost a lot of dough?....when an as yet UNreinforced and UNrenovated section would have done just as well.....and have cost less in the long run? And why would not there have been some 'excuse' to NOT have so many pentagon personnel in that section at the time of impact....when an excuse like "some fumes/dust from renovation/painting" could have ensured few people would have been caught in the hit?
Just thinking out loud re 'logic' in some of these comments from CTers. Cheers!
RC.
.
I theorize (as a CT'er is wont to do) that THEY chose to precisely in anticipation that YOU, RC, would one day ask this precise question. THEY are that GOOD (in and EVIL sort of way).
Of course if they had hit a NON-reinforced wedge, that would LIKEWISE be evidence of the CONSPIRACY.
From what I can tell, with CT'ers EVERYTHING is evidence of the conspiracy, its just a matter of figuring out how it "FITS"
Of course, that is the same logic that if the only tool you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.
Arthur
Hi adoucette. Yes, I think YOU 'hit the "nail"' (hehehe) right on the head! Based on that observation of yours, one could define the particular brand of CTers that roam these threads as "people who 'fit' things in first and 'think' things out afterward" (if at all), heh?
PS to "Guest".....thanks for your concern over my comprehension aids needs....and your indeed "deft use" of 'capitals' to that end. Somehow, though, I can't avoid the feeling that your use of same was more in the spirit of 'capital punishment' than 'comprehension facilitation'. Correct? hehehe. Cheers anyway, Guest!
RC.
.
Problem is things usually never fit anyway.
How are ya? Hehehe. Yes, there is that. Well spotted, CS! BTW, I like your 'evolved bible' observation elsewhere. I'm sure that will hit some where it hurts the most at the moment, heh?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:45 AM)
Hi Guest! Unless a poster is 'beyond the pale'....which yours wasn't (and especially when one's name is mentioned), it is only common courtesy to respond if one has seen the relevant post. OK by you?
RC.
.
Amusing........
RC.
.
Amusing........
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 11 2006, 04:07 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:45 AM)
Hi Guest! Unless a poster is 'beyond the pale'....which yours wasn't (and especially when one's name is mentioned), it is only common courtesy to respond if one has seen the relevant post. OK by you?
RC.
.
Amusing........
Glad to have been of service! You know the old saying: "He also serves, who only stands and waits!" (or in this case, amuses). Cheers!
.
RC.
.
Amusing........
Glad to have been of service! You know the old saying: "He also serves, who only stands and waits!" (or in this case, amuses). Cheers!
.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 11 2006, 04:07 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:45 AM)
Hi Guest! Unless a poster is 'beyond the pale'....which yours wasn't (and especially when one's name is mentioned), it is only common courtesy to respond if one has seen the relevant post. OK by you?
RC.
.
Amusing........
pointless...
Here is the diagram that NIST alleges shows the placement of columns and sizes in the towers. Note that in the diagram which shows placement the numbers in the ovals represent the column number, and the numbers below those allegedly show the floor height at which the columns changed from box columns to wide flange columns.
I provide this merely as represented by NIST, but that does not mean that I agree with it. For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_untitled3.html
Foxx, there you go again.
Foxx takes this diagram from the draft report on the analysis of steel from the WTC.
An analysis that FOCUSED on steel in the impact and collapse zone.
Thus NO 1x3 box columns were involved.
The Diagram Foxx shows is explained like this: (from the Final report)
SOME EXAMPLES are shown in Figure 1-5;
So, NIST specifically STATES that the diagram Foxx uses is not EXHAUSTIVE.
Still he catagorizes it as if NIST is hiding something.
Use a diagram with samples and then claim its a lie because it doesn't have the one you want to see????
You gotta be kidding me.
Foxx, is this the QUALITY of your research after FOUR YEARS????
Arthur
See
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
RC.
.
Amusing........
pointless...
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 10 2006, 11:45 PM)
QUOTE
by shagster
Anyone know if there is supposed to be 1x3 box columns at the 83 floor? I haven't read everything about the WTC documents and the NIST reports.
One of the diagrams states that floor 83 is the point where some box columns change to wide flange columns.
Anyone know if there is supposed to be 1x3 box columns at the 83 floor? I haven't read everything about the WTC documents and the NIST reports.
One of the diagrams states that floor 83 is the point where some box columns change to wide flange columns.
