QUOTE (Coastal+Mar 14 2006, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 14 2006, 09:51 PM)
From what I read in NIST, it didn't conclude or imply that the bright spot was necessarily aluminum. NIST said it appeared to be a metal burning since it appeared brighter and had light colored smoke associated with it.
Exactly....
...yet the questions Foxx poses on his website are all based on the premise that NIST "alleges" the burning metal is aluminum:
1 -- How is it possible that a hydrocarbon fire could reach temperatures in the 2000 C range?
2 -- Why did this alleged 'burning' aircraft aluminum not melt and run away once reaching 500 to 600 C ? ... and
3 -- IF, as NIST alleges, this WAS burning aluminum, why has not the aluminum facade cladding in close proximity started melting or burning?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Explain yourself, Foxx.
Why the deception??
Faux, You never answered Coastal.
I guess he must've missed the part of the thread where the one fireman Boyle was refuted by the testimony of many other firemen who said the hole was at the corner of the building.
Oh well, let's go over again how a huge gaping hole on one side of the building can lead to a perfectly symmetrical collapse.
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
Boy you really are dense. I left the freaking links to firehouse.com with the fireman's name. I left the fireman's last name in the quotes on my post! What more do you want?
Don't get mad because your favorite conspiracy site didn't put them on their site. You will NEVER see those quotes on their sites because it explodes their argument.
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
There is an entire story in that album cover. One I could tell but won't. It would make sense, but I couldn't prove it and that wouldn't help what is important.
Right on about the symmetry in free fall. This is a total giveaway as to demolition. The fact the wrong towere fell first is another. Total pulverization is another, a very strange, creepy one. We have never seen this before ANYWHERE.
Are you alright there newton? Have they changed the rules? Have you at least tried to get the points raised?
---what rules? i'm not doing anything CS didn't do first, if it's circumventing censors, you're talking about. anyway, fcuk is a chain of clothing stores.
I was referring to the comment about your posts being for 'others' and not for any to reply to as relevant debate info/flow.
Exactly....
...yet the questions Foxx poses on his website are all based on the premise that NIST "alleges" the burning metal is aluminum:
1 -- How is it possible that a hydrocarbon fire could reach temperatures in the 2000 C range?
2 -- Why did this alleged 'burning' aircraft aluminum not melt and run away once reaching 500 to 600 C ? ... and
3 -- IF, as NIST alleges, this WAS burning aluminum, why has not the aluminum facade cladding in close proximity started melting or burning?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Explain yourself, Foxx.
Why the deception??
Faux, You never answered Coastal.
QUOTE
by non Sense
How many times have we addressed this Arthur? 10? 20? I forget...
So are the fireman lying?
How many times have we addressed this Arthur? 10? 20? I forget...
So are the fireman lying?
I guess he must've missed the part of the thread where the one fireman Boyle was refuted by the testimony of many other firemen who said the hole was at the corner of the building.
Oh well, let's go over again how a huge gaping hole on one side of the building can lead to a perfectly symmetrical collapse.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 03:20 AM)
So are the fireman lying?
QUOTE
We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
RC, notice how vacuous their argument get when they're cornered. Newty gets angry when you catch his lies red handed. He said I pulled the fireman's quotes out of my arus yet when I shove the facts in his face he becomes angry. Hes calling me a liar and when I prove hes lying he gets angry!!! Can you believe it? He thought I didn't have proof. He thought I was going to put my tale between my legs and scurry away. Heh!
You can always tell when faux is beat. His next post has the name "Schneibster" in it. HEHEHE!!!
You can always tell when faux is beat. His next post has the name "Schneibster" in it. HEHEHE!!!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:34 AM)
QUOTE
We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
Boy you really are dense. I left the freaking links to firehouse.com with the fireman's name. I left the fireman's last name in the quotes on my post! What more do you want?
Don't get mad because your favorite conspiracy site didn't put them on their site. You will NEVER see those quotes on their sites because it explodes their argument.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:34 AM)
QUOTE
We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
There is an entire story in that album cover. One I could tell but won't. It would make sense, but I couldn't prove it and that wouldn't help what is important.
Right on about the symmetry in free fall. This is a total giveaway as to demolition. The fact the wrong towere fell first is another. Total pulverization is another, a very strange, creepy one. We have never seen this before ANYWHERE.
They were not talking about building 7...
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Did I mention that the ONE fireman Boyle was refuted by numerous other firemen at the scene who said the hole was at the corner of the building...
oh never mind, can we hear the fairy tale how a building with huge asymmetrical damage can fall perfectly symmetrically again.
oh never mind, can we hear the fairy tale how a building with huge asymmetrical damage can fall perfectly symmetrically again.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 14 2006, 07:48 PM)
They were not talking about building 7...
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Seriously CS, what does this post supposedly prove?
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Seriously CS, what does this post supposedly prove?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 03:39 AM)
RC, notice how vacuous their argument get when they're cornered. newty gets angry when you catch his lies read handed. He said I pulled the fireman's quotes out of my arus yet when I shove the facts in his face he becomes angry. Hes calling me a liar and when I prove hes lying he gets angry!!! Can you believe it? He thought I didn't have proof. He thought I was going to put my tale between my legs and scurry away. Heh!
You can always tell when faux is beat. His next post has the name "Schneibster" in it. HEHEHE!!!
i've read most of the firemen's quotes before. i know the ones you posted.
they were pulled out an hour and a half to two hours before hand.
i am actually taking the patience to answer you, schnibby, and i have pointed out, that although the term for getting firefighting personnel out of harms way is "PULL BACK", they had ALREADY PULLED BACK.
and, as i said, this does not match the timeline silverstien communicated, "they decided to PULL IT(a demolition term, not PULL BACK, a firemen term), and then we watched the building fall".
that's one sentence, dude, indicating a cause/effect relationship.
but, like i said, IT DOESN'T MATTER!
what matters is the speed and shape of the collapse. that is all the proof of CD that is needed.
and it's never been 'addressed'. it's been 'hand waved'.
i got ticked because you assume that everyone needs to reply to your posts, and that you are guiding the discussion here. that was just a little polite 'shove off' for ya. i don't lie. i can be wrong, but i don't lie.
and i seriously don't ever expect you to put your tail between your legs. that would get in the way of your hobby.
You can always tell when faux is beat. His next post has the name "Schneibster" in it. HEHEHE!!!
i've read most of the firemen's quotes before. i know the ones you posted.
they were pulled out an hour and a half to two hours before hand.
i am actually taking the patience to answer you, schnibby, and i have pointed out, that although the term for getting firefighting personnel out of harms way is "PULL BACK", they had ALREADY PULLED BACK.
and, as i said, this does not match the timeline silverstien communicated, "they decided to PULL IT(a demolition term, not PULL BACK, a firemen term), and then we watched the building fall".
that's one sentence, dude, indicating a cause/effect relationship.
but, like i said, IT DOESN'T MATTER!
what matters is the speed and shape of the collapse. that is all the proof of CD that is needed.
and it's never been 'addressed'. it's been 'hand waved'.
i got ticked because you assume that everyone needs to reply to your posts, and that you are guiding the discussion here. that was just a little polite 'shove off' for ya. i don't lie. i can be wrong, but i don't lie.
and i seriously don't ever expect you to put your tail between your legs. that would get in the way of your hobby.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 15 2006, 03:53 AM)
Did I mention that the ONE fireman Boyle was refuted by numerous other firemen at the scene who said the hole was at the corner of the building...
oh never mind, can we hear the fairy tale how a building with huge asymmetrical damage can fall perfectly symmetrically again.
Couldn't possibly be both, huh??
Did I mention that you have a blatant lie on your website that you haven't corrected yet??
oh never mind, can we hear the fairy tale how a building with huge asymmetrical damage can fall perfectly symmetrically again.
Couldn't possibly be both, huh??
Did I mention that you have a blatant lie on your website that you haven't corrected yet??
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2006, 02:48 AM)
Are you alright there newton? Have they changed the rules? Have you at least tried to get the points raised?
---what rules? i'm not doing anything CS didn't do first, if it's circumventing censors, you're talking about. anyway, fcuk is a chain of clothing stores.
I was referring to the comment about your posts being for 'others' and not for any to reply to as relevant debate info/flow.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2006, 02:48 AM)
Why fires HOT in 1975 and NOT HOT on 9/11?
----------because of ventilation. the huge hole caused by a giant plane is pretty good for airflow. this initially would cuase fires to burn hotter, but would lessen the time it took to exhaust the fuel. that is why the smoke turned black. not much fuel left over.
If you read the CTer posts re 1975 fires, there were also broken windows then. Plus the ventillation in 9/11 obviously got into the shafts/conduits and made 'blowtorch' conditions there as well. And the situation with the 9/11 fires was WORSE. No insulation; no firefighting; all-over-the-place fires ignited by exploding jet fuel (some went out windows, some up/down shafts and cracked floors etc). And since the 1975 fires WERE FOUGHT and brought under control, those fires didn't consume as much fuel, and PILED-UP fuels at that, as the 9/11 fires had to burn out....so MORE ABSOLUTE ENERGY created as heat by the extra office materials AND plane/jetfuel involved. The black smoke occurs initially when MORE jet fuel is available compared to the oxygen available AT IMPACT....but the smoke becomes whiter during the fires progress in areas where the fuel load is consumed to lesser quantities/piles, and only again become black where the fires spread up/down to other floors and initially heat the fuel PRIOR to THAT floor/fuel becoming 'fully involved' and 'blowtorch' in their turn (which is why many jumped to their deaths from upper floors, don't you think?).
----------because of ventilation. the huge hole caused by a giant plane is pretty good for airflow. this initially would cuase fires to burn hotter, but would lessen the time it took to exhaust the fuel. that is why the smoke turned black. not much fuel left over.
If you read the CTer posts re 1975 fires, there were also broken windows then. Plus the ventillation in 9/11 obviously got into the shafts/conduits and made 'blowtorch' conditions there as well. And the situation with the 9/11 fires was WORSE. No insulation; no firefighting; all-over-the-place fires ignited by exploding jet fuel (some went out windows, some up/down shafts and cracked floors etc). And since the 1975 fires WERE FOUGHT and brought under control, those fires didn't consume as much fuel, and PILED-UP fuels at that, as the 9/11 fires had to burn out....so MORE ABSOLUTE ENERGY created as heat by the extra office materials AND plane/jetfuel involved. The black smoke occurs initially when MORE jet fuel is available compared to the oxygen available AT IMPACT....but the smoke becomes whiter during the fires progress in areas where the fuel load is consumed to lesser quantities/piles, and only again become black where the fires spread up/down to other floors and initially heat the fuel PRIOR to THAT floor/fuel becoming 'fully involved' and 'blowtorch' in their turn (which is why many jumped to their deaths from upper floors, don't you think?).
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2006, 02:48 AM)
If REBAR and STRONG vertical core-walls and not just core-flooring CONCRETE in the core, where is it?....since it fell ON TOP of the rubble AFTERWARDS?
---------vapourised and powederised, dude, and spread all over manhattan. i thought you'd seen some pictures and read some testimony.
You may have missed where posters have pointed out that Hoffman has had to go back and RE-DO his sums. AS WILL JONES, who depended on Hoffman to start all that 'energy deficit/input' claim that is looking shakier by the day, even to his fellows at BYU. Obviously all concrete/plaster and spray-on insulation wasn't pulverised into true 'pyroclastic' clouds of 30 micron powder etc. Plus the huge quantities of extra RE-BAR for VERTICAL WALLS of a reinforced concrete core would not be pulverised/chunked similarly, would they? And they should have been VERY evident at the TOP of the pile.
---------vapourised and powederised, dude, and spread all over manhattan. i thought you'd seen some pictures and read some testimony.
You may have missed where posters have pointed out that Hoffman has had to go back and RE-DO his sums. AS WILL JONES, who depended on Hoffman to start all that 'energy deficit/input' claim that is looking shakier by the day, even to his fellows at BYU. Obviously all concrete/plaster and spray-on insulation wasn't pulverised into true 'pyroclastic' clouds of 30 micron powder etc. Plus the huge quantities of extra RE-BAR for VERTICAL WALLS of a reinforced concrete core would not be pulverised/chunked similarly, would they? And they should have been VERY evident at the TOP of the pile.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2006, 02:48 AM)
If compression waves/vibrational resonance/coincidence IS possible, then why not some damage by such violent/extended processes as in 9/11 processes?
---------well, that would have been a good thing for NIST to look at, wouldn't it? why should we be here trying to figure out what the hell happened when they had more tools and evidence?
That's the point I was making when I made those earlier HYPOTHESES as to ONE OF MANY chaotic happenings/processes that could have CONTRIBUTED to the WHOLE complex scenario/events. NO single ONE of my suggestions/speculations were put forth as the be-all and end-all explanation, but as points to consider AMONG THE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT TOGETHER COINCIDED IN THAT MELEE. Obviously, NIST found sufficient OTHER processes/factors to explain the WHOLE, and didn't bother with LESSER factors/contributions in their models (which would have been EXTREMELY DIFFICULT if not impossible to 'include because, as you realize now, the CHAOTIC nature of such things would not be 'tractable' to treat unless precise infromation was available to say WHERE/WHEN such LESSER factors played a 'key' role in 'localised' damage).
---------well, that would have been a good thing for NIST to look at, wouldn't it? why should we be here trying to figure out what the hell happened when they had more tools and evidence?
That's the point I was making when I made those earlier HYPOTHESES as to ONE OF MANY chaotic happenings/processes that could have CONTRIBUTED to the WHOLE complex scenario/events. NO single ONE of my suggestions/speculations were put forth as the be-all and end-all explanation, but as points to consider AMONG THE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT TOGETHER COINCIDED IN THAT MELEE. Obviously, NIST found sufficient OTHER processes/factors to explain the WHOLE, and didn't bother with LESSER factors/contributions in their models (which would have been EXTREMELY DIFFICULT if not impossible to 'include because, as you realize now, the CHAOTIC nature of such things would not be 'tractable' to treat unless precise infromation was available to say WHERE/WHEN such LESSER factors played a 'key' role in 'localised' damage).
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2006, 02:48 AM)
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
-------------chemistry's not my bag.
Which is why I've tried from an early stage to point out the COLLATERAL FACTORS/processes/principles which should be considered TOGETHER rather than 'piecemeal' to explain MANY chaotic phenomena/observations. I don't pretend to treat the POLITICAL/MILITARY 'side' of 9/11 considerations, but I DO try to keep an open mind because there are so many "DIMENSIONS' to any one 'assertion', 'observation' and so-called 'anomally' etc being discussed in the 'scientific' aspects (ie, physics/chemistry, fluid dynamics/mechanics etc, materials technology, combustion/reaction possibilities etc). No simplistic assertion/explanation will do for such a widespread/humongous COLLECTION of processes and events over a protracted time....irrespective of the 'politics' thrown in.
-------------chemistry's not my bag.
Which is why I've tried from an early stage to point out the COLLATERAL FACTORS/processes/principles which should be considered TOGETHER rather than 'piecemeal' to explain MANY chaotic phenomena/observations. I don't pretend to treat the POLITICAL/MILITARY 'side' of 9/11 considerations, but I DO try to keep an open mind because there are so many "DIMENSIONS' to any one 'assertion', 'observation' and so-called 'anomally' etc being discussed in the 'scientific' aspects (ie, physics/chemistry, fluid dynamics/mechanics etc, materials technology, combustion/reaction possibilities etc). No simplistic assertion/explanation will do for such a widespread/humongous COLLECTION of processes and events over a protracted time....irrespective of the 'politics' thrown in.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2006, 02:48 AM)
Are you going the route of raving personal attacks because you've NOTHING to counter the points with? Do those points undermine your CT raison d'etre?
-----------no, common sense pissed me off, HAHA!
I hope I haven't done the same, mate!
-----------no, common sense pissed me off, HAHA!
I hope I haven't done the same, mate!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2006, 02:48 AM)
And you don't have to read my posts, mate! Good luck.
RC.
.
----------hey ARE very entertaining!
-----------my CT raison d' etre is to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. the government of the united states is not providing it. people who defend absence of evidence as evidence are not providing it.
you are not providing it.
And do you have reason to think that mine OWN raison d'etre is any different from yours? As I see it, I take a dispassionate approach and try to stick to physics. chemistry etc....and leave the emotive religious/political dimension aside until I have come to an objective decision re the science. BELIEVE ME, IF ANY EVIDENCE ARISES (NOT CONVENIENT-SCIENCE AND/OR EXPEDIENT-POLITICS 'EVIDENCE') TO THROW SUSPICION UPON THE US GOVT, I SHALL BE WITH YOU 100% FROM THAT MOMENT! That's all I can say at this point, mate.
.
.
okay, my turn.
how about tower seven? ignoring the question?
symmetrical freefall. 'ave a guess, even.
As to WTC7, just as I have said before, because of my singular situation regarding health/time/computer/internet, I can only comment on what passes across my screen HERE across the Physorg discussions. And as far as I can tell, the NIST report is not out; and there has been insufficient data from you guys for me to make any speculations/hypotheses one way or another to any comprehensive degree. I must wait until YOU GUYS (both 'sides' discuss the matter when NIST report is complete and so provide further data for MY 'wild speculations/guesses', heh newt? hehehe. Until then, good luck with your quest for the truth in all spheres of your life. Cheers! (sincerely).
RC.
.
RC.
.
----------hey ARE very entertaining!
-----------my CT raison d' etre is to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. the government of the united states is not providing it. people who defend absence of evidence as evidence are not providing it.
you are not providing it.
And do you have reason to think that mine OWN raison d'etre is any different from yours? As I see it, I take a dispassionate approach and try to stick to physics. chemistry etc....and leave the emotive religious/political dimension aside until I have come to an objective decision re the science. BELIEVE ME, IF ANY EVIDENCE ARISES (NOT CONVENIENT-SCIENCE AND/OR EXPEDIENT-POLITICS 'EVIDENCE') TO THROW SUSPICION UPON THE US GOVT, I SHALL BE WITH YOU 100% FROM THAT MOMENT! That's all I can say at this point, mate.
.
.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:08 AM)
okay, my turn.
how about tower seven? ignoring the question?
symmetrical freefall. 'ave a guess, even.
As to WTC7, just as I have said before, because of my singular situation regarding health/time/computer/internet, I can only comment on what passes across my screen HERE across the Physorg discussions. And as far as I can tell, the NIST report is not out; and there has been insufficient data from you guys for me to make any speculations/hypotheses one way or another to any comprehensive degree. I must wait until YOU GUYS (both 'sides' discuss the matter when NIST report is complete and so provide further data for MY 'wild speculations/guesses', heh newt? hehehe. Until then, good luck with your quest for the truth in all spheres of your life. Cheers! (sincerely).
RC.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 15 2006, 03:53 AM)
Did I mention that the ONE fireman Boyle was refuted by numerous other firemen at the scene who said the hole was at the corner of the building...
oh never mind, can we hear the fairy tale how a building with huge asymmetrical damage can fall perfectly symmetrically again.
Your lying.
oh never mind, can we hear the fairy tale how a building with huge asymmetrical damage can fall perfectly symmetrically again.
Your lying.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 03:48 AM)
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
HEHEHE!!! CTS ARE DUMB! HEH!
HEHEHE!!! CTS ARE DUMB! HEH!
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 03:48 AM)
We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out.
okay, i'm going to teach you about 'modifiers' CS.
PARTIAL
GRADUAL
COUPLE
you see, when people use words like this, it is to increase the precision of what they're saying.
NOONE expected what happened to any of the three towers.
(except the coup gang in the OEM)
okay, i'm going to teach you about 'modifiers' CS.
PARTIAL
GRADUAL
COUPLE
you see, when people use words like this, it is to increase the precision of what they're saying.
NOONE expected what happened to any of the three towers.
(except the coup gang in the OEM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 03:39 AM)
RC, notice how vacuous their argument get when they're cornered. newty gets angry when you catch his lies read handed. He said I pulled the fireman's quotes out of my arus yet when I shove the facts in his face he becomes angry. Hes calling me a liar and when I prove hes lying he gets angry!!! Can you believe it? He thought I didn't have proof. He thought I was going to put my tale between my legs and scurry away. Heh!
You can always tell when faux is beat. His next post has the name "Schneibster" in it. HEHEHE!!!
i've read most of the firemen's quotes before. i know the ones you posted.
they were pulled out an hour and a half to two hours before hand.
i am actually taking the patience to answer you, schnibby, and i have pointed out, that although the term for getting firefighting personnel out of harms way is "PULL BACK", they had ALREADY PULLED BACK.
and, as i said, this does not match the timeline silverstien communicated, "they decided to PULL IT(a demolition term, not PULL BACK, a firemen term), and then we watched the building fall".
that's one sentence, dude, indicating a cause/effect relationship.
but, like i said, IT DOESN'T MATTER!
what matters is the speed and shape of the collapse. that is all the proof of CD that is needed.
and it's never been 'addressed'. it's been 'hand waved'.
i got ticked because you assume that everyone needs to reply to your posts, and that you are guiding the discussion here. that was just a little polite 'shove off' for ya. i don't lie. i can be wrong, but i don't lie.
and i seriously don't ever expect you to put your tail between your legs. that would get in the way of your hobby.
HOW COULD YOU HAVE READ THESE QUOTES BEFORE? I JUST POSTED THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY. I JUST READ THEM A FEW DAYS AGO.
DON'T ASSUME!
"IT" ARE THE RESCUE TEAMS! JUST READ THE FREAKING QUOTES. NOT JUST ONE!
HOW COULD YOU HAVE READ THESE QUOTES BEFORE? I JUST POSTED THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY. I JUST READ THEM A FEW DAYS AGO.
DON'T ASSUME!
"IT" ARE THE RESCUE TEAMS! JUST READ THE FREAKING QUOTES. NOT JUST ONE!
it's called, 'research'. you may have just posted those quotes, but they are not a "common sense, EXCLUSIVE REPORT!!"
IT are?
You can always tell when faux is beat. His next post has the name "Schneibster" in it. HEHEHE!!!
i've read most of the firemen's quotes before. i know the ones you posted.
they were pulled out an hour and a half to two hours before hand.
i am actually taking the patience to answer you, schnibby, and i have pointed out, that although the term for getting firefighting personnel out of harms way is "PULL BACK", they had ALREADY PULLED BACK.
and, as i said, this does not match the timeline silverstien communicated, "they decided to PULL IT(a demolition term, not PULL BACK, a firemen term), and then we watched the building fall".
that's one sentence, dude, indicating a cause/effect relationship.
but, like i said, IT DOESN'T MATTER!
what matters is the speed and shape of the collapse. that is all the proof of CD that is needed.
and it's never been 'addressed'. it's been 'hand waved'.
i got ticked because you assume that everyone needs to reply to your posts, and that you are guiding the discussion here. that was just a little polite 'shove off' for ya. i don't lie. i can be wrong, but i don't lie.
and i seriously don't ever expect you to put your tail between your legs. that would get in the way of your hobby.
HOW COULD YOU HAVE READ THESE QUOTES BEFORE? I JUST POSTED THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY. I JUST READ THEM A FEW DAYS AGO.
DON'T ASSUME!
"IT" ARE THE RESCUE TEAMS! JUST READ THE FREAKING QUOTES. NOT JUST ONE!
HEH!
You asked for it...
We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons.
The next time it's 14 font... Heh!
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons.
The next time it's 14 font... Heh!
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:07 AM)
HOW COULD YOU HAVE READ THESE QUOTES BEFORE? I JUST POSTED THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY. I JUST READ THEM A FEW DAYS AGO.
DON'T ASSUME!
"IT" ARE THE RESCUE TEAMS! JUST READ THE FREAKING QUOTES. NOT JUST ONE!
it's called, 'research'. you may have just posted those quotes, but they are not a "common sense, EXCLUSIVE REPORT!!"
IT are?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 14 2006, 07:48 PM)
They were not talking about building 7...
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Seriously CS, what does this post supposedly prove?
You're hanging your whole argument on the word "it" and your asking me what the fireman's quotes are supposed to prove??? Get real...
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Seriously CS, what does this post supposedly prove?
You're hanging your whole argument on the word "it" and your asking me what the fireman's quotes are supposed to prove??? Get real...
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 04:05 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 03:48 AM)
We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out.
okay, i'm going to teach you about 'modifiers' CS.
PARTIAL
GRADUAL
COUPLE
you see, when people use words like this, it is to increase the precision of what they're saying.
NOONE expected what happened to any of the three towers.
(except the coup gang in the OEM)
mmmmmmmm, k?
HOW COULD YOU HAVE READ THESE QUOTES BEFORE? I JUST POSTED THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY. I JUST READ THEM A FEW DAYS AGO.
DON'T ASSUME!
"IT" ARE THE RESCUE TEAMS! JUST READ THE FREAKING QUOTES. NOT JUST ONE!
it's called, 'research'. you may have just posted those quotes, but they are not a "common sense, EXCLUSIVE REPORT!!"
IT are?
You don't have one either. You have moronic assumptions based on quotes taken out of context and photos of one side of the building.
Show me a picture of the south face of building 7 that isn't engulfed in smoke. Show me one of just before the collapse. Even in your north face videos you can see heavy smoke coming from the south face.
But you know more than the fireman that were there right... You know more than the guy holding the transit on the building...
You know nothing.
okay, i'm going to teach you about 'modifiers' CS.
PARTIAL
GRADUAL
COUPLE
you see, when people use words like this, it is to increase the precision of what they're saying.
NOONE expected what happened to any of the three towers.
(except the coup gang in the OEM)
mmmmmmmm, k?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:07 AM)
HOW COULD YOU HAVE READ THESE QUOTES BEFORE? I JUST POSTED THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY. I JUST READ THEM A FEW DAYS AGO.
DON'T ASSUME!
"IT" ARE THE RESCUE TEAMS! JUST READ THE FREAKING QUOTES. NOT JUST ONE!
it's called, 'research'. you may have just posted those quotes, but they are not a "common sense, EXCLUSIVE REPORT!!"
IT are?
You don't have one either. You have moronic assumptions based on quotes taken out of context and photos of one side of the building.
Show me a picture of the south face of building 7 that isn't engulfed in smoke. Show me one of just before the collapse. Even in your north face videos you can see heavy smoke coming from the south face.
But you know more than the fireman that were there right... You know more than the guy holding the transit on the building...
You know nothing.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:13 AM)
You asked for it...
We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons.
The next time it's 14 font... Heh!
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
You better go ahead and kick that up to 14, I have read the smaller fonts 3 times now and it still does not say what you say it says. Maybe if we get it up to 14, that might do the trick. Perhaps if you "inadvertently" edited it that would help get your tale across.
We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons.
The next time it's 14 font... Heh!
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
You better go ahead and kick that up to 14, I have read the smaller fonts 3 times now and it still does not say what you say it says. Maybe if we get it up to 14, that might do the trick. Perhaps if you "inadvertently" edited it that would help get your tale across.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 04:18 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 04:05 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 03:48 AM)
We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out.
okay, i'm going to teach you about 'modifiers' CS.
PARTIAL
GRADUAL
COUPLE
you see, when people use words like this, it is to increase the precision of what they're saying.
NOONE expected what happened to any of the three towers.
(except the coup gang in the OEM)
mmmmmmmm, k?
C'mon, mate; be fair. They said thay discussed/recognised the possibility of collapse. So even THEN, the fire people were just HOPING that they wouldn't do so before they had time to evacuate the towers. Collapse was therefore a possibility in the minds of MANY on the spot. Again, be fair.
RC.
.
Oh yes, for once I have to agree with RC on this one.
We use zinc chromate to prep the surface of aluminum to strip the oxide layer. Now lets see ... Hmmm...
in the CHAOTIC environment of TOTALLY UNEXPECTED variable possibilities/plausibilities/postulative theories we surely can find zinc SOMEWHERE IN THE BUILDING or the AIRCRAFT. So it is not UNREASONABLE to postulate/hypotheticize/speculate that THAT ELEMENT in the CHAOTIC manufacturing PROCESS going in in the chaotic/violent/extended processes/manufacturing facility that the towers became, could combine with CHROMIUM from SHINY TOILET FIXTURES which had been reduced to their ELEMENTAL Constituent PROPERTIES by crushing/smashing/destructive forces, and that, in the UNEXPECTED chaos ensuing both elements would quite NORMALLY join molecularly to form zinc chromate. which could THEN realistically STRIP THE ALUMINUM OXIDE from the aluminum, thus allowing something QUITE UNEXPECTED/PREVIOUSLY-UNHEARD-OF to occur. I hope that helps to clear your understanding... If you need any more wizardy of science teachings I'll be in the classroom OR on the beach.
CIAo
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
Boy you really are dense. I left the freaking links to firehouse.com with the fireman's name. I left the fireman's last name in the quotes on my post! What more do you want?
Don't get mad because your favorite conspiracy site didn't put them on their site. You will NEVER see those quotes on their sites because it explodes their argument.
Typical. A link is posted that trashes Cspam's argument, as it gets trashed over and over,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
and Cpsam continues as if he doesn't notice. As if there was nothing there. The firefighters are there live on tape telling us what they thought about what happened. There is no doubt about they intended to say. The used the words, "as if it was a demolition". These men have seen the demos personally, they are not like Vincent Dunn.
Their brothers died that day. Many searched, going into shock because nothing whole was found, confronted with something unseen and unheard of. After a week of this it was decided that machines should takeover and the ground up bodies of innocent Americans be buried with the sand and gravel.
The firefighters revolted.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.curre...4777375a2?hl=en
CHAKA FERGUSON
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- The most serious charges were dropped Saturday against 10 firefighters who tangled with police as they protested at the World Trade Center disaster site about changes in the handling of the recovery effort.
Hundreds of firefighters marched past police manning barricades around ground zero on Friday, some scuffling with the officers, in a protest of the mayor's decision to scale back the number of people searching for victims in the wreckage of the trade center.
The link to the video of the firefighters is an absolute.
okay, i'm going to teach you about 'modifiers' CS.
PARTIAL
GRADUAL
COUPLE
you see, when people use words like this, it is to increase the precision of what they're saying.
NOONE expected what happened to any of the three towers.
(except the coup gang in the OEM)
mmmmmmmm, k?
C'mon, mate; be fair. They said thay discussed/recognised the possibility of collapse. So even THEN, the fire people were just HOPING that they wouldn't do so before they had time to evacuate the towers. Collapse was therefore a possibility in the minds of MANY on the spot. Again, be fair.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 02:09 AM)
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collapse. Not if they would. They considered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on partial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
My original quote numb nuts. I never said they KNEW it was going to collapse. Stop changing what I say so you can say I was wrong... It's not working
They knew it was a possibility. Why are you arguing when I've shown you the quote over and over? Could be because you hate to be wrong?
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collapse. Not if they would. They considered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on partial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
My original quote numb nuts. I never said they KNEW it was going to collapse. Stop changing what I say so you can say I was wrong... It's not working
They knew it was a possibility. Why are you arguing when I've shown you the quote over and over? Could be because you hate to be wrong?
QUOTE
Originally posted by RC
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
Oh yes, for once I have to agree with RC on this one.
We use zinc chromate to prep the surface of aluminum to strip the oxide layer. Now lets see ... Hmmm...
in the CHAOTIC environment of TOTALLY UNEXPECTED variable possibilities/plausibilities/postulative theories we surely can find zinc SOMEWHERE IN THE BUILDING or the AIRCRAFT. So it is not UNREASONABLE to postulate/hypotheticize/speculate that THAT ELEMENT in the CHAOTIC manufacturing PROCESS going in in the chaotic/violent/extended processes/manufacturing facility that the towers became, could combine with CHROMIUM from SHINY TOILET FIXTURES which had been reduced to their ELEMENTAL Constituent PROPERTIES by crushing/smashing/destructive forces, and that, in the UNEXPECTED chaos ensuing both elements would quite NORMALLY join molecularly to form zinc chromate. which could THEN realistically STRIP THE ALUMINUM OXIDE from the aluminum, thus allowing something QUITE UNEXPECTED/PREVIOUSLY-UNHEARD-OF to occur. I hope that helps to clear your understanding... If you need any more wizardy of science teachings I'll be in the classroom OR on the beach.
CIAo
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:34 AM)
QUOTE
We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
Boy you really are dense. I left the freaking links to firehouse.com with the fireman's name. I left the fireman's last name in the quotes on my post! What more do you want?
Don't get mad because your favorite conspiracy site didn't put them on their site. You will NEVER see those quotes on their sites because it explodes their argument.
Typical. A link is posted that trashes Cspam's argument, as it gets trashed over and over,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
and Cpsam continues as if he doesn't notice. As if there was nothing there. The firefighters are there live on tape telling us what they thought about what happened. There is no doubt about they intended to say. The used the words, "as if it was a demolition". These men have seen the demos personally, they are not like Vincent Dunn.
Their brothers died that day. Many searched, going into shock because nothing whole was found, confronted with something unseen and unheard of. After a week of this it was decided that machines should takeover and the ground up bodies of innocent Americans be buried with the sand and gravel.