Here is the diagram that NIST alleges shows the placement of columns and sizes in the towers. Note that in the diagram which shows placement the numbers in the ovals represent the column number, and the numbers below those allegedly show the floor height at which the columns changed from box columns to wide flange columns.
I provide this merely as represented by NIST, but that does not mean that I agree with it. For one thing it does NOT show 1 x 3 core columns anywhere on the diagram, and we know from photographic evidence that they are there.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_untitled3.html
Foxx, there you go again.
Foxx takes this diagram from the draft report on the analysis of steel from the WTC.
An analysis that FOCUSED on steel in the impact and collapse zone.
Thus NO 1x3 box columns were involved.
The Diagram Foxx shows is explained like this: (from the Final report)
SOME EXAMPLES are shown in Figure 1-5;
So, NIST specifically STATES that the diagram Foxx uses is not EXHAUSTIVE.
Still he catagorizes it as if NIST is hiding something.
Use a diagram with samples and then claim its a lie because it doesn't have the one you want to see????
You gotta be kidding me.
Foxx, is this the QUALITY of your research after FOUR YEARS????
Arthur
See
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
If you were woundering what our disinformation group (Arthur,RC, and Common Sence ) command center looked like:
What is an OpCentre?
An Opcentre is a command facility for strategic communications.
In this always-ready environment researchers can identify target audiences using highly advanced statistical models, strategists can orchestrate campaigns using the most effective scientific methods and media producers have access to innovative production techniques.
These units of expertise combine to create one of the most dynamic and influential ‘weapons' in the world.
An Opcentre puts influence, control and power back into the hands of the government and military, giving them greater power to influence the enemy in time of conflict and enhanced access to their citizens during a crisis. For instance, an Opcentre can be designed to override all national radio and TV broadcasts, allowing the government and military to communicate with the public as the need arises.
The Opcentre is a formidable tool for Homeland Security, Conflict Reduction, International Public Diplomacy and un-mediated Government communications.
Design, build and install a diplomatic communication centre staffed by researchers, writers and spokespersons for an International Organisation.
At the core of SCL's solution is work carried out by the Behavioural Dynamics Institute (BDi), the world's leading authority on persuasion, communications psychology and public diplomacy. BDi is the only academic think-tank in the world with a comprehensive understanding of the psychology behind strategic communications that has been tried and tested and successfully applied on a global scale.
“We believe that the future may well be one dominated by the power of the message and successfully conveying your message will be critical. Technology has developed to such a degree that the capability to engage with the population is now a real possibility. SCL turns that possibility into a reality,” commented the Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey Pattie, Chairman of SCL.
ScottS and other shill wannabees fill out the form below and you might be able to quite your day Job(Toggle subject to employment):
http://www.scl.cc/contactscl.php
The OpCentres allow for powerful PSYOP campaigns to be conducted, which can engender support within the national community for proposed military action or more bone chillingly, "develop national resilience and behavioural compliance for homeland security issues".
Internal Security
Almost every country suffers from some problematic faction within its citizens. These disaffected groups may be driven by religious fervour, self-importance or just greed. In all cases, their ability to operate and recruit new members depends on the perceptual environment and the levels of tolerance of the state and its citizens.
SCL specialises in producing solutions for governments so that they can significantly increase their control and management of disaffected groups as part of a wider counter-terrorism programme.
* Public Unrest
* Insurgency
* Crowd Management & Riot Control
* Counter - Terrorism Psychological Operations
* Crisis Public Affairs
What is an OpCentre?
An Opcentre is a command facility for strategic communications.
In this always-ready environment researchers can identify target audiences using highly advanced statistical models, strategists can orchestrate campaigns using the most effective scientific methods and media producers have access to innovative production techniques.
These units of expertise combine to create one of the most dynamic and influential ‘weapons' in the world.
An Opcentre puts influence, control and power back into the hands of the government and military, giving them greater power to influence the enemy in time of conflict and enhanced access to their citizens during a crisis. For instance, an Opcentre can be designed to override all national radio and TV broadcasts, allowing the government and military to communicate with the public as the need arises.
The Opcentre is a formidable tool for Homeland Security, Conflict Reduction, International Public Diplomacy and un-mediated Government communications.
Design, build and install a diplomatic communication centre staffed by researchers, writers and spokespersons for an International Organisation.