The firefighters revolted.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.curre...4777375a2?hl=en
CHAKA FERGUSON
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- The most serious charges were dropped Saturday against 10 firefighters who tangled with police as they protested at the World Trade Center disaster site about changes in the handling of the recovery effort.
Hundreds of firefighters marched past police manning barricades around ground zero on Friday, some scuffling with the officers, in a protest of the mayor's decision to scale back the number of people searching for victims in the wreckage of the trade center.
The link to the video of the firefighters is an absolute.
QUOTE (replicant+Mar 15 2006, 04:25 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:13 AM)
You asked for it...
We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons.
The next time it's 14 font... Heh!
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
You better go ahead and kick that up to 14, I have read the smaller fonts 3 times now and it still does not say what you say it says. Maybe if we get it up to 14, that might do the trick. Perhaps if you "inadvertently" edited it that would help get your tale across.
I can retract the word "Global" and still you people are wrong. You said "this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)" That statement is flat wrong. Maybe they didn't know about GLOBAL COLLAPSE but they did anticipate PARTIAL COLLAPSE.
We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out.
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
Oh yes, for once I have to agree with RC on this one.
We use zinc chromate to prep the surface of aluminum to strip the oxide layer. Now lets see ... Hmmm...
in the CHAOTIC environment of TOTALLY UNEXPECTED variable possibilities/plausibilities/postulative theories we surely can find zinc SOMEWHERE IN THE BUILDING or the AIRCRAFT. So it is not UNREASONABLE to postulate/hypotheticize/speculate that THAT ELEMENT in the CHAOTIC manufacturing PROCESS going in in the chaotic/violent/extended processes/manufacturing facility that the towers became, could combine with CHROMIUM from SHINY TOILET FIXTURES which had been reduced to their ELEMENTAL Constituent PROPERTIES by crushing/smashing/destructive forces, and that, in the UNEXPECTED chaos ensuing both elements would quite NORMALLY join molecularly to form zinc chromate. which could THEN realistically STRIP THE ALUMINUM OXIDE from the aluminum, thus allowing something QUITE UNEXPECTED/PREVIOUSLY-UNHEARD-OF to occur. I hope that helps to clear your understanding... If you need any more wizardy of science teachings I'll be in the classroom OR on the beach.
CIAo
Hellooooo FOXX! Well, it seems that you omitted to mention the calcined CaO (alkaline). Or the Various cleaning/maintenance chemicals (alkalines and acids). And of course the MANY 'reactive' OXIDES which would have combined EXOTHERMICALLY WHEN IMMERSED IN THE 'BODY' OF A PUDDLE OF ALUMINIUM.
FOXX, why spend time on patent half-truthsaying and misdirection? Where is your great OPUS re the 9/11 events? Is the physics/chemistry beyond you? Or does the physics/chemistry tell you what you DON'T want to hear....and so you try to disparage any physics/chemistry related post (unsuccessfully)?
Like I said to metamars; learn whatever you need to learn; then combine that with all the info pro/con posted so far in these threads, and THEN come and say anything you want in a coherent and truthful manner instead of half-truth asides/jibes.
Or have you decided to tacitly concede in this particular Physorgforum debate?
Because that's how you're 'partial truths' and JONES' partial truths and HOFFMAN'S partial truths are coming across. Not only here, but also at that hotbed of convenient/expedient 'christian pseudo-scientists' at BYU.
RC.
.
We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons.
The next time it's 14 font... Heh!
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
You better go ahead and kick that up to 14, I have read the smaller fonts 3 times now and it still does not say what you say it says. Maybe if we get it up to 14, that might do the trick. Perhaps if you "inadvertently" edited it that would help get your tale across.
I can retract the word "Global" and still you people are wrong. You said "this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)" That statement is flat wrong. Maybe they didn't know about GLOBAL COLLAPSE but they did anticipate PARTIAL COLLAPSE.
We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out.
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 15 2006, 04:33 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by RC
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
Aluminium can be easily stripped of its protective (thin) oxide coating by chemical attack/reaction....so can be readily ignited in those events/conditions.
Oh yes, for once I have to agree with RC on this one.
We use zinc chromate to prep the surface of aluminum to strip the oxide layer. Now lets see ... Hmmm...
in the CHAOTIC environment of TOTALLY UNEXPECTED variable possibilities/plausibilities/postulative theories we surely can find zinc SOMEWHERE IN THE BUILDING or the AIRCRAFT. So it is not UNREASONABLE to postulate/hypotheticize/speculate that THAT ELEMENT in the CHAOTIC manufacturing PROCESS going in in the chaotic/violent/extended processes/manufacturing facility that the towers became, could combine with CHROMIUM from SHINY TOILET FIXTURES which had been reduced to their ELEMENTAL Constituent PROPERTIES by crushing/smashing/destructive forces, and that, in the UNEXPECTED chaos ensuing both elements would quite NORMALLY join molecularly to form zinc chromate. which could THEN realistically STRIP THE ALUMINUM OXIDE from the aluminum, thus allowing something QUITE UNEXPECTED/PREVIOUSLY-UNHEARD-OF to occur. I hope that helps to clear your understanding... If you need any more wizardy of science teachings I'll be in the classroom OR on the beach.
CIAo
Hellooooo FOXX! Well, it seems that you omitted to mention the calcined CaO (alkaline). Or the Various cleaning/maintenance chemicals (alkalines and acids). And of course the MANY 'reactive' OXIDES which would have combined EXOTHERMICALLY WHEN IMMERSED IN THE 'BODY' OF A PUDDLE OF ALUMINIUM.
FOXX, why spend time on patent half-truthsaying and misdirection? Where is your great OPUS re the 9/11 events? Is the physics/chemistry beyond you? Or does the physics/chemistry tell you what you DON'T want to hear....and so you try to disparage any physics/chemistry related post (unsuccessfully)?
Like I said to metamars; learn whatever you need to learn; then combine that with all the info pro/con posted so far in these threads, and THEN come and say anything you want in a coherent and truthful manner instead of half-truth asides/jibes.
Or have you decided to tacitly concede in this particular Physorgforum debate?
Because that's how you're 'partial truths' and JONES' partial truths and HOFFMAN'S partial truths are coming across. Not only here, but also at that hotbed of convenient/expedient 'christian pseudo-scientists' at BYU.
RC.
.
[QUOTE=Christophera,Mar 15 2006, 04:40 AM] [QUOTE=Common Sense,Mar 15 2006, 03:44 AM][QUOTE=newton,Mar 15 2006, 03:34 AM] [QUOTE] We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.[/QUOTE]
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall? [/QUOTE]
Boy you really are dense. I left the freaking links to firehouse.com with the fireman's name. I left the fireman's last name in the quotes on my post! What more do you want?
Don't get mad because your favorite conspiracy site didn't put them on their site. You will NEVER see those quotes on their sites because it explodes their argument.[/QUOTE]
Typical. A link is posted that trashes Cspam's argument, as it gets trashed over and over,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
and Cpsam continues as if he doesn't notice. As if there was nothing there. The firefighters are there live on tape telling us what they thought about what happened. There is no doubt about they intended to say. The used the words, "as if it was a demolition". These men have seen the demos personally, they are not like Vincent Dunn.
Their brothers died that day. Many searched, going into shock because nothing whole was found, confronted with something unseen and unheard of. After a week of this it was decided that machines should takeover and the ground up bodies of innocent Americans be buried with the sand and gravel.
The firefighters revolted.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.curre...4777375a2?hl=en
CHAKA FERGUSON
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- The most serious charges were dropped Saturday against 10 firefighters who tangled with police as they protested at the World Trade Center disaster site about changes in the handling of the recovery effort.
Hundreds of firefighters marched past police manning barricades around ground zero on Friday, some scuffling with the officers, in a protest of the mayor's decision to scale back the number of people searching for victims in the wreckage of the trade center.
The link to the video of the firefighters is an absolute. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]“I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski[/QUOTE]
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
[QUOTE]“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory[/QUOTE]
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
[QUOTE]“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera[/QUOTE]
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
[QUOTE]“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers[/QUOTE]
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION...
[QUOTE]"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski[/QUOTE]
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
[QUOTE]“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen[/QUOTE]
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case.
These CT sites are dishonest.
Here is the other lie, they split up these quote to make it seem like there are more than hey really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera and Stephen Gregory split up as if there are different accounts. They are the same account. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???
[QUOTE]“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore[/QUOTE]
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
[QUOTE]“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers[/QUOTE]
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
[QUOTE]"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac [/QUOTE]
This is pulled straight out of someones a$$. There is NO Paul Isaac on the record saying anything of the kind. Another CT deception.
Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too”, said Isaac.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html [/QUOTE]
This is an example of how CTers lie...
The government covers up train accidents.
"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php
“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html
It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess.
http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906
It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."
http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm
“It sounded like a freight train”.
http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954
“Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train”
Yeah, They aren't CTers but the CTers took those quotes out of context. I write about the sound of explosions here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm
watch this video and lesson to the explotion before the collapse...
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall? [/QUOTE]
Boy you really are dense. I left the freaking links to firehouse.com with the fireman's name. I left the fireman's last name in the quotes on my post! What more do you want?
Don't get mad because your favorite conspiracy site didn't put them on their site. You will NEVER see those quotes on their sites because it explodes their argument.[/QUOTE]
Typical. A link is posted that trashes Cspam's argument, as it gets trashed over and over,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
and Cpsam continues as if he doesn't notice. As if there was nothing there. The firefighters are there live on tape telling us what they thought about what happened. There is no doubt about they intended to say. The used the words, "as if it was a demolition". These men have seen the demos personally, they are not like Vincent Dunn.
Their brothers died that day. Many searched, going into shock because nothing whole was found, confronted with something unseen and unheard of. After a week of this it was decided that machines should takeover and the ground up bodies of innocent Americans be buried with the sand and gravel.
The firefighters revolted.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.curre...4777375a2?hl=en
CHAKA FERGUSON
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- The most serious charges were dropped Saturday against 10 firefighters who tangled with police as they protested at the World Trade Center disaster site about changes in the handling of the recovery effort.
Hundreds of firefighters marched past police manning barricades around ground zero on Friday, some scuffling with the officers, in a protest of the mayor's decision to scale back the number of people searching for victims in the wreckage of the trade center.
The link to the video of the firefighters is an absolute. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]“I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski[/QUOTE]
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
[QUOTE]“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory[/QUOTE]
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
[QUOTE]“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera[/QUOTE]
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
[QUOTE]“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers[/QUOTE]
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION...
[QUOTE]"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski[/QUOTE]
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
[QUOTE]“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen[/QUOTE]
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case.
These CT sites are dishonest.Here is the other lie, they split up these quote to make it seem like there are more than hey really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera and Stephen Gregory split up as if there are different accounts. They are the same account. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???
[QUOTE]“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore[/QUOTE]
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
[QUOTE]“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers[/QUOTE]
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
[QUOTE]"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac [/QUOTE]
This is pulled straight out of someones a$$. There is NO Paul Isaac on the record saying anything of the kind. Another CT deception.
Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too”, said Isaac.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html [/QUOTE]
This is an example of how CTers lie...
The government covers up train accidents.
"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php
“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html
It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess.
http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906
It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."
http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm
“It sounded like a freight train”.
http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954
“Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train”
Yeah, They aren't CTers but the CTers took those quotes out of context. I write about the sound of explosions here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm
watch this video and lesson to the explotion before the collapse...
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 14 2006, 08:16 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 14 2006, 07:48 PM)
They were not talking about building 7...
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Seriously CS, what does this post supposedly prove?
You're hanging your whole argument on the word "it" and your asking me what the fireman's quotes are supposed to prove??? Get real...
I have to admit I do feel stupid for arguing with an idiot. This does not support the official conspiracy theory that global collapse was expected.
I did not realize you were just spamming more useless information.
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PD
Or this one, the collapse was supposed to start at the floors the plane hit. So,obviously he did hear ten explosions.
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
There is an entire story in that album cover. One I could tell but won't. It would make sense, but I couldn't prove it and that wouldn't help what is important.
Right on about the symmetry in free fall. This is a total giveaway as to demolition. The fact the wrong towere fell first is another. Total pulverization is another, a very strange, creepy one. We have never seen this before ANYWHERE.
christophera, i like to hear that story.
reality check..
here's me being fair..........foreknowledge is proven by this album cover that came out in august, 2001. and, c'mon. "the COUP" with a red star?
the 'mad' fold up art on the twenty dollar bill minted in 1998 is further evidence(it's TOOO good to be a coincidence. and, you fold it like an airplane, no less), that this is an elaborate plot going way back.
go here glenn beck to see the amazing five, ten, fifty and one hundred dollar money airplanes.
there is also a card game, by steve jackson games that details the scenario we are now living out.
here's a card...
here's another...
another one shows the office that 'the usual suspects' work out of...
here's what the author of the game has to say about the illuminati..
50 awful truths about the illuminati
out there? oh, yeah! and yet, he made those cards in 1995. obvious foreknowledge, once again.
the pilot episode of 'the lone gunmen', the three smart nerds from the x-files, was about a secret government plot to fake a terrorist hijack, and fly a plane into the WTC. you can find the clip on line without too much searching. it's eerie.
so, when i'm discussing the towers and their demise, i let it ride that there are more things on heaven and earth, whore ratio, and all your piddling about with tiny details is irrelevent, inadmissable and out of ORDER.
there's no such thing as an 'amazing' coicidence. if you see what you feel is an amazing coincidence, rest assured that it is COMPLETELY NORMAL. information has a way of going back in time and 'imprinting' on the mass concsciousness. that's how these completely normal graphic 'coincidences' happened.
like i said before. bush is a MORON who can barely string together a sentence that makes sense. he's a puppet of MUCH larger forces.
he's still complicit, still a criminal, and still guilty as (literally)HELL. along with the whole money/power grid of the entire world.
check out the cutting edge. i just noticed while looking for the steve jackson images that these guys KNOW.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Seriously CS, what does this post supposedly prove?
You're hanging your whole argument on the word "it" and your asking me what the fireman's quotes are supposed to prove??? Get real...
I have to admit I do feel stupid for arguing with an idiot. This does not support the official conspiracy theory that global collapse was expected.
I did not realize you were just spamming more useless information.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
If you are calling me stupid, I feel like a friggin genius. That sorta makes my day, thanks CS. Do you NOW what I mean (wink)?
If you are calling me stupid, I feel like a friggin genius. That sorta makes my day, thanks CS. Do you NOW what I mean (wink)?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 14 2006, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory |
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
QUOTE
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PD
Or this one, the collapse was supposed to start at the floors the plane hit. So,obviously he did hear ten explosions.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 15 2006, 03:46 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:34 AM)
QUOTE
We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
There is an entire story in that album cover. One I could tell but won't. It would make sense, but I couldn't prove it and that wouldn't help what is important.
Right on about the symmetry in free fall. This is a total giveaway as to demolition. The fact the wrong towere fell first is another. Total pulverization is another, a very strange, creepy one. We have never seen this before ANYWHERE.
christophera, i like to hear that story.
reality check..
here's me being fair..........foreknowledge is proven by this album cover that came out in august, 2001. and, c'mon. "the COUP" with a red star?
the 'mad' fold up art on the twenty dollar bill minted in 1998 is further evidence(it's TOOO good to be a coincidence. and, you fold it like an airplane, no less), that this is an elaborate plot going way back.
go here glenn beck to see the amazing five, ten, fifty and one hundred dollar money airplanes.
there is also a card game, by steve jackson games that details the scenario we are now living out.
here's a card...
here's another...
another one shows the office that 'the usual suspects' work out of...
here's what the author of the game has to say about the illuminati..
50 awful truths about the illuminati
out there? oh, yeah! and yet, he made those cards in 1995. obvious foreknowledge, once again.
the pilot episode of 'the lone gunmen', the three smart nerds from the x-files, was about a secret government plot to fake a terrorist hijack, and fly a plane into the WTC. you can find the clip on line without too much searching. it's eerie.
so, when i'm discussing the towers and their demise, i let it ride that there are more things on heaven and earth, whore ratio, and all your piddling about with tiny details is irrelevent, inadmissable and out of ORDER.
there's no such thing as an 'amazing' coicidence. if you see what you feel is an amazing coincidence, rest assured that it is COMPLETELY NORMAL. information has a way of going back in time and 'imprinting' on the mass concsciousness. that's how these completely normal graphic 'coincidences' happened.
like i said before. bush is a MORON who can barely string together a sentence that makes sense. he's a puppet of MUCH larger forces.
he's still complicit, still a criminal, and still guilty as (literally)HELL. along with the whole money/power grid of the entire world.
check out the cutting edge. i just noticed while looking for the steve jackson images that these guys KNOW.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 14 2006, 02:35 PM)
Arthur, as the resident expert on flying contraptions, can you tell me if airliners use regular aluminum or an exotic aluminum to save weight?
You know where I'm going with this...
They use alloys, any number of them depending on structural needs, however I don't think there is a big difference in the melting temps of any of the alloys.
Aluminum isn't as hard to get to burn as Foxx would have you think, nor as easy as some suppose. Aluminum often burns in plane crashes, but rarely does it all burn, i.e. even once the aluminum is burning it doesn't remain self sustaining.
I suspect there are any number of factors involved, so simply saying it will or won't burn hardly addresses the issue.
http://www.tinmantech.com/html/aluminum_alloys_article.php
Arthur
You know where I'm going with this...
They use alloys, any number of them depending on structural needs, however I don't think there is a big difference in the melting temps of any of the alloys.
Aluminum isn't as hard to get to burn as Foxx would have you think, nor as easy as some suppose. Aluminum often burns in plane crashes, but rarely does it all burn, i.e. even once the aluminum is burning it doesn't remain self sustaining.
I suspect there are any number of factors involved, so simply saying it will or won't burn hardly addresses the issue.
http://www.tinmantech.com/html/aluminum_alloys_article.php
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
QUOTE (replicant+Mar 15 2006, 05:04 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
If you are calling me stupid, I feel like a friggin genius. That sorta makes my day, thanks CS. Do you NOW what I mean (wink)?
Excellent catch, replicant.
Yep, he's a regular genius, that one - sharp as a bag of jello. Nice of him to display his intelligence in great big font too... impressive.
If you are calling me stupid, I feel like a friggin genius. That sorta makes my day, thanks CS. Do you NOW what I mean (wink)?
Excellent catch, replicant.
Yep, he's a regular genius, that one - sharp as a bag of jello. Nice of him to display his intelligence in great big font too... impressive.
QUOTE (replicant+Mar 15 2006, 05:04 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
If you are calling me stupid, I feel like a friggin genius. That sorta makes my day, thanks CS. Do you NOW what I mean (wink)?
Oh ....... man!
He's trying to supress the obviousness with spam, when the light of truth shows through, he freaks.
If you are calling me stupid, I feel like a friggin genius. That sorta makes my day, thanks CS. Do you NOW what I mean (wink)?
Oh ....... man!
He's trying to supress the obviousness with spam, when the light of truth shows through, he freaks.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 06:13 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
You are right on newt.
We do not knoweverything about the mind.
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
You are right on newt.
We do not knoweverything about the mind.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 15 2006, 06:56 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 06:13 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
You are right on newt.
We do not knoweverything about the mind.
now, i feel stupid.
i didn't even notice that, HAHAHA!
thanks for the howl, dude.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
Excellent post! Highly relevant after seeing what we have.
Has anyone else noticed that in all video footage of the 2nd impact the the plane looks unnaturally dark, almost black.
Can anyone explain this?
(: hereward
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
You are right on newt.
We do not knoweverything about the mind.
now, i feel stupid.
i didn't even notice that, HAHAHA!
thanks for the howl, dude.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 15 2006, 06:26 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
Excellent post! Highly relevant after seeing what we have.
I have serious doubts that a second plane even hit the WTC.
Pt.1: The CNN Image fakery- The 'real' timeline from Sep11th
07:50 CT/8:50 ET Sean Murtagh, 'CNN witness' from window, claims it was a "jet, looked like a 2 engine yet...a large commercial jet...i'm on the 22nd floor..."
(However Murtagh is not a real reporter.
He was CNN's vice-president of finance. His office was on 33rd street.
Was he (in conflicting versions), on the roof or did he catch everything out of his window?
"...i'm viewing south...wingtips tilted back and forth..."
07:53 CT/8:53 ET Monitor shows burning North Tower, occasionally zooms onto the empty impact hole
07:54 CT/8:54 ET Interview with witness, who reported about windows coming out of tower, "didn't see any plane". (First attack was officially at 8:48 AM)
07:54 CT/8:54 ET Telephone interview with Lisa, who heard a "sonic boom", but didn't see any plane from her window:
"I had no idea it was a plane, i turned on the tv, when i heard it was plane, which was strange"
08:00 CT/9:00 ET Witness Jeanne Yurman
08:02 CT/9:02 ET Winston Mitchell, WABC Interview, Live on the phone
08:03 CT/9:03 ET Then visibly on the monitor from the right a black flying object, vanishing behind one tower, then followed by an explosion. Reporter Mitchell, after a short delay: "...The Building is exploding right now (Mitchell doesn't mention that he saw any plane...) "everyone is panicking..." Mitchell is suddenly cut off by host, because he wants to 'hear other voices'.
08:06 CT/9:06 ET Producer of CNN decides to show again a replay from "Courtesy ABC"
08:07 CT/9:07 ET Another replay of the WABC Video on CNN ("Earlier")
08:08 CT/9:08 ET CNN switches to footage of WNBC (Courtesy WNYV) Street reporter "Arlie" says "it's possible that this was a missile attack". Then he gets corrected from TV Host, that "we have a witness who said it was a plane and as we watching the monitor we SAW a plane crashing to the other tower..." "...there it is.. (commenting on the NBC clip, object barely to recognize)
08:10 CT/9:10 ET ('moments ago', replay WNBC)
08:12 CT/9:12 ET Replay of older tape, but apparently with the 'wrong timecode' beginning: TV audience is presented with explosion/fireball at south tower only. Tape is stopped.
08:12 CT/9:12 ET Another replay of the NBC version "moments ago" (Reporter mentions a chopper, "is that ours?"
08:15 CT/9:15 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is now 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object
08:17 CT/9:17 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is again 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object
08:19 CT/9:19 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", now with a special effect, bright round spot on black filtered background, halting the footage.
08:21 CT/9:21 ET Unidentified source on ? channel "it was a smaller plane, because it made some circles... ...cargo plane...didn't see any windows...
08:22 CT/9:22 ET Replay WABC video 2nd hit with earlier emotional response of Mitchell: "...The Building is exploding right now..."
08:30 CT/9:30 ET Bush speech on CNN monior via split screen, 2nd monitor: Burning Towers
The background, still LIVE, has no BLUE color camera filter anymore, which was used before almost constantly.
08:32 CT/9:32 ET After end of speech, back to Burning Tower, hole is shown from different perspective. No debris from any commercial aircraft visible.
08:34 CT/9:34 ET Another reference on TV: "...Osama Bin laden likes Airplanes..."
08:36 CT/9:36 ET Aaron Brown reports and seems to comment to same W-ABC clip/same camera, but from a wider zoom and distance.
08:38 CT/9:38 ET Reports from investigation in Boston, followed by replay of bush speech
08:41 CT/9:41 ET Senator Kennedy (D) in a speech is talking about a "terrorist attack" (early complicity of "democrats" of 9/11 cover-up)
08:42 CT/9:42 ET First Reports (Chris Plante) from Pentagon incident with a 'helicopter'. White House evacuated. (Live Camera from WTC now constantly with white sky)
8:44 CT/9:44 ET First Footage with smoke from Pentagon in background. Reports from "fire at white house". Another capture: White House evacuated.
08:44 CT/9:44 ET Insert: "Fire at Washington Mall", followed by "Fire Forces Pentagon Evacuation". Report: "it appears to be a US Military Helicopter behind the building... where the landing zone is... then the helicopter disappeared behind the building and then there was an explosion..." (compare also with UK Satellite TV Footage timeline at
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.1978
UA vs. AA -the 9/11 Timeline 'screw-up' )
08:53 CT/9:53 ET Split Screen at CNN, Air Force 1 (Boeing ?), WTC other window... Update that a plane crashed into the pentagon (Capture: 'CNN learns plane hit pentagon'). So far no close up footage from Pentagon.
08:54 CT/9:54 ET Replay "Aaron 9:36 ET"
08:58 CT/9:58 ET Jamie McIntyre asked if he can confirm that "a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon?". First close up footage from Pentagon, fire visible, building not collapsed yet. Pentalawn hard to recognize, blocked by huge graphic insert. Camera does not show the lawn.
08:59 CT/9:59 ET Update from NY: South Tower Collapse, followed by Voice Frank Tesno, reporting from "an explosion, then the building collapsed".
9:00 CT/10:00 ET Reports continue from New York, Capture "Third Explosion shatters World Trade Center in New York"
9:03 CT/10:03 ET Slow Motion "Moments ago" from Collapse
9:06 CT/10:06 ET Courtesy Footage (WCBS) from Pentagon
Breaking News Capture: People jumping from World Trade Center
Capture Change: "Third Explosion collapses World Trade Center in New York"
Voice of John King from White House about Evacuation
Split Screen Courtesy WUSA (Tower after collapse -LIVE, Pentagon fire, some green fire trucks visible-LIVE)
9:10 CT/10:10 ET Capture: FAA halts all flights nationwide. Sources: 1. Plane was an American Airlines from Boston CNN learns that Plane hit Pentagon.
(NOTE: CNN still didn't show their so called "exclusive clip" from an unknown amateur camera team yet. (See my manipulated remake at http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro3.htm )
9:15 CT/10:15 ET Replay footage 2nd hit distance "Aaron 9:36 ET" Capture "Explosion on Capitol Hill", Reporter repeatedly says, that they 'saw a second plane on the television'. Kate Snow reports from an explosion at Capitol Hill. "..I'm on Pennsylvannia Avenue..."
9:18 CT/10:18 ET Replay footage 2nd hit distance "Aaron 9:36 ET" Replay collapse. "Counter Intelligence reports" say that a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon.
Palestine Front declares responsibility for attack on america.
(9:27 CT)/10:27 ET New Camera spot from Pentagon
(9:30 CT)/10:30 ET Live NYC: Both Towers collapsed, now replays from 'earlier'
(9:34 CT)/10:34 ET Report: Car bomb has exploded at the State Department
(9:38 CT)/10:38 ET New split screen NYC LIVE, Pentagon (no debris on lawn, part of pentagon collapses, LIVE) -COURTESY WUSA
(9:41 CT)/10:41 ET Reports about a "forth explosion" before the second collapse Capture: "Breaking News:
Pentagon monitoring second suspected hijacked plane"
(9:50 CT)/10:50 ET Reports from plane crash 'this morning' 58 miles north from Pittsburgh
(9:52 CT)/10:52 ET Replay "Aaron 9:36 ET"
END OF FOOTAGE CNN
http://www.archive.org/download/911-Chrono...lit-Screen.mpeg
(footage obtained by "McDowell", bought on ebay, 2004)
http://opensourcevideo.blogspot.com/
http://www.archive.org/details/BlueScreenParty
http://thewebfairy.com/911/chronology/
DOWNLOAD MPG -350mb
FULL VERSION OF THIS TIMELINE
Pt.1: The CNN Image fakery- The 'real' timeline from Sep11th
07:50 CT/8:50 ET Sean Murtagh, 'CNN witness' from window, claims it was a "jet, looked like a 2 engine yet...a large commercial jet...i'm on the 22nd floor..."
(However Murtagh is not a real reporter.
He was CNN's vice-president of finance. His office was on 33rd street.
Was he (in conflicting versions), on the roof or did he catch everything out of his window?
"...i'm viewing south...wingtips tilted back and forth..."
07:53 CT/8:53 ET Monitor shows burning North Tower, occasionally zooms onto the empty impact hole
07:54 CT/8:54 ET Interview with witness, who reported about windows coming out of tower, "didn't see any plane". (First attack was officially at 8:48 AM)
07:54 CT/8:54 ET Telephone interview with Lisa, who heard a "sonic boom", but didn't see any plane from her window:
"I had no idea it was a plane, i turned on the tv, when i heard it was plane, which was strange"
08:00 CT/9:00 ET Witness Jeanne Yurman
08:02 CT/9:02 ET Winston Mitchell, WABC Interview, Live on the phone
08:03 CT/9:03 ET Then visibly on the monitor from the right a black flying object, vanishing behind one tower, then followed by an explosion. Reporter Mitchell, after a short delay: "...The Building is exploding right now (Mitchell doesn't mention that he saw any plane...) "everyone is panicking..." Mitchell is suddenly cut off by host, because he wants to 'hear other voices'.
08:06 CT/9:06 ET Producer of CNN decides to show again a replay from "Courtesy ABC"
08:07 CT/9:07 ET Another replay of the WABC Video on CNN ("Earlier")
08:08 CT/9:08 ET CNN switches to footage of WNBC (Courtesy WNYV) Street reporter "Arlie" says "it's possible that this was a missile attack". Then he gets corrected from TV Host, that "we have a witness who said it was a plane and as we watching the monitor we SAW a plane crashing to the other tower..." "...there it is.. (commenting on the NBC clip, object barely to recognize)
08:10 CT/9:10 ET ('moments ago', replay WNBC)
08:12 CT/9:12 ET Replay of older tape, but apparently with the 'wrong timecode' beginning: TV audience is presented with explosion/fireball at south tower only. Tape is stopped.
08:12 CT/9:12 ET Another replay of the NBC version "moments ago" (Reporter mentions a chopper, "is that ours?"
08:15 CT/9:15 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is now 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object
08:17 CT/9:17 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is again 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object
08:19 CT/9:19 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", now with a special effect, bright round spot on black filtered background, halting the footage.
08:21 CT/9:21 ET Unidentified source on ? channel "it was a smaller plane, because it made some circles... ...cargo plane...didn't see any windows...
08:22 CT/9:22 ET Replay WABC video 2nd hit with earlier emotional response of Mitchell: "...The Building is exploding right now..."
08:30 CT/9:30 ET Bush speech on CNN monior via split screen, 2nd monitor: Burning Towers
The background, still LIVE, has no BLUE color camera filter anymore, which was used before almost constantly.
08:32 CT/9:32 ET After end of speech, back to Burning Tower, hole is shown from different perspective. No debris from any commercial aircraft visible.
08:34 CT/9:34 ET Another reference on TV: "...Osama Bin laden likes Airplanes..."
08:36 CT/9:36 ET Aaron Brown reports and seems to comment to same W-ABC clip/same camera, but from a wider zoom and distance.
08:38 CT/9:38 ET Reports from investigation in Boston, followed by replay of bush speech
08:41 CT/9:41 ET Senator Kennedy (D) in a speech is talking about a "terrorist attack" (early complicity of "democrats" of 9/11 cover-up)
08:42 CT/9:42 ET First Reports (Chris Plante) from Pentagon incident with a 'helicopter'. White House evacuated. (Live Camera from WTC now constantly with white sky)
8:44 CT/9:44 ET First Footage with smoke from Pentagon in background. Reports from "fire at white house". Another capture: White House evacuated.
08:44 CT/9:44 ET Insert: "Fire at Washington Mall", followed by "Fire Forces Pentagon Evacuation". Report: "it appears to be a US Military Helicopter behind the building... where the landing zone is... then the helicopter disappeared behind the building and then there was an explosion..." (compare also with UK Satellite TV Footage timeline at
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.1978
UA vs. AA -the 9/11 Timeline 'screw-up' )
08:53 CT/9:53 ET Split Screen at CNN, Air Force 1 (Boeing ?), WTC other window... Update that a plane crashed into the pentagon (Capture: 'CNN learns plane hit pentagon'). So far no close up footage from Pentagon.
08:54 CT/9:54 ET Replay "Aaron 9:36 ET"
08:58 CT/9:58 ET Jamie McIntyre asked if he can confirm that "a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon?". First close up footage from Pentagon, fire visible, building not collapsed yet. Pentalawn hard to recognize, blocked by huge graphic insert. Camera does not show the lawn.
08:59 CT/9:59 ET Update from NY: South Tower Collapse, followed by Voice Frank Tesno, reporting from "an explosion, then the building collapsed".
9:00 CT/10:00 ET Reports continue from New York, Capture "Third Explosion shatters World Trade Center in New York"
9:03 CT/10:03 ET Slow Motion "Moments ago" from Collapse
9:06 CT/10:06 ET Courtesy Footage (WCBS) from Pentagon
Breaking News Capture: People jumping from World Trade Center
Capture Change: "Third Explosion collapses World Trade Center in New York"
Voice of John King from White House about Evacuation
Split Screen Courtesy WUSA (Tower after collapse -LIVE, Pentagon fire, some green fire trucks visible-LIVE)
9:10 CT/10:10 ET Capture: FAA halts all flights nationwide. Sources: 1. Plane was an American Airlines from Boston CNN learns that Plane hit Pentagon.