At the core of SCL's solution is work carried out by the Behavioural Dynamics Institute (BDi), the world's leading authority on persuasion, communications psychology and public diplomacy. BDi is the only academic think-tank in the world with a comprehensive understanding of the psychology behind strategic communications that has been tried and tested and successfully applied on a global scale.
“We believe that the future may well be one dominated by the power of the message and successfully conveying your message will be critical. Technology has developed to such a degree that the capability to engage with the population is now a real possibility. SCL turns that possibility into a reality,” commented the Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey Pattie, Chairman of SCL.
ScottS and other shill wannabees fill out the form below and you might be able to quite your day Job(Toggle subject to employment):
http://www.scl.cc/contactscl.php
The OpCentres allow for powerful PSYOP campaigns to be conducted, which can engender support within the national community for proposed military action or more bone chillingly, "develop national resilience and behavioural compliance for homeland security issues".
Internal Security
Almost every country suffers from some problematic faction within its citizens. These disaffected groups may be driven by religious fervour, self-importance or just greed. In all cases, their ability to operate and recruit new members depends on the perceptual environment and the levels of tolerance of the state and its citizens.
SCL specialises in producing solutions for governments so that they can significantly increase their control and management of disaffected groups as part of a wider counter-terrorism programme.
* Public Unrest
* Insurgency
* Crowd Management & Riot Control
* Counter - Terrorism Psychological Operations
* Crisis Public Affairs
.
Hi CS, adoucette. Don't be too harsh on such as Mel, Guest, Foxx et al. After all, "there but for the grace of god/fate (take your pick) go WE"!
And anyway, even 'intellectual ENTROPY' must be served; and if THEY didn't provide more than the usual quota of the necessary increase in 'intellectual disorder', then 'intellectual entropy' may come demanding more 'disorder' from US to keep its books balanced, heh?
So in the right light, they could be doing us a favour without knowing it. Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi CS, adoucette. Don't be too harsh on such as Mel, Guest, Foxx et al. After all, "there but for the grace of god/fate (take your pick) go WE"!
And anyway, even 'intellectual ENTROPY' must be served; and if THEY didn't provide more than the usual quota of the necessary increase in 'intellectual disorder', then 'intellectual entropy' may come demanding more 'disorder' from US to keep its books balanced, heh?
So in the right light, they could be doing us a favour without knowing it. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 03:48 AM)
Hi Mel! How's tricks? (that's a benign greeting here in Aussie...it has nothing to do with other meanings of 'tricks', hehehe).
So tell me Mel, how does a CTer read a 'slip-up' into my use of the perfectly factual phrase 'we westerners' when addressing newton....seeing as how I am an Aussie and newton is a Canadian....and both our 'societies' are commonly classified as 'western' as well as 'consumer'?
RC.
.
Hi RC!!! How's tricks?.
My apologies. I had no idea you were referred to as westerners. I Wiki'ed it, and it turns out virtually everyone who's anyone is referred to as a westerner. Ah well, I never was one for political or geographical labels.
Aren't you all descended from convicts? That might explain your conspiratorial trait, mate (and your over-use of the word mate, mate
). hehehe!
So tell me Mel, how does a CTer read a 'slip-up' into my use of the perfectly factual phrase 'we westerners' when addressing newton....seeing as how I am an Aussie and newton is a Canadian....and both our 'societies' are commonly classified as 'western' as well as 'consumer'?
RC.
.
Hi RC!!! How's tricks?.
My apologies. I had no idea you were referred to as westerners. I Wiki'ed it, and it turns out virtually everyone who's anyone is referred to as a westerner. Ah well, I never was one for political or geographical labels.
Aren't you all descended from convicts? That might explain your conspiratorial trait, mate (and your over-use of the word mate, mate
). hehehe!QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 11 2006, 04:37 AM)
If you were woundering what our disinformation group (Arthur,RC, and Common Sence ) command center looked like:
What is an OpCentre?
An Opcentre is a command facility for strategic communications.
In this always-ready environment researchers can identify target audiences using highly advanced statistical models, strategists can orchestrate campaigns using the most effective scientific methods and media producers have access to innovative production techniques.
These units of expertise combine to create one of the most dynamic and influential ‘weapons' in the world.