(NOTE: CNN still didn't show their so called "exclusive clip" from an unknown amateur camera team yet. (See my manipulated remake at http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro3.htm )
9:15 CT/10:15 ET Replay footage 2nd hit distance "Aaron 9:36 ET" Capture "Explosion on Capitol Hill", Reporter repeatedly says, that they 'saw a second plane on the television'. Kate Snow reports from an explosion at Capitol Hill. "..I'm on Pennsylvannia Avenue..."
9:18 CT/10:18 ET Replay footage 2nd hit distance "Aaron 9:36 ET" Replay collapse. "Counter Intelligence reports" say that a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon.
Palestine Front declares responsibility for attack on america.
(9:27 CT)/10:27 ET New Camera spot from Pentagon
(9:30 CT)/10:30 ET Live NYC: Both Towers collapsed, now replays from 'earlier'
(9:34 CT)/10:34 ET Report: Car bomb has exploded at the State Department
(9:38 CT)/10:38 ET New split screen NYC LIVE, Pentagon (no debris on lawn, part of pentagon collapses, LIVE) -COURTESY WUSA
(9:41 CT)/10:41 ET Reports about a "forth explosion" before the second collapse Capture: "Breaking News:
Pentagon monitoring second suspected hijacked plane"
(9:50 CT)/10:50 ET Reports from plane crash 'this morning' 58 miles north from Pittsburgh
(9:52 CT)/10:52 ET Replay "Aaron 9:36 ET"
END OF FOOTAGE CNN
http://www.archive.org/download/911-Chrono...lit-Screen.mpeg
(footage obtained by "McDowell", bought on ebay, 2004)
http://opensourcevideo.blogspot.com/
http://www.archive.org/details/BlueScreenParty
http://thewebfairy.com/911/chronology/
DOWNLOAD MPG -350mb
FULL VERSION OF THIS TIMELINE
Hey Foxx, I absolutely agree with your post. These threads come down to tactics. And we've got to change ours somehow. CS is a joke, we can all agree on that, but when something relevant comes up, three pages of spam and it's history. To keep the attention of the viewer not poster is a completely different task. Newton, Gordon, Chris, reasonwhy, yourself, and many others have been kicking their asses for quite a long time now. They are tenacious if nothing else. I guess my question I'm asking myself is how to make these facts surrounding 911 an immediate concern for the "common joe american'. I feel the outrage will come naturally once faced with the facts. Getting people to face something embarrassingly undeniable is a very hard problem. The mass conditioning by the media has been incredibly effective, but I know if our arguments become more focused the truth is undeniable. I think Dr. Jones is key right now, not only because he comes from the reddest school in the reddest state, this alone has made a few heads turn. So 'CTers are just Bush haters' fell on it's *** when he came forward. Obviously from this thread they are trying to associate him with intelligent design and extreme Christianity, while ignoring the crux of the paper: WTC 7 fall time, symmetry, and behavior. I'd really like to hear some suggestions from anyone on this PLEASE. I know this is a physics blog and may not be appropriate, but these facts have to be marketed to the GP somehow for it to gain any traction. I'm sure Americans will do the right thing when it comes time, they have to be exposed to the facts first.
QUOTE
Then visibly on the monitor from the right a black flying object
Has anyone else noticed that in all video footage of the 2nd impact the the plane looks unnaturally dark, almost black.
Can anyone explain this?
(: hereward
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 05:02 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 14 2006, 08:16 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 14 2006, 07:48 PM)
They were not talking about building 7...
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Seriously CS, what does this post supposedly prove?
You're hanging your whole argument on the word "it" and your asking me what the fireman's quotes are supposed to prove??? Get real...
I have to admit I do feel stupid for arguing with an idiot. This does not support the official conspiracy theory that global collapse was expected.
I did not realize you were just spamming more useless information.
I never said it proved the NIST report right.
BECAUSE THE NIST NEVER SAID A GLOBAL COLLAPSE WAS EXPECTED.
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEEL?
Hayden: We heard Maydays after the collapse of the south tower. We heard Maydays then. After the second plane hit the south tower, we had a brief conference.
Firehouse: Did you hear that noise?
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
THIS IS WHY I USE LARGE FONT. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ NORMAL FONT...
Seriously CS, what does this post supposedly prove?
You're hanging your whole argument on the word "it" and your asking me what the fireman's quotes are supposed to prove??? Get real...
I have to admit I do feel stupid for arguing with an idiot. This does not support the official conspiracy theory that global collapse was expected.
I did not realize you were just spamming more useless information.
I never said it proved the NIST report right.
BECAUSE THE NIST NEVER SAID A GLOBAL COLLAPSE WAS EXPECTED.
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEEL?
QUOTE (replicant+Mar 15 2006, 05:04 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
If you are calling me stupid, I feel like a friggin genius. That sorta makes my day, thanks CS. Do you NOW what I mean (wink)?
I just love when the response to my evidence is hand waving and insults. I post the fireman's quotes saying they gave the towers up for dead and all I get back is "That doesn't prove anything", "They're lying", "Your stupid" "That's why I hate arguing with you"... "WAAA WAAAA WAAAA"
Continue proving me right....
Now I guess I'll have to explain before someone takes my quote out of context again... After the second plane hit they had a meeting between the chiefs and talked about collapse, you say partial, fine, partial, I can easily retract "Global" and still make my point. They decide not to fight the fire so they could save lives before a collapse. What does that tell you. They gave the building up for dead and gave clear reasons why.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
By beef with newt is him saying NO ONE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE as if the chiefs never spoke about it. As if it was a ridiculous idea. NONSENSE, it was well within the realm of possibilities.
WAVE AWAY!
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PD
Or this one, the collapse was supposed to start at the floors the plane hit. So,obviously he did hear ten explosions.
No one questions they heard what sounded like explosions. Concrete floor, steel and office contents crashing into another floor with a concrete floor, steel and office contents is going to make a hell of a sound don't you think? We ARE on earth are we not? We don't live in the vacuum of space. Do you need a calculation on how loud it should be before you accept it? Do you honestly think it's SO unreasonable for people who were just attacked by terrorist to think they heard that loud of a sound and think [Explosion]? Are these people exposed to this type of collapse every day? NO....
To prove how damming these quotes are to the CT nutcases I bet you couldn't link a single CT site which puts the whole quotes I put up. If these quotes make your case why do the CT sites chop them up? Why are they so selective? For instance...
CT lunatics post:
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PD
Or this one, the collapse was supposed to start at the floors the plane hit. So,obviously he did hear ten explosions.
No one questions they heard what sounded like explosions. Concrete floor, steel and office contents crashing into another floor with a concrete floor, steel and office contents is going to make a hell of a sound don't you think? We ARE on earth are we not? We don't live in the vacuum of space. Do you need a calculation on how loud it should be before you accept it? Do you honestly think it's SO unreasonable for people who were just attacked by terrorist to think they heard that loud of a sound and think [Explosion]? Are these people exposed to this type of collapse every day? NO....
To prove how damming these quotes are to the CT nutcases I bet you couldn't link a single CT site which puts the whole quotes I put up. If these quotes make your case why do the CT sites chop them up? Why are they so selective? For instance...
CT lunatics post:
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
when the real quote goes like this...
So tell me, if that makes your case why did they cut that part out?
That deserves a Heh!
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
There is an entire story in that album cover. One I could tell but won't. It would make sense, but I couldn't prove it and that wouldn't help what is important.
Right on about the symmetry in free fall. This is a total giveaway as to demolition. The fact the wrong towere fell first is another. Total pulverization is another, a very strange, creepy one. We have never seen this before ANYWHERE.
christophera, i like to hear that story.
reality check..
here's me being fair..........foreknowledge is proven by this album cover that came out in august, 2001. and, c'mon. "the COUP" with a red star?
the 'mad' fold up art on the twenty dollar bill minted in 1998 is further evidence(it's TOOO good to be a coincidence. and, you fold it like an airplane, no less), that this is an elaborate plot going way back.
go here glenn beck to see the amazing five, ten, fifty and one hundred dollar money airplanes.
there is also a card game, by steve jackson games that details the scenario we are now living out.
here's a card...
here's another...
another one shows the office that 'the usual suspects' work out of...
here's what the author of the game has to say about the illuminati..
50 awful truths about the illuminati
out there? oh, yeah! and yet, he made those cards in 1995. obvious foreknowledge, once again.
the pilot episode of 'the lone gunmen', the three smart nerds from the x-files, was about a secret government plot to fake a terrorist hijack, and fly a plane into the WTC. you can find the clip on line without too much searching. it's eerie.
so, when i'm discussing the towers and their demise, i let it ride that there are more things on heaven and earth, whore ratio, and all your piddling about with tiny details is irrelevent, inadmissable and out of ORDER.
there's no such thing as an 'amazing' coicidence. if you see what you feel is an amazing coincidence, rest assured that it is COMPLETELY NORMAL. information has a way of going back in time and 'imprinting' on the mass concsciousness. that's how these completely normal graphic 'coincidences' happened.
like i said before. bush is a MORON who can barely string together a sentence that makes sense. he's a puppet of MUCH larger forces.
he's still complicit, still a criminal, and still guilty as (literally)HELL. along with the whole money/power grid of the entire world.
check out the cutting edge. i just noticed while looking for the steve jackson images that these guys KNOW.
HAHAHA! This is rich! Now the US mint is involved in the plot! I can't take it! HEHEHE!!!
I have to spell it out... I'm rolling on the floor laughing my a$$ off as I gasp for air!!! HAHAHA!!!!
Maybe the artist who drew the bill is a new Nostradamus? HEHEHEH!!!!
If you are calling me stupid, I feel like a friggin genius. That sorta makes my day, thanks CS. Do you NOW what I mean (wink)?
I just love when the response to my evidence is hand waving and insults. I post the fireman's quotes saying they gave the towers up for dead and all I get back is "That doesn't prove anything", "They're lying", "Your stupid" "That's why I hate arguing with you"... "WAAA WAAAA WAAAA"
Continue proving me right....
Now I guess I'll have to explain before someone takes my quote out of context again... After the second plane hit they had a meeting between the chiefs and talked about collapse, you say partial, fine, partial, I can easily retract "Global" and still make my point. They decide not to fight the fire so they could save lives before a collapse. What does that tell you. They gave the building up for dead and gave clear reasons why.
QUOTE
"We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in. We didn’t think the standpipe system was even going to be intact up there. We had to forgo the whole idea of trying to put any fire suppression efforts in there. This was strictly a search and rescue operation. When the second plane hit the south tower, Chief Burns left the lobby of the north tower and went over to assume command of the operations in the south tower. Only a few short minutes after that occurred, we felt it was wise for us to start evacuating this building and we started calling our people down, which was probably about 25 minutes before the north tower collapsed."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
By beef with newt is him saying NO ONE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE as if the chiefs never spoke about it. As if it was a ridiculous idea. NONSENSE, it was well within the realm of possibilities.
WAVE AWAY!
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 05:21 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 14 2006, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory |
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
QUOTE
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PD
Or this one, the collapse was supposed to start at the floors the plane hit. So,obviously he did hear ten explosions.
No one questions they heard what sounded like explosions. Concrete floor, steel and office contents crashing into another floor with a concrete floor, steel and office contents is going to make a hell of a sound don't you think? We ARE on earth are we not? We don't live in the vacuum of space. Do you need a calculation on how loud it should be before you accept it? Do you honestly think it's SO unreasonable for people who were just attacked by terrorist to think they heard that loud of a sound and think [Explosion]? Are these people exposed to this type of collapse every day? NO....
To prove how damming these quotes are to the CT nutcases I bet you couldn't link a single CT site which puts the whole quotes I put up. If these quotes make your case why do the CT sites chop them up? Why are they so selective? For instance...
CT lunatics post:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen |
Note where these lairs but the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PD
Or this one, the collapse was supposed to start at the floors the plane hit. So,obviously he did hear ten explosions.
No one questions they heard what sounded like explosions. Concrete floor, steel and office contents crashing into another floor with a concrete floor, steel and office contents is going to make a hell of a sound don't you think? We ARE on earth are we not? We don't live in the vacuum of space. Do you need a calculation on how loud it should be before you accept it? Do you honestly think it's SO unreasonable for people who were just attacked by terrorist to think they heard that loud of a sound and think [Explosion]? Are these people exposed to this type of collapse every day? NO....
To prove how damming these quotes are to the CT nutcases I bet you couldn't link a single CT site which puts the whole quotes I put up. If these quotes make your case why do the CT sites chop them up? Why are they so selective? For instance...
CT lunatics post:
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
when the real quote goes like this...
QUOTE
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
So tell me, if that makes your case why did they cut that part out?
That deserves a Heh!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 05:49 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 15 2006, 03:46 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:34 AM)
QUOTE
We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
two hours before it fell. doesn't fit with, 'they decided to pull it, and then we watched the tower fall'.
who are 'they' that 'knew' the tower was going to fall?
this amazing foreknowledge of collapse only applies to tower seven. not one and two. those were BIG SURPRISES to EVERYONE(except of course , 'the coup' gang in tower seven)
that album cover came out in august 2001.
---source...http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
say, you're all full of common sense that you've stuffed yourself with. how did that tower fall with such amazing symmetry in freefall?
There is an entire story in that album cover. One I could tell but won't. It would make sense, but I couldn't prove it and that wouldn't help what is important.
Right on about the symmetry in free fall. This is a total giveaway as to demolition. The fact the wrong towere fell first is another. Total pulverization is another, a very strange, creepy one. We have never seen this before ANYWHERE.
christophera, i like to hear that story.
reality check..
here's me being fair..........foreknowledge is proven by this album cover that came out in august, 2001. and, c'mon. "the COUP" with a red star?
the 'mad' fold up art on the twenty dollar bill minted in 1998 is further evidence(it's TOOO good to be a coincidence. and, you fold it like an airplane, no less), that this is an elaborate plot going way back.
go here glenn beck to see the amazing five, ten, fifty and one hundred dollar money airplanes.
there is also a card game, by steve jackson games that details the scenario we are now living out.
here's a card...
here's another...
another one shows the office that 'the usual suspects' work out of...
here's what the author of the game has to say about the illuminati..
50 awful truths about the illuminati
out there? oh, yeah! and yet, he made those cards in 1995. obvious foreknowledge, once again.
the pilot episode of 'the lone gunmen', the three smart nerds from the x-files, was about a secret government plot to fake a terrorist hijack, and fly a plane into the WTC. you can find the clip on line without too much searching. it's eerie.
so, when i'm discussing the towers and their demise, i let it ride that there are more things on heaven and earth, whore ratio, and all your piddling about with tiny details is irrelevent, inadmissable and out of ORDER.
there's no such thing as an 'amazing' coicidence. if you see what you feel is an amazing coincidence, rest assured that it is COMPLETELY NORMAL. information has a way of going back in time and 'imprinting' on the mass concsciousness. that's how these completely normal graphic 'coincidences' happened.
like i said before. bush is a MORON who can barely string together a sentence that makes sense. he's a puppet of MUCH larger forces.
he's still complicit, still a criminal, and still guilty as (literally)HELL. along with the whole money/power grid of the entire world.
check out the cutting edge. i just noticed while looking for the steve jackson images that these guys KNOW.
HAHAHA! This is rich! Now the US mint is involved in the plot! I can't take it! HEHEHE!!!
I have to spell it out... I'm rolling on the floor laughing my a$$ off as I gasp for air!!! HAHAHA!!!!
Maybe the artist who drew the bill is a new Nostradamus? HEHEHEH!!!!
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 06:13 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
Moron, anyone who remembers the 2000 election and knows about the election fraud that went on could have designed that album cover. Especially back people who were disenfranchised in Florida. Don't believe me? Just Google "2000 election coup"
What's your point...
As for your question, I feel smarter and smarter every time I compare against your post.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
The more you move to character assassination, the more you lose the argument. Everyone here can go back to my posts showing you to be a liar. Not just me pointing it out but others as well.
The whole reason for my site is to keep from repeating the same answers to the same questions over and over again. Why should I find 20 different ways to say the same thing over and over again? You CTers make the claim that there was nothing wrong with building 7. You don't wait for the NIST report to come out before you say it's a lie. I post quotes from reputable sources which have NO stake in this argument one way or the other (Note CTers always link to CT sites for their arguments) saying exactly what Silvertsin said and you say that's spam. Why? No doubt to con everyone into not reading my posts like newt does. That's why you and he look so stupid at the end of every few pages.
Keep up the Bush style character assassinations. They only prove my point. Heh!
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
Moron, anyone who remembers the 2000 election and knows about the election fraud that went on could have designed that album cover. Especially back people who were disenfranchised in Florida. Don't believe me? Just Google "2000 election coup"
What's your point...
As for your question, I feel smarter and smarter every time I compare against your post.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 15 2006, 06:26 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
The more you move to character assassination, the more you lose the argument. Everyone here can go back to my posts showing you to be a liar. Not just me pointing it out but others as well.
The whole reason for my site is to keep from repeating the same answers to the same questions over and over again. Why should I find 20 different ways to say the same thing over and over again? You CTers make the claim that there was nothing wrong with building 7. You don't wait for the NIST report to come out before you say it's a lie. I post quotes from reputable sources which have NO stake in this argument one way or the other (Note CTers always link to CT sites for their arguments) saying exactly what Silvertsin said and you say that's spam. Why? No doubt to con everyone into not reading my posts like newt does. That's why you and he look so stupid at the end of every few pages.
Keep up the Bush style character assassinations. They only prove my point. Heh!
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 15 2006, 08:23 AM)
I have serious doubts that a second plane even hit the WTC.
Pt.1: The CNN Image fakery- The 'real' timeline from Sep11th
07:50 CT/8:50 ET Sean Murtagh, 'CNN witness' from window, claims it was a "jet, looked like a 2 engine yet...a large commercial jet...i'm on the 22nd floor..."
(However Murtagh is not a real reporter.
He was CNN's vice-president of finance. His office was on 33rd street.
Was he (in conflicting versions), on the roof or did he catch everything out of his window?
"...i'm viewing south...wingtips tilted back and forth..."
07:53 CT/8:53 ET Monitor shows burning North Tower, occasionally zooms onto the empty impact hole
07:54 CT/8:54 ET Interview with witness, who reported about windows coming out of tower, "didn't see any plane". (First attack was officially at 8:48 AM)
07:54 CT/8:54 ET Telephone interview with Lisa, who heard a "sonic boom", but didn't see any plane from her window:
"I had no idea it was a plane, i turned on the tv, when i heard it was plane, which was strange"
08:00 CT/9:00 ET Witness Jeanne Yurman
08:02 CT/9:02 ET Winston Mitchell, WABC Interview, Live on the phone
08:03 CT/9:03 ET Then visibly on the monitor from the right a black flying object, vanishing behind one tower, then followed by an explosion. Reporter Mitchell, after a short delay: "...The Building is exploding right now (Mitchell doesn't mention that he saw any plane...) "everyone is panicking..." Mitchell is suddenly cut off by host, because he wants to 'hear other voices'.
08:06 CT/9:06 ET Producer of CNN decides to show again a replay from "Courtesy ABC"
08:07 CT/9:07 ET Another replay of the WABC Video on CNN ("Earlier")
08:08 CT/9:08 ET CNN switches to footage of WNBC (Courtesy WNYV) Street reporter "Arlie" says "it's possible that this was a missile attack". Then he gets corrected from TV Host, that "we have a witness who said it was a plane and as we watching the monitor we SAW a plane crashing to the other tower..." "...there it is.. (commenting on the NBC clip, object barely to recognize)
08:10 CT/9:10 ET ('moments ago', replay WNBC)
08:12 CT/9:12 ET Replay of older tape, but apparently with the 'wrong timecode' beginning: TV audience is presented with explosion/fireball at south tower only. Tape is stopped.
08:12 CT/9:12 ET Another replay of the NBC version "moments ago" (Reporter mentions a chopper, "is that ours?"
08:15 CT/9:15 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is now 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object
08:17 CT/9:17 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is again 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object
08:19 CT/9:19 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", now with a special effect, bright round spot on black filtered background, halting the footage.
08:21 CT/9:21 ET Unidentified source on ? channel "it was a smaller plane, because it made some circles... ...cargo plane...didn't see any windows...
08:22 CT/9:22 ET Replay WABC video 2nd hit with earlier emotional response of Mitchell: "...The Building is exploding right now..."
08:30 CT/9:30 ET Bush speech on CNN monior via split screen, 2nd monitor: Burning Towers
The background, still LIVE, has no BLUE color camera filter anymore, which was used before almost constantly.
08:32 CT/9:32 ET After end of speech, back to Burning Tower, hole is shown from different perspective. No debris from any commercial aircraft visible.
08:34 CT/9:34 ET Another reference on TV: "...Osama Bin laden likes Airplanes..."
08:36 CT/9:36 ET Aaron Brown reports and seems to comment to same W-ABC clip/same camera, but from a wider zoom and distance.
08:38 CT/9:38 ET Reports from investigation in Boston, followed by replay of bush speech
08:41 CT/9:41 ET Senator Kennedy (D) in a speech is talking about a "terrorist attack" (early complicity of "democrats" of 9/11 cover-up)
08:42 CT/9:42 ET First Reports (Chris Plante) from Pentagon incident with a 'helicopter'. White House evacuated. (Live Camera from WTC now constantly with white sky)
8:44 CT/9:44 ET First Footage with smoke from Pentagon in background. Reports from "fire at white house". Another capture: White House evacuated.
08:44 CT/9:44 ET Insert: "Fire at Washington Mall", followed by "Fire Forces Pentagon Evacuation". Report: "it appears to be a US Military Helicopter behind the building... where the landing zone is... then the helicopter disappeared behind the building and then there was an explosion..." (compare also with UK Satellite TV Footage timeline at
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.1978
UA vs. AA -the 9/11 Timeline 'screw-up' )
08:53 CT/9:53 ET Split Screen at CNN, Air Force 1 (Boeing ?), WTC other window... Update that a plane crashed into the pentagon (Capture: 'CNN learns plane hit pentagon'). So far no close up footage from Pentagon.
08:54 CT/9:54 ET Replay "Aaron 9:36 ET"
08:58 CT/9:58 ET Jamie McIntyre asked if he can confirm that "a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon?". First close up footage from Pentagon, fire visible, building not collapsed yet. Pentalawn hard to recognize, blocked by huge graphic insert. Camera does not show the lawn.
08:59 CT/9:59 ET Update from NY: South Tower Collapse, followed by Voice Frank Tesno, reporting from "an explosion, then the building collapsed".
9:00 CT/10:00 ET Reports continue from New York, Capture "Third Explosion shatters World Trade Center in New York"
9:03 CT/10:03 ET Slow Motion "Moments ago" from Collapse
9:06 CT/10:06 ET Courtesy Footage (WCBS) from Pentagon
Breaking News Capture: People jumping from World Trade Center
Capture Change: "Third Explosion collapses World Trade Center in New York"
Voice of John King from White House about Evacuation
Split Screen Courtesy WUSA (Tower after collapse -LIVE, Pentagon fire, some green fire trucks visible-LIVE)
9:10 CT/10:10 ET Capture: FAA halts all flights nationwide. Sources: 1. Plane was an American Airlines from Boston CNN learns that Plane hit Pentagon.
(NOTE: CNN still didn't show their so called "exclusive clip" from an unknown amateur camera team yet. (See my manipulated remake at http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro3.htm )
9:15 CT/10:15 ET Replay footage 2nd hit distance "Aaron 9:36 ET" Capture "Explosion on Capitol Hill", Reporter repeatedly says, that they 'saw a second plane on the television'. Kate Snow reports from an explosion at Capitol Hill. "..I'm on Pennsylvannia Avenue..."
9:18 CT/10:18 ET Replay footage 2nd hit distance "Aaron 9:36 ET" Replay collapse. "Counter Intelligence reports" say that a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon.
Palestine Front declares responsibility for attack on america.
(9:27 CT)/10:27 ET New Camera spot from Pentagon
(9:30 CT)/10:30 ET Live NYC: Both Towers collapsed, now replays from 'earlier'
(9:34 CT)/10:34 ET Report: Car bomb has exploded at the State Department
(9:38 CT)/10:38 ET New split screen NYC LIVE, Pentagon (no debris on lawn, part of pentagon collapses, LIVE) -COURTESY WUSA
(9:41 CT)/10:41 ET Reports about a "forth explosion" before the second collapse Capture: "Breaking News:
Pentagon monitoring second suspected hijacked plane"
(9:50 CT)/10:50 ET Reports from plane crash 'this morning' 58 miles north from Pittsburgh
(9:52 CT)/10:52 ET Replay "Aaron 9:36 ET"
END OF FOOTAGE CNN
http://www.archive.org/download/911-Chrono...lit-Screen.mpeg
(footage obtained by "McDowell", bought on ebay, 2004)
http://opensourcevideo.blogspot.com/
http://www.archive.org/details/BlueScreenParty
http://thewebfairy.com/911/chronology/
DOWNLOAD MPG -350mb
FULL VERSION OF THIS TIMELINE
HAHAHA!!! And you say I post spam! I love it!
Pt.1: The CNN Image fakery- The 'real' timeline from Sep11th
07:50 CT/8:50 ET Sean Murtagh, 'CNN witness' from window, claims it was a "jet, looked like a 2 engine yet...a large commercial jet...i'm on the 22nd floor..."
(However Murtagh is not a real reporter.
He was CNN's vice-president of finance. His office was on 33rd street.
Was he (in conflicting versions), on the roof or did he catch everything out of his window?
"...i'm viewing south...wingtips tilted back and forth..."
07:53 CT/8:53 ET Monitor shows burning North Tower, occasionally zooms onto the empty impact hole
07:54 CT/8:54 ET Interview with witness, who reported about windows coming out of tower, "didn't see any plane". (First attack was officially at 8:48 AM)
07:54 CT/8:54 ET Telephone interview with Lisa, who heard a "sonic boom", but didn't see any plane from her window:
"I had no idea it was a plane, i turned on the tv, when i heard it was plane, which was strange"
08:00 CT/9:00 ET Witness Jeanne Yurman
08:02 CT/9:02 ET Winston Mitchell, WABC Interview, Live on the phone
08:03 CT/9:03 ET Then visibly on the monitor from the right a black flying object, vanishing behind one tower, then followed by an explosion. Reporter Mitchell, after a short delay: "...The Building is exploding right now (Mitchell doesn't mention that he saw any plane...) "everyone is panicking..." Mitchell is suddenly cut off by host, because he wants to 'hear other voices'.
08:06 CT/9:06 ET Producer of CNN decides to show again a replay from "Courtesy ABC"
08:07 CT/9:07 ET Another replay of the WABC Video on CNN ("Earlier")
08:08 CT/9:08 ET CNN switches to footage of WNBC (Courtesy WNYV) Street reporter "Arlie" says "it's possible that this was a missile attack". Then he gets corrected from TV Host, that "we have a witness who said it was a plane and as we watching the monitor we SAW a plane crashing to the other tower..." "...there it is.. (commenting on the NBC clip, object barely to recognize)
08:10 CT/9:10 ET ('moments ago', replay WNBC)
08:12 CT/9:12 ET Replay of older tape, but apparently with the 'wrong timecode' beginning: TV audience is presented with explosion/fireball at south tower only. Tape is stopped.
08:12 CT/9:12 ET Another replay of the NBC version "moments ago" (Reporter mentions a chopper, "is that ours?"
08:15 CT/9:15 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is now 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object
08:17 CT/9:17 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is again 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object
08:19 CT/9:19 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", now with a special effect, bright round spot on black filtered background, halting the footage.
08:21 CT/9:21 ET Unidentified source on ? channel "it was a smaller plane, because it made some circles... ...cargo plane...didn't see any windows...
08:22 CT/9:22 ET Replay WABC video 2nd hit with earlier emotional response of Mitchell: "...The Building is exploding right now..."
08:30 CT/9:30 ET Bush speech on CNN monior via split screen, 2nd monitor: Burning Towers
The background, still LIVE, has no BLUE color camera filter anymore, which was used before almost constantly.
08:32 CT/9:32 ET After end of speech, back to Burning Tower, hole is shown from different perspective. No debris from any commercial aircraft visible.
08:34 CT/9:34 ET Another reference on TV: "...Osama Bin laden likes Airplanes..."
08:36 CT/9:36 ET Aaron Brown reports and seems to comment to same W-ABC clip/same camera, but from a wider zoom and distance.
08:38 CT/9:38 ET Reports from investigation in Boston, followed by replay of bush speech
08:41 CT/9:41 ET Senator Kennedy (D) in a speech is talking about a "terrorist attack" (early complicity of "democrats" of 9/11 cover-up)
08:42 CT/9:42 ET First Reports (Chris Plante) from Pentagon incident with a 'helicopter'. White House evacuated. (Live Camera from WTC now constantly with white sky)
8:44 CT/9:44 ET First Footage with smoke from Pentagon in background. Reports from "fire at white house". Another capture: White House evacuated.
08:44 CT/9:44 ET Insert: "Fire at Washington Mall", followed by "Fire Forces Pentagon Evacuation". Report: "it appears to be a US Military Helicopter behind the building... where the landing zone is... then the helicopter disappeared behind the building and then there was an explosion..." (compare also with UK Satellite TV Footage timeline at
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.1978
UA vs. AA -the 9/11 Timeline 'screw-up' )
08:53 CT/9:53 ET Split Screen at CNN, Air Force 1 (Boeing ?), WTC other window... Update that a plane crashed into the pentagon (Capture: 'CNN learns plane hit pentagon'). So far no close up footage from Pentagon.
08:54 CT/9:54 ET Replay "Aaron 9:36 ET"
08:58 CT/9:58 ET Jamie McIntyre asked if he can confirm that "a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon?". First close up footage from Pentagon, fire visible, building not collapsed yet. Pentalawn hard to recognize, blocked by huge graphic insert. Camera does not show the lawn.
08:59 CT/9:59 ET Update from NY: South Tower Collapse, followed by Voice Frank Tesno, reporting from "an explosion, then the building collapsed".
9:00 CT/10:00 ET Reports continue from New York, Capture "Third Explosion shatters World Trade Center in New York"
9:03 CT/10:03 ET Slow Motion "Moments ago" from Collapse
9:06 CT/10:06 ET Courtesy Footage (WCBS) from Pentagon
Breaking News Capture: People jumping from World Trade Center
Capture Change: "Third Explosion collapses World Trade Center in New York"
Voice of John King from White House about Evacuation
Split Screen Courtesy WUSA (Tower after collapse -LIVE, Pentagon fire, some green fire trucks visible-LIVE)
9:10 CT/10:10 ET Capture: FAA halts all flights nationwide. Sources: 1. Plane was an American Airlines from Boston CNN learns that Plane hit Pentagon.
(NOTE: CNN still didn't show their so called "exclusive clip" from an unknown amateur camera team yet. (See my manipulated remake at http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro3.htm )
9:15 CT/10:15 ET Replay footage 2nd hit distance "Aaron 9:36 ET" Capture "Explosion on Capitol Hill", Reporter repeatedly says, that they 'saw a second plane on the television'. Kate Snow reports from an explosion at Capitol Hill. "..I'm on Pennsylvannia Avenue..."
9:18 CT/10:18 ET Replay footage 2nd hit distance "Aaron 9:36 ET" Replay collapse. "Counter Intelligence reports" say that a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon.
Palestine Front declares responsibility for attack on america.
(9:27 CT)/10:27 ET New Camera spot from Pentagon
(9:30 CT)/10:30 ET Live NYC: Both Towers collapsed, now replays from 'earlier'
(9:34 CT)/10:34 ET Report: Car bomb has exploded at the State Department
(9:38 CT)/10:38 ET New split screen NYC LIVE, Pentagon (no debris on lawn, part of pentagon collapses, LIVE) -COURTESY WUSA
(9:41 CT)/10:41 ET Reports about a "forth explosion" before the second collapse Capture: "Breaking News:
Pentagon monitoring second suspected hijacked plane"
(9:50 CT)/10:50 ET Reports from plane crash 'this morning' 58 miles north from Pittsburgh
(9:52 CT)/10:52 ET Replay "Aaron 9:36 ET"
END OF FOOTAGE CNN
http://www.archive.org/download/911-Chrono...lit-Screen.mpeg
(footage obtained by "McDowell", bought on ebay, 2004)
http://opensourcevideo.blogspot.com/
http://www.archive.org/details/BlueScreenParty
http://thewebfairy.com/911/chronology/
DOWNLOAD MPG -350mb
FULL VERSION OF THIS TIMELINE
HAHAHA!!! And you say I post spam! I love it!
DID YOU KNOW...
that many high explosives (eg. dynamite, HMX, RDX) will burn at a high temperature, but fire will not detonate them?
that many high explosives (eg. dynamite, HMX, RDX) will burn at a high temperature, but fire will not detonate them?
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 15 2006, 06:56 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 06:13 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
You are right on newt.
We do not knoweverything about the mind.
Yeah but if you see my posts they start around 8:30 to 9:00 AM EST and end at 11:30 PM to 2:30 AM EST. I don't get much sleep. So yeah, while I feel stupid for the spelling errors, even without sleep I can make you feel stupid by exposing your out right lies.