An Opcentre puts influence, control and power back into the hands of the government and military, giving them greater power to influence the enemy in time of conflict and enhanced access to their citizens during a crisis. For instance, an Opcentre can be designed to override all national radio and TV broadcasts, allowing the government and military to communicate with the public as the need arises.
The Opcentre is a formidable tool for Homeland Security, Conflict Reduction, International Public Diplomacy and un-mediated Government communications.
Design, build and install a diplomatic communication centre staffed by researchers, writers and spokespersons for an International Organisation.
Training
Normally only for specific defence projects, SCL can provide training-only solutions – especially for Psyop Unit training. However, in order for the training to be effective, the Unit must have access to the appropriate facilities in country.
All training contracts would be custom-designed for a specific client.
In practice, all projects are so unique that it is unlikely that any one would fit into the prescribed categories. Additionally this is a new type of service, which will feel unfamiliar to a number of clients. This is why we will spend as much time as clients want educating and explaining exactly how strategic communication can help a country.
ScottS and other shill wannabees fill out the form below and you might be able to quite your day Job:
http://www.scl.cc/contactscl.php
I see Rove let you take photos of your workplace. I know it's important for you to push your ridiculous CT story to cover for Bush's real crimes.
Can you tell us when Bush is supposed to talk about the CT's? [To be read with a smirk] "Listen to this... Those crazy liberals think I had planes flown into the tower! HEHEHE, No wait, theirs more! They think I blew it up too!!! HAAAHAAAHAAA!!! Those crazy liberals think I blew up the towers, can you believe that? HEHEHE." [end smirk] I'm dying to see that just before the elections. So can you ask your boss Rove when that'll be?
What is an OpCentre?
An Opcentre is a command facility for strategic communications.
In this always-ready environment researchers can identify target audiences using highly advanced statistical models, strategists can orchestrate campaigns using the most effective scientific methods and media producers have access to innovative production techniques.
These units of expertise combine to create one of the most dynamic and influential ‘weapons' in the world.
An Opcentre puts influence, control and power back into the hands of the government and military, giving them greater power to influence the enemy in time of conflict and enhanced access to their citizens during a crisis. For instance, an Opcentre can be designed to override all national radio and TV broadcasts, allowing the government and military to communicate with the public as the need arises.
The Opcentre is a formidable tool for Homeland Security, Conflict Reduction, International Public Diplomacy and un-mediated Government communications.
Design, build and install a diplomatic communication centre staffed by researchers, writers and spokespersons for an International Organisation.
Training
Normally only for specific defence projects, SCL can provide training-only solutions – especially for Psyop Unit training. However, in order for the training to be effective, the Unit must have access to the appropriate facilities in country.
All training contracts would be custom-designed for a specific client.
In practice, all projects are so unique that it is unlikely that any one would fit into the prescribed categories. Additionally this is a new type of service, which will feel unfamiliar to a number of clients. This is why we will spend as much time as clients want educating and explaining exactly how strategic communication can help a country.
ScottS and other shill wannabees fill out the form below and you might be able to quite your day Job:
http://www.scl.cc/contactscl.php
I see Rove let you take photos of your workplace. I know it's important for you to push your ridiculous CT story to cover for Bush's real crimes.
Can you tell us when Bush is supposed to talk about the CT's? [To be read with a smirk] "Listen to this... Those crazy liberals think I had planes flown into the tower! HEHEHE, No wait, theirs more! They think I blew it up too!!! HAAAHAAAHAAA!!! Those crazy liberals think I blew up the towers, can you believe that? HEHEHE." [end smirk] I'm dying to see that just before the elections. So can you ask your boss Rove when that'll be?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 11 2006, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 11 2006, 04:07 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 02:45 AM)
Hi Guest! Unless a poster is 'beyond the pale'....which yours wasn't (and especially when one's name is mentioned), it is only common courtesy to respond if one has seen the relevant post. OK by you?
RC.
.
Amusing........
pointless...
Yet more mindless entertainment for me.
RC.
.
Amusing........
pointless...
Yet more mindless entertainment for me.
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 11 2006, 04:51 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 03:48 AM)
Hi Mel! How's tricks? (that's a benign greeting here in Aussie...it has nothing to do with other meanings of 'tricks', hehehe).
So tell me Mel, how does a CTer read a 'slip-up' into my use of the perfectly factual phrase 'we westerners' when addressing newton....seeing as how I am an Aussie and newton is a Canadian....and both our 'societies' are commonly classified as 'western' as well as 'consumer'?