What your excuse for KNOWING there is a concrete core?
HEH!
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
Great post Foxx.
When first mentioned I did not believe there were shills. Now, I think the perpetrators would have to be completely incompetent to not have a large group of disinformation teams. Whoever is responsible for 9/11 is anything but incompetent and has vast resources with control over powerful people.
I knew Arthur was not telling the truth when he said he was posting before 9/11. If Disinformation teams were in place before 9/11 this would take away all deniability if a shill came forward with the truth. After 9/11, the administration could claim it is part of the war on terror.
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
You're lying again fool, The towers were designed for ONE 707 which is much smaller than a 757. They didn't factor in the fuel either.
Would you like me to make you look more stupid by posting quote?
I'm having difficulty finding detailed accounts of the structural tests and design criteria simulating a 707 impact.
NRCC42466.PDF document advises initial designs to cope with a single 707 travelling at 180MPH, there was no consideration to any ensuing fires.
www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-centre says the scenario was a 707 lost in fog trying to land. (hence little/no fuel).
A documentary screened in the UK 4 years ago (I saw it but cannot remember who the producers were) advised the 707 impact scenario was only envisaged at the base of the tower!
One 911 site insists the criteria was a 707 at 600MPH.
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
Cheers
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
You are right on newt.
We do not knoweverything about the mind.
Yeah but if you see my posts they start around 8:30 to 9:00 AM EST and end at 11:30 PM to 2:30 AM EST. I don't get much sleep. So yeah, while I feel stupid for the spelling errors, even without sleep I can make you feel stupid by exposing your out right lies.
What your excuse for KNOWING there is a concrete core?
HEH!
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
Great post Foxx.
When first mentioned I did not believe there were shills. Now, I think the perpetrators would have to be completely incompetent to not have a large group of disinformation teams. Whoever is responsible for 9/11 is anything but incompetent and has vast resources with control over powerful people.
I knew Arthur was not telling the truth when he said he was posting before 9/11. If Disinformation teams were in place before 9/11 this would take away all deniability if a shill came forward with the truth. After 9/11, the administration could claim it is part of the war on terror.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 02:37 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:32 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 02:09 AM)
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
You're lying again fool, The towers were designed for ONE 707 which is much smaller than a 757. They didn't factor in the fuel either.
Would you like me to make you look more stupid by posting quote?
I'm having difficulty finding detailed accounts of the structural tests and design criteria simulating a 707 impact.
NRCC42466.PDF document advises initial designs to cope with a single 707 travelling at 180MPH, there was no consideration to any ensuing fires.
www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-centre says the scenario was a 707 lost in fog trying to land. (hence little/no fuel).
A documentary screened in the UK 4 years ago (I saw it but cannot remember who the producers were) advised the 707 impact scenario was only envisaged at the base of the tower!
One 911 site insists the criteria was a 707 at 600MPH.
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
Cheers
For those of you who think I'm trying to run away from something let me recap...
Faux was caught with a lie saying that the NIST said the metal in the corner was aluminum and on fire for 45 minutes. He has yet to show where the NIST said this... Coastal said the NIST never said such a thing and asked why hes lying. Faux said that means the aluminum must have been exposed to 2000 C heat in order to burst into flame. I posted photos of an airliner which melted by fire without it even hitting a building much less exposed to any explosive. This is 100% proof that fire in the very corner wasn't aluminum. Who knows what it was. Aluminum would have melted down much like the north face metal and the airliner fire I posted.
Faux: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73777
My replys: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73876
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73954
Coastal: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73997
So once again it's obvious who's lying. I post relevant replies to faux's lies.
Newt also now feels stupid after I posted this.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74060
and he replied with this..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74060
and he replied with this..
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74064
I pointed out his multiple 707 hits is a straight out lie which he never countered with evidence. Then I posted a quote from the fireman...
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74067
So to say I don't post relevant replies is just more CT lies geared to character assassinate in the face of defeat.
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
You're lying again fool, The towers were designed for ONE 707 which is much smaller than a 757. They didn't factor in the fuel either.
Would you like me to make you look more stupid by posting quote?
I'm having difficulty finding detailed accounts of the structural tests and design criteria simulating a 707 impact.
NRCC42466.PDF document advises initial designs to cope with a single 707 travelling at 180MPH, there was no consideration to any ensuing fires.
www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-centre says the scenario was a 707 lost in fog trying to land. (hence little/no fuel).
A documentary screened in the UK 4 years ago (I saw it but cannot remember who the producers were) advised the 707 impact scenario was only envisaged at the base of the tower!
One 911 site insists the criteria was a 707 at 600MPH.
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
Cheers
I'm glade you can see through the nonsense secular...
"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html
YET ANOTHER CT LIE EXPOSED BY COMMON SENSE! Heh!
Another thing no one thought about is what would happen to the fire proofing. They had no idea it would blow off like it did.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
Great post Foxx.
When first mentioned I did not believe there were shills. Now, I think the perpetrators would have to be completely incompetent to not have a large group of disinformation teams. Whoever is responsible for 9/11 is anything but incompetent and has vast resources with control over powerful people.
I new Arthur was not telling the truth when he said he was posting before 9/11. If Disinformation teams were in place before 9/11 this would take away all deniability if a shill came forward with the truth. After 9/11, the administration could claim it is part of the war on terror.
Actually you NEW and still NO nothing more on. Heh!
Funny huh Christopher, what was that about the mind? Heh!
You've been calling us "Shills" since you started. This half a$$ attempt at changing this to character is laughable on it's face. People like secular can see right past it.
Yet the evidence that you are a conspiracy site shill are undeniable. In the face of incredible evidence where more than a few fireman are quoted saying building 7 was going to collapse and they wanted to "Pull" everyone away from the building your reply is "Don't believe CS. Hes working for MIB." Heh!
You're not even a good shill. But what's sad is that 3000 people died that day and you're using it for political and financial gain. Sad and sickening.
Faux was caught with a lie saying that the NIST said the metal in the corner was aluminum and on fire for 45 minutes. He has yet to show where the NIST said this... Coastal said the NIST never said such a thing and asked why hes lying. Faux said that means the aluminum must have been exposed to 2000 C heat in order to burst into flame. I posted photos of an airliner which melted by fire without it even hitting a building much less exposed to any explosive. This is 100% proof that fire in the very corner wasn't aluminum. Who knows what it was. Aluminum would have melted down much like the north face metal and the airliner fire I posted.
Faux: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73777
My replys: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73876
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73954
Coastal: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=73997
So once again it's obvious who's lying. I post relevant replies to faux's lies.
Newt also now feels stupid after I posted this.
QUOTE
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74060
and he replied with this..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The old "Intelligent Design" argument. When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales. |
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74060
and he replied with this..
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74064
I pointed out his multiple 707 hits is a straight out lie which he never countered with evidence. Then I posted a quote from the fireman...
Hayden: We felt it. We didn’t know what it was right away, but then somebody told us that a plane hit the second tower. At that point, in time we had a brief conference and we started calling everybody down in the north tower after the second plane hit. We had a number of conferences with the staff chiefs about the possibility of collapse. We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse after a couple of hours of burning, and we thought we had time to complete the evacuation and get everybody out. We made a conscious decision early on that we weren’t going to try and put the fire out, for a number of reasons. One, there was too much volume of fire. Second, the building systems were probably not functional. We had too many distress calls coming in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=74067
So to say I don't post relevant replies is just more CT lies geared to character assassinate in the face of defeat.
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 03:19 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 02:37 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:32 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 02:09 AM)
The old "Intelligent Design" argument.
When those planes crashed into the building the odds for the events to unfold the way they did were a sure thing. The fireman at the scene even debated how and when the buildings would collpase. Not if they would. They concidered a global collapse but not being structural engineers they took a change on parcial collapse or a global collapse later in the day so they could save lives. That flip of the coin landed on tales.
yeah. fairy tales.
unmitigated heresay, dude.
the towers were built to take MULTIPLE 707 hits. you're just making stuff up. i've read the testimony from several fireman saying how completely shocked they were when the towers came down, and they NEVER expected the towers to fall.
WHY WOULD THEY? it's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. if they didn't fall as soon as the planes hit them, they weren't going to fall at all.
i've yet to see ONE bit of testimony from a fireman saying he expected the towers to fall.
provide it, and i will show you a preplanted, coached shadow government shill.
just ONE of you blind bats explain how tower seven could come down like that.
this oughta be good.
You're lying again fool, The towers were designed for ONE 707 which is much smaller than a 757. They didn't factor in the fuel either.
Would you like me to make you look more stupid by posting quote?
I'm having difficulty finding detailed accounts of the structural tests and design criteria simulating a 707 impact.
NRCC42466.PDF document advises initial designs to cope with a single 707 travelling at 180MPH, there was no consideration to any ensuing fires.
www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-centre says the scenario was a 707 lost in fog trying to land. (hence little/no fuel).
A documentary screened in the UK 4 years ago (I saw it but cannot remember who the producers were) advised the 707 impact scenario was only envisaged at the base of the tower!
One 911 site insists the criteria was a 707 at 600MPH.
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
Cheers
I'm glade you can see through the nonsense secular...
"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html
YET ANOTHER CT LIE EXPOSED BY COMMON SENSE! Heh!
Another thing no one thought about is what would happen to the fire proofing. They had no idea it would blow off like it did.
Beware the Ides of March!
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
Great post Foxx.
When first mentioned I did not believe there were shills. Now, I think the perpetrators would have to be completely incompetent to not have a large group of disinformation teams. Whoever is responsible for 9/11 is anything but incompetent and has vast resources with control over powerful people.
I new Arthur was not telling the truth when he said he was posting before 9/11. If Disinformation teams were in place before 9/11 this would take away all deniability if a shill came forward with the truth. After 9/11, the administration could claim it is part of the war on terror.
Actually you NEW and still NO nothing more on. Heh!
Funny huh Christopher, what was that about the mind? Heh!
You've been calling us "Shills" since you started. This half a$$ attempt at changing this to character is laughable on it's face. People like secular can see right past it.
Yet the evidence that you are a conspiracy site shill are undeniable. In the face of incredible evidence where more than a few fireman are quoted saying building 7 was going to collapse and they wanted to "Pull" everyone away from the building your reply is "Don't believe CS. Hes working for MIB." Heh!
You're not even a good shill. But what's sad is that 3000 people died that day and you're using it for political and financial gain. Sad and sickening.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 02:13 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 04:47 AM)
HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL KNOW?
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
newt,
WHO DIDN'T KNOW???
What a MORON.
Arthur
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
Great post Foxx.
When first mentioned I did not believe there were shills. Now, I think the perpetrators would have to be completely incompetent to not have a large group of disinformation teams. Whoever is responsible for 9/11 is anything but incompetent and has vast resources with control over powerful people.
I new Arthur was not telling the truth when he said he was posting before 9/11. If Disinformation teams were in place before 9/11 this would take away all deniability if a shill came forward with the truth. After 9/11, the administration could claim it is part of the war on terror.
Actually you NEW and still NO nothing more on. Heh!
Funny huh Christopher, what was that about the mind? Heh!
You've been calling us "Shills" since you started. This half a$$ attempt at changing this to character is laughable on it's face. People like secular can see right past it.
Yet the evidence that you are a conspiracy site shill are undeniable. In the face of incredible evidence where more than a few fireman are quoted saying building 7 was going to collapse and they wanted to "Pull" everyone away from the building your reply is "Don't believe CS. Hes working for MIB." Heh!
You're not even a good shill. But what's sad is that 3000 people died that day and you're using it for political and financial gain. Sad and sickening.
Making fun of my spelling? I don’t get paid for this and post as I have time.
Prove that I have any involvement with a conspiracy web site. You use conspiracy site references more then I do.
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Making fun of my spelling? I don’t get paid for this and post as I have time.
Prove that I have any involvement with a conspiracy web site. You use conspiracy site references more then I do.
I would never have made fun of your spelling if others on your side didn't make fun of mine. They say spelling errors proves your stupid. I say more is gleaned by what you say and not how you say it.
Prove that I have any involvement with the government. You post more quotes from NIST than I do.
You wanna keep playing games like this? I can do this all day. Heh!
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the info.
In the absence of further evidence I agree any impact analysis or 'test' was so high level the designers probably lost the bit of paper/serviette/cigarette packet
I am tiring of the 707 of being quoted as evidence the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash.
Cheers,
Chris
Making fun of my spelling? I don’t get paid for this and post as I have time.
Prove that I have any involvement with a conspiracy web site. You use conspiracy site references more then I do.
I would never have made fun of your spelling if others on your side didn't make fun of mine. They say spelling errors proves your stupid. I say more is gleaned by what you say and not how you say it.
Prove that I have any involvement with the government. You post more quotes from NIST than I do.
You wanna keep playing games like this? I can do this all day. Heh!
I do not agree with everything posted on conspiracy web sites. You agree with everything the government publishes concerning 9/11. Besides your ridicules Bush bashing (then doing everything to support him). State one part of the government reports (NIST or FEMA) on 9/11 you disagree with.
Prove that I have any involvement with the government. You post more quotes from NIST than I do.
You wanna keep playing games like this? I can do this all day. Heh!
I do not agree with everything posted on conspiracy web sites. You agree with everything the government publishes concerning 9/11. Besides your ridicules Bush bashing (then doing everything to support him). State one part of the government reports (NIST or FEMA) on 9/11 you disagree with.
I knew Arthur was not telling the truth when he said he was posting before 9/11. If Disinformation teams were in place before 9/11 this would take away all deniability if a shill came forward with the truth. After 9/11, the administration could claim it is part of the war on terror.
You did not comment on this part of my post
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the info.
In the absence of further evidence I agree any impact analysis or 'test' was so high level the designers probably lost the bit of paper/serviette/cigarette packet
I am tiring of the 707 of being quoted as evidence the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash.
Cheers,
Chris
Are you the newest member of team disinfo? The reason nobody is answering your post is it is a strawman argument. The building did survive the impact without falling over.
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the info.
In the absence of further evidence I agree any impact analysis or 'test' was so high level the designers probably lost the bit of paper/serviette/cigarette packet
I am tiring of the 707 of being quoted as evidence the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash.
Cheers,
Chris
Are you the newest member of team disinfo? The reason nobody is answering your post is it is a strawman argument. The building did survive the impact without falling over.
See what I mean secular? Anyone who questions the lunatics are labeled and character assassinated. RC started out very polite until he couldn't take it any more. I wonder how long you will last.
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the info.
In the absence of further evidence I agree any impact analysis or 'test' was so high level the designers probably lost the bit of paper/serviette/cigarette packet
I am tiring of the 707 of being quoted as evidence the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash.
Cheers,
Chris
Just another example of how the kook sites take things out of context.
I ran into this NYT article last year while checking out the 600 mph 707 nonsense:
-------
"But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year, another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck.
Wien and his committee charged that the twin towers, with their broader and higher tops, would represent an even greater risk of midair collision. They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said.
The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.
Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.
There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.
The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel."
------------
Entire article (a very good read):
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/magazine...5&ex=1142571600
not stupid at all.
i wonder how stupid you look to people who keep seeing the coup album cover from august, 2001.
you realise august is before september, right?
well, if these crazy hip hoppers knew what was going to happen, and steve jackson knew, and the israeli 'art students' knew, and whoever designed the american bills knew, and the guy who wrote the script for the lone gunmen knew, and obviously a host of others knew, then why wouldn't a few illuminati firemen and other emergency makers know?
i like the big letters, BTW. keep up the good work.
newt,
WHO DIDN'T KNOW???
What a MORON.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 07:53 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 14 2006, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
Does anyone bother to read what CS posts?
This entire quote is a good argument for controlled demolition and CS keeps posting it as debunking CD.
I generally just scroll past, however the 'plan' I think he is trying to put into operation is to shut the thread down with spam.
This is a typical tactic used by 'professional disinformationists'.
Do you really think he cares whether anyone reads his constant blathering?
Personally, I don't believe that is his intent. Through continual copy/pastes of the same nonsense, the purpose of the tactic is to bury relevant information... so that anyone who is actually seeking real information can't find it amongst hundreds of pages of spam, becomes disinterested and goes away.
Do you see great hordes of people signing up to support Schneiby? NO.
Does he care? NO.
Does he post anything original? NO
It's simply the repetition of Schneibster 'quotes' which have all been refuted and/or addressed before.
His continual insults and degenerate references are another tactic used by the 'psyopts gang' to intimidate and dissuade others from participating in fruitful and honest discussion.
Do you think that real Phders, scientists, and the general public would want to post and share thoughts on an open forum when confronted by such obnoxious behaviour.
Not a chance - that is WHY these psyopts disinformationists always use the insulting tactics. It is an attempt to shut down the free flow of information. The less people who hear the truth, the safer the perps are to continue (unnoticed by the vast majority of the public) with their plans without fear of exposure, and that is what they fear the most - exposure.
Think about it --- if YOU really believe that there are a bunch of 'lunatics' hanging about somewhere --- would YOU, a normal person search them out to continue haranguing them with insults? These disinformationists CLAIM that 'we' are lunatics --- then WHY hang out with lunatics? The real answer is that they know full well that we are NOT lunatics, but the Truth is VERY dangerous to their well-being, so they attempt all means to shut down that Truth. In actual fact these tactics have been well developed by the CIA and other covert agencies and DO work quite well (at least they have in the past) to intimidate others into submission.
I have often been accused of being paranoid by the disinformationists by stating point-blank that so & so is probably a disinfo agent. NOT so. I have no fear of evildoers. My analysis is based upon simple common sense. WHY would someone spend 24/7 attempting to 'discuss' issues with someone they think are 'idiots'? See paragraph above. Actually the 'character' who uses the call sign 'CS' I believe is not just ONE person. Check back on the thread... 'he' is posting under two different names 'commEn sense' and 'commOn sense'. generally all public forums limit a person to using only one name, and they can determine that by the IP / email address used to sign up. As has already been noted by many, the spelling used by this 'alleged' ONE person changes in his postings. There is a clear sign right there. As long as this / these spammers just use copy/pastes and continual name-calling and insults they can quite effectively hide behind the mask.
But all the above is just my humble opinion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled spam & insults broadcast.
Foxx
Great post Foxx.
When first mentioned I did not believe there were shills. Now, I think the perpetrators would have to be completely incompetent to not have a large group of disinformation teams. Whoever is responsible for 9/11 is anything but incompetent and has vast resources with control over powerful people.
I new Arthur was not telling the truth when he said he was posting before 9/11. If Disinformation teams were in place before 9/11 this would take away all deniability if a shill came forward with the truth. After 9/11, the administration could claim it is part of the war on terror.
Actually you NEW and still NO nothing more on. Heh!
Funny huh Christopher, what was that about the mind? Heh!
You've been calling us "Shills" since you started. This half a$$ attempt at changing this to character is laughable on it's face. People like secular can see right past it.
Yet the evidence that you are a conspiracy site shill are undeniable. In the face of incredible evidence where more than a few fireman are quoted saying building 7 was going to collapse and they wanted to "Pull" everyone away from the building your reply is "Don't believe CS. Hes working for MIB." Heh!
You're not even a good shill. But what's sad is that 3000 people died that day and you're using it for political and financial gain. Sad and sickening.
Making fun of my spelling? I don’t get paid for this and post as I have time.
Prove that I have any involvement with a conspiracy web site. You use conspiracy site references more then I do.
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 11:19 AM)
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Hi CS,
Sadly nonsense abounds but I can filter it out.
What is irritating me is the amount of personal insults chucked around by BOTH camps which is wasting my brains bandwidth....it distracts from/smokescreens the real issues of why the buildings collapsed.
Which reminds me, has anyone on this thread looked into the detail of building modifictions for WTC.? I came across this document NISTNCSTAR-1C-2.PDF from WWW.WTC.NIST.GOV. It Lists Significant Modifcations and Repairs to the Structural Framing System of WTC1/2/7. Im not a structural engineer but its interesting reading, I wonder just how many of theses modifications affected the buildings structural integrity.
To me all signs are pointing to an initial (experimental, relatively lightwieght) building design as the cause of stuctural failure following the impact/fire.
Cheers
Chris
As Lord Kelvin: “I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”
Sadly nonsense abounds but I can filter it out.
What is irritating me is the amount of personal insults chucked around by BOTH camps which is wasting my brains bandwidth....it distracts from/smokescreens the real issues of why the buildings collapsed.
Which reminds me, has anyone on this thread looked into the detail of building modifictions for WTC.? I came across this document NISTNCSTAR-1C-2.PDF from WWW.WTC.NIST.GOV. It Lists Significant Modifcations and Repairs to the Structural Framing System of WTC1/2/7. Im not a structural engineer but its interesting reading, I wonder just how many of theses modifications affected the buildings structural integrity.
To me all signs are pointing to an initial (experimental, relatively lightwieght) building design as the cause of stuctural failure following the impact/fire.
Cheers
Chris
As Lord Kelvin: “I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 04:07 PM)
Making fun of my spelling? I don’t get paid for this and post as I have time.
Prove that I have any involvement with a conspiracy web site. You use conspiracy site references more then I do.
I would never have made fun of your spelling if others on your side didn't make fun of mine. They say spelling errors proves your stupid. I say more is gleaned by what you say and not how you say it.
QUOTE
Prove that I have any involvement with a conspiracy web site.
Prove that I have any involvement with the government. You post more quotes from NIST than I do.
You wanna keep playing games like this? I can do this all day. Heh!
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 04:14 PM)
Hi CS,
Sadly nonsense abounds but I can filter it out.
What is irritating me is the amount of personal insults chucked around by BOTH camps which is wasting my brains bandwidth....it distracts from/smokescreens the real issues of why the buildings collapsed.
Which reminds me, has anyone on this thread looked into the detail of building modifictions for WTC.? I came across this document NISTNCSTAR-1C-2.PDF from WWW.WTC.NIST.GOV. It Lists Significant Modifcations and Repairs to the Structural Framing System of WTC1/2/7. Im not a structural engineer but its interesting reading, I wonder just how many of theses modifications affected the buildings structural integrity.
To me all signs are pointing to an initial (experimental, relatively lightwieght) building design as the cause of stuctural failure following the impact/fire.
Cheers
Chris
As Lord Kelvin: “I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”
I told them when I first started posting if they stopped the insults I'll stop. But unfortuately as you can see with the democrats, if you don't fight back people think you're weak. And if they think you're weak they don't want to take you seriously. Sometimes people follow strength blindly. Just look at Bush.
Sadly nonsense abounds but I can filter it out.
What is irritating me is the amount of personal insults chucked around by BOTH camps which is wasting my brains bandwidth....it distracts from/smokescreens the real issues of why the buildings collapsed.
Which reminds me, has anyone on this thread looked into the detail of building modifictions for WTC.? I came across this document NISTNCSTAR-1C-2.PDF from WWW.WTC.NIST.GOV. It Lists Significant Modifcations and Repairs to the Structural Framing System of WTC1/2/7. Im not a structural engineer but its interesting reading, I wonder just how many of theses modifications affected the buildings structural integrity.
To me all signs are pointing to an initial (experimental, relatively lightwieght) building design as the cause of stuctural failure following the impact/fire.
Cheers
Chris
As Lord Kelvin: “I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”
I told them when I first started posting if they stopped the insults I'll stop. But unfortuately as you can see with the democrats, if you don't fight back people think you're weak. And if they think you're weak they don't want to take you seriously. Sometimes people follow strength blindly. Just look at Bush.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 15 2006, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 11:19 AM)
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the info.
In the absence of further evidence I agree any impact analysis or 'test' was so high level the designers probably lost the bit of paper/serviette/cigarette packet
I am tiring of the 707 of being quoted as evidence the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash.
Cheers,
Chris
Was it yesitdid who said they only spent 3 pages on the subject of aircraft impact in the design?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 15 2006, 08:21 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 04:07 PM)
Making fun of my spelling? I don’t get paid for this and post as I have time.
Prove that I have any involvement with a conspiracy web site. You use conspiracy site references more then I do.
I would never have made fun of your spelling if others on your side didn't make fun of mine. They say spelling errors proves your stupid. I say more is gleaned by what you say and not how you say it.
QUOTE
Prove that I have any involvement with a conspiracy web site.
Prove that I have any involvement with the government. You post more quotes from NIST than I do.
You wanna keep playing games like this? I can do this all day. Heh!
I do not agree with everything posted on conspiracy web sites. You agree with everything the government publishes concerning 9/11. Besides your ridicules Bush bashing (then doing everything to support him). State one part of the government reports (NIST or FEMA) on 9/11 you disagree with.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Prove that I have any involvement with a conspiracy web site. |
Prove that I have any involvement with the government. You post more quotes from NIST than I do.
You wanna keep playing games like this? I can do this all day. Heh!
I do not agree with everything posted on conspiracy web sites. You agree with everything the government publishes concerning 9/11. Besides your ridicules Bush bashing (then doing everything to support him). State one part of the government reports (NIST or FEMA) on 9/11 you disagree with.
I knew Arthur was not telling the truth when he said he was posting before 9/11. If Disinformation teams were in place before 9/11 this would take away all deniability if a shill came forward with the truth. After 9/11, the administration could claim it is part of the war on terror.
You did not comment on this part of my post
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 12:14 PM)
has anyone on this thread looked into the detail of building modifictions for WTC.? I came across this document NISTNCSTAR-1C-2.PDF from WWW.WTC.NIST.GOV. It Lists Significant Modifcations and Repairs to the Structural Framing System of WTC1/2/7. Im not a structural engineer but its interesting reading, I wonder just how many of theses modifications affected the buildings structural integrity.
To me all signs are pointing to an initial (experimental, relatively lightwieght) building design as the cause of stuctural failure following the impact/fire.
I haven't, but are any of these in WTC 1 & 2 at or near the fire floors?
Because if not, I suspect they aren't relevant.
The building was extremely light weight for its size. It was pretty amazing design and feat of engineering, much of which I've only come to appreciate due to this thread.
The towers DID stand after the impact, they did allow most people to escape.
I would not consider the design the "cause" of the failure.
I would say that what NIST has learned because of the failure would allow some things that probably wouldn't be considered when designing a building to be factored in that would have allowed virtually everyone not killed by the impact to survive.
some examples:
1) Use of reinforced concrete around the stairwells should be required in high rises
2) Stairwells spaced further apart such that a survivable event (in building terms) would not compromise ALL stairwells.
3) Consider the impact of hot fires and subsequent cooling as part of the standard structural analysis
Arthur
To me all signs are pointing to an initial (experimental, relatively lightwieght) building design as the cause of stuctural failure following the impact/fire.
I haven't, but are any of these in WTC 1 & 2 at or near the fire floors?
Because if not, I suspect they aren't relevant.
The building was extremely light weight for its size. It was pretty amazing design and feat of engineering, much of which I've only come to appreciate due to this thread.
The towers DID stand after the impact, they did allow most people to escape.
I would not consider the design the "cause" of the failure.
I would say that what NIST has learned because of the failure would allow some things that probably wouldn't be considered when designing a building to be factored in that would have allowed virtually everyone not killed by the impact to survive.
some examples:
1) Use of reinforced concrete around the stairwells should be required in high rises
2) Stairwells spaced further apart such that a survivable event (in building terms) would not compromise ALL stairwells.
3) Consider the impact of hot fires and subsequent cooling as part of the standard structural analysis
Arthur
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 08:31 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 15 2006, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 11:19 AM)
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the info.
In the absence of further evidence I agree any impact analysis or 'test' was so high level the designers probably lost the bit of paper/serviette/cigarette packet
I am tiring of the 707 of being quoted as evidence the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash.
Cheers,
Chris
Are you the newest member of team disinfo? The reason nobody is answering your post is it is a strawman argument. The building did survive the impact without falling over.
Quote -
"My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft."
They said they could and they did - no problem. The problem seems to lie with your "perception"
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center --
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
"My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft."
They said they could and they did - no problem. The problem seems to lie with your "perception"
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center --
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 04:49 PM)
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 08:31 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 15 2006, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 11:19 AM)
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the info.
In the absence of further evidence I agree any impact analysis or 'test' was so high level the designers probably lost the bit of paper/serviette/cigarette packet
I am tiring of the 707 of being quoted as evidence the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash.
Cheers,
Chris
Are you the newest member of team disinfo? The reason nobody is answering your post is it is a strawman argument. The building did survive the impact without falling over.
See what I mean secular? Anyone who questions the lunatics are labeled and character assassinated. RC started out very polite until he couldn't take it any more. I wonder how long you will last.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 15 2006, 04:49 PM)
Quote -
"My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft."
They said they could and they did - no problem. The problem seems to lie with your "perception"
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center --
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
"My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft."
They said they could and they did - no problem. The problem seems to lie with your "perception"
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center --
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
[edit I found the quote]
It DID sustain the impact. It was the fires without fire proofing which caused the collapse according to every peer reviewed study. This is another straw man.
But the buildings weren't "DESIGNED" to withstand more than one 707. It's only this guys opinion.
It DID sustain the impact. It was the fires without fire proofing which caused the collapse according to every peer reviewed study. This is another straw man.
But the buildings weren't "DESIGNED" to withstand more than one 707. It's only this guys opinion.
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 04:31 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 15 2006, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 15 2006, 11:19 AM)
I think its important to get the precise info regarding the 707 impact design tests. I appreciate the original documents are probably not available online.
My thoughts are that by saying in 1970 the WTC would withstand a 707 impact was just good PR to appease city planners and the fire dept? (....not wishing to start another CT!)
My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft.
Would appreciate If anyone can point me the definitive account of the 707 WTC impact tests.
There were no "impact tests"
There were no CAD, FEA or computer modeling at the time either.
Computer simulations were not possible since a BIG computer, costing a fortune at the time had ~64K of memory.
Any such "test" would have been extremely HIGH LEVEL.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the info.
In the absence of further evidence I agree any impact analysis or 'test' was so high level the designers probably lost the bit of paper/serviette/cigarette packet
I am tiring of the 707 of being quoted as evidence the buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash.
Cheers,
Chris
Just another example of how the kook sites take things out of context.
I ran into this NYT article last year while checking out the 600 mph 707 nonsense:
-------
"But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year, another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck.
Wien and his committee charged that the twin towers, with their broader and higher tops, would represent an even greater risk of midair collision. They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said.
The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.
Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.
There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.
The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel."
------------
Entire article (a very good read):
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/magazine...5&ex=1142571600
QUOTE (brian+Mar 15 2006, 04:49 PM)
Quote -
"My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft."
They said they could and they did - no problem. The problem seems to lie with your "perception"
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center --
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
frank martini mysteriously disappeared on september 11, 2001.
the towers were not compromised much by the plane impacts, as evidenced by the oscillations.
no shill has addresses 'the coup', the amazing psychic paper money airplanes, 'the lone gunmen', the israeli 'art students' who filmed and danced while the towers burned.
no shill has explained tower seven.
no shill has explained what happened to millions of dollares worth of precious metals that were stored at the towers, or TRILLIONS that disappeared at the pentagon.
shills.
conman (schnibs) sense, you can pretend i feel stupid as much as you like.
i don't.
and, personally, i never pointed to your bad spelling as a sign of stupidity. it was your GOOD spelling. you came here PRETENDING to be uneducated and simple, armed only with 'common sense', and then proceeded to forget your sock puppet identity in fits of anger, and your obviously extensive education came shining through like a black light. heh.
i don't think you're IGNORANT(in the true sense, as in 'not knowing') AT ALL.
cheers, brian. thanks for saving me the trouble.
there is also a quote form one of the architects, saying they were designed to take MULTIPLE impacts(which is BIZARRE in itself. why would ANYONE design a tower to take MULTIPLE hits?.)
"My perception was the designers knew too well that the building could not withstand a high speed jetliner impact with a fully fuelled aircraft."
They said they could and they did - no problem. The problem seems to lie with your "perception"
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center --
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
frank martini mysteriously disappeared on september 11, 2001.
the towers were not compromised much by the plane impacts, as evidenced by the oscillations.
no shill has addresses 'the coup', the amazing psychic paper money airplanes, 'the lone gunmen', the israeli 'art students' who filmed and danced while the towers burned.
no shill has explained tower seven.
no shill has explained what happened to millions of dollares worth of precious metals that were stored at the towers, or TRILLIONS that disappeared at the pentagon.
shills.
conman (schnibs) sense, you can pretend i feel stupid as much as you like.
i don't.
and, personally, i never pointed to your bad spelling as a sign of stupidity. it was your GOOD spelling. you came here PRETENDING to be uneducated and simple, armed only with 'common sense', and then proceeded to forget your sock puppet identity in fits of anger, and your obviously extensive education came shining through like a black light. heh.
i don't think you're IGNORANT(in the true sense, as in 'not knowing') AT ALL.
cheers, brian. thanks for saving me the trouble.
there is also a quote form one of the architects, saying they were designed to take MULTIPLE impacts(which is BIZARRE in itself. why would ANYONE design a tower to take MULTIPLE hits?.)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 15 2006, 04:44 PM)