RC.
.
Hi RC!!! How's tricks?.
My apologies. I had no idea you were referred to as westerners. I Wiki'ed it, and it turns out virtually everyone who's anyone is referred to as a westerner. Ah well, I never was one for political or geographical labels.
Aren't you all descended from convicts? That might explain your conspiratorial trait, mate (and your over-use of the word mate, mate ). hehehe!
Hi Mel. Doing fine as long as I don't overdo it, thanks.
That's a good way to be; about the non-labeling attitude, I mean. Unfortunately, the human/animal brain-mind is hard-wired for 'pattern-recognition' for survival, and that includes AUTOMATIC labellings of all sorts at the subconscious level whether we admit/recognize it or not....(but it's good that you are not 'consciously predisposed' to it as well. Good show!).
And as you may gather from one of my recent posts, I was born in Sicily and migrated at 8 yrs old. So no 'convict' stock here, mate; just 'peasant' stock! hehehe.
And I use "mate" a lot more in Physorg verbal intercourse than I ever do 'at home' here Down Under. I think it's because the style of 'correspondence/comments' that prevails in Physorg interaction eventually brings out the 'singular identifiers' out in all/most of us, heh? hehehe....(see?).
Arrivederci!
RC.
.
So tell me Mel, how does a CTer read a 'slip-up' into my use of the perfectly factual phrase 'we westerners' when addressing newton....seeing as how I am an Aussie and newton is a Canadian....and both our 'societies' are commonly classified as 'western' as well as 'consumer'?
RC.
.
Hi RC!!! How's tricks?.
My apologies. I had no idea you were referred to as westerners. I Wiki'ed it, and it turns out virtually everyone who's anyone is referred to as a westerner. Ah well, I never was one for political or geographical labels.
Aren't you all descended from convicts? That might explain your conspiratorial trait, mate (and your over-use of the word mate, mate
). hehehe!Hi Mel. Doing fine as long as I don't overdo it, thanks.
That's a good way to be; about the non-labeling attitude, I mean. Unfortunately, the human/animal brain-mind is hard-wired for 'pattern-recognition' for survival, and that includes AUTOMATIC labellings of all sorts at the subconscious level whether we admit/recognize it or not....(but it's good that you are not 'consciously predisposed' to it as well. Good show!).
And as you may gather from one of my recent posts, I was born in Sicily and migrated at 8 yrs old. So no 'convict' stock here, mate; just 'peasant' stock! hehehe.
And I use "mate" a lot more in Physorg verbal intercourse than I ever do 'at home' here Down Under. I think it's because the style of 'correspondence/comments' that prevails in Physorg interaction eventually brings out the 'singular identifiers' out in all/most of us, heh? hehehe....(see?).
Arrivederci!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 11 2006, 04:47 AM)
.
Hi CS, adoucette. Don't be too harsh on such as Mel, Guest, Foxx et al. After all, "there but for the grace of god/fate (take your pick) go WE"!
And anyway, even 'intellectual ENTROPY' must be served; and if THEY didn't provide more than the usual quota of the necessary increase in 'intellectual disorder', then 'intellectual entropy' may come demanding more 'disorder' from US to keep its books balanced, heh?
So in the right light, they could be doing us a favour without knowing it. Cheers!
RC.
.
HEHEHE!! I think if Mel lived in the "Bush" he would have taken himself out of the gene pool for sure. I could see Mel now trying to pet the sleeping tiger. I bet the empty skull wouldn't make much of a meal for the little kitty though.
Hi CS, adoucette. Don't be too harsh on such as Mel, Guest, Foxx et al. After all, "there but for the grace of god/fate (take your pick) go WE"!
And anyway, even 'intellectual ENTROPY' must be served; and if THEY didn't provide more than the usual quota of the necessary increase in 'intellectual disorder', then 'intellectual entropy' may come demanding more 'disorder' from US to keep its books balanced, heh?
So in the right light, they could be doing us a favour without knowing it. Cheers!
RC.
.
HEHEHE!! I think if Mel lived in the "Bush" he would have taken himself out of the gene pool for sure. I could see Mel now trying to pet the sleeping tiger. I bet the empty skull wouldn't make much of a meal for the little kitty though.
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 11 2006, 05:03 AM)