Thanks for the info.
Here's one of the PBS docs I was referring to. There's 3 parts to it on their website.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeat..._pop_02_rm.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeat..._pop_02_rm.html
People weren't too crazy about the towers when they were being built. I remember one documentary that showed footage of the construction workers and protestors having fist fights. I don't remember all of the details.
The WTC was placed in a run-down area of Manhattan. The approach is reminiscent of what was done in the 50s and 60s of running new freeways through the slum areas to clear them out.
The WTC was placed in a run-down area of Manhattan. The approach is reminiscent of what was done in the 50s and 60s of running new freeways through the slum areas to clear them out.
[QUOTE] Christophera Somebody made a copy of it. All we have to do is get it being a hot issue and some engineer or architect who doesn't realize that FEMA is saying the core was multiple steel columns, will make a few copies and send them out to various targets and the beginning of the end of the lie will be born. As far as I can tell the existence/persistence of issues like; cellphones, pods, missiles, stock puts, goat storys, passports, still living hijackers, remotes, bumble planes, nukes, pentagon etc, are only kept visible by artificial means, hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Christophera
Let me tell the story of how I remembered the 1990 documentary...bla,bla,blah... Then Hoffmans page came out in late 2002. In the fall I saw it.
Let me tell the story of how I remembered the 1990 documentary...bla,bla,blah... Then Hoffmans page came out in late 2002. In the fall I saw it.
Christophera, who do you think you are fooling with your BS, here? You are so full of crap, I'm sure you just make it up as you go along. There was no 1990 pbs documentary - you have made up this delusional story to support your concrete core nonsense. The photo of the GZ excavation clearly exposes your lie and misinformation, and now you are making up stories about the web history related to 9/11 events. Here's an example of just how clear your 'recollections' are... you claim you saw Hoffmans page in late 2002... now how do you explain this in view of the fact that Hoffman didn't even begin publishing his website until mid 2003. So much for your 'memory' of what you have seen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Christophera Let me tell the story of how I remembered the 1990 documentary...bla,bla,blah... Then Hoffmans page came out in late 2002. In the fall I saw it. |
Christophera, who do you think you are fooling with your BS, here? You are so full of crap, I'm sure you just make it up as you go along. There was no 1990 pbs documentary - you have made up this delusional story to support your concrete core nonsense. The photo of the GZ excavation clearly exposes your lie and misinformation, and now you are making up stories about the web history related to 9/11 events. Here's an example of just how clear your 'recollections' are... you claim you saw Hoffmans page in late 2002... now how do you explain this in view of the fact that Hoffman didn't even begin publishing his website until mid 2003. So much for your 'memory' of what you have seen.
posted at 9-11 Research
We first posted the 9-11 Research website on the World Wide Web at the URL 911research.wtc7.net in mid-2003, within weeks of the rollout of wtc7.net.
You can't even keep your facts and memory straight from 3 years ago... and you expect people to believe that you 'remember' a pbs documentary from 16 years ago !!! What a load of BS. Whether you are purposeful in promoting lies and errors, or just some nutcase lost in delusion - you are certainly a misinformationist, IF NOT an outright Disinformationist.
It is people like you and Jayhan who are more dangerous to the truth than even the misinformed and ignorant OCT's. For this reason your lies and errors should be continually pointed out so as to keep others from being misled by your nonsense. Perhaps you will find a more receptive audience for your bull at 'Lets Roll'. Cut the crap, or make like the birds.
About the picture of the fractured bolts... Has anyone considered the possibility that some bolts were never installed! That picture shows plastic deformation of the holes on the lower right, but at least two holes on the upper left look pristine - I would say they never had any bolts in them.
I have wondered about this on other photos showing failed splices on perimeter columns. Could it be the WTC collapsed so easily because it was jerry-built?
NF
I have wondered about this on other photos showing failed splices on perimeter columns. Could it be the WTC collapsed so easily because it was jerry-built?
NF
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/CoreColumns01.jpg
Reply by 'Christophera'...
Reply by 'Christophera'...
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif
shows a rectangular ring of heavy columns sheared off square on a level plane with smaller, randomly spaced smaller vertical elements inside the core area. The tops of many of those have irregular salvage cuts. You claim they are the bases of core columns that extended all the way to the top of the tower. If the vertical elements you designate as core columns existed, they would also exist at this elevation. What we see looks like concrete, not steel core columns. IN fact none are seen at all.
They (the steel core columns) DO exist at this level and are clearly visible. You make the claim that what 'we' see "looks like concrete". Are you really stark raving mad? Do you claim that what YOU see (the steel columns standing within the core) are CONCRETE !!!
How many people do you think you are fooling with this nonsense? Clarify for us again --- Do you claim the posts which you have notated with green arrows are CONCRETE? Please draw some pretty colored arrows on your photo to show the 17 ft thick concrete box that you claim is there.
QUOTE
posted by Foxx
Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory?
If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region?
Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory?
If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region?
Reply by 'Christophera'...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| posted by Foxx Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory? If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region? |
Reply by 'Christophera'...
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif
shows a rectangular ring of heavy columns sheared off square on a level plane with smaller, randomly spaced smaller vertical elements inside the core area. The tops of many of those have irregular salvage cuts. You claim they are the bases of core columns that extended all the way to the top of the tower. If the vertical elements you designate as core columns existed, they would also exist at this elevation. What we see looks like concrete, not steel core columns. IN fact none are seen at all.
They (the steel core columns) DO exist at this level and are clearly visible. You make the claim that what 'we' see "looks like concrete". Are you really stark raving mad? Do you claim that what YOU see (the steel columns standing within the core) are CONCRETE !!!
How many people do you think you are fooling with this nonsense? Clarify for us again --- Do you claim the posts which you have notated with green arrows are CONCRETE? Please draw some pretty colored arrows on your photo to show the 17 ft thick concrete box that you claim is there.
QUOTE (Guest_Rove's shill+Mar 21 2006, 09:57 AM)
[QUOTE] Christophera Somebody made a copy of it. All we have to do is get it being a hot issue and some engineer or architect who doesn't realize that FEMA is saying the core was multiple steel columns, will make a few copies and send them out to various targets and the beginning of the end of the lie will be born. As far as I can tell the existence/persistence of issues like; cellphones, pods, missiles, stock puts, goat storys, passports, still living hijackers, remotes, bumble planes, nukes, pentagon etc, are only kept visible by artificial means, hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 21 2006, 12:56 PM)
It is people like you and Jayhan who are more dangerous to the truth than even the misinformed and ignorant OCT's. For this reason your lies and errors should be continually pointed out so as to keep others from being misled by your nonsense. Perhaps you will find a more receptive audience for your bull at 'Lets Roll'. Cut the crap, or make like the birds.
You have not yet credibly explained why none of the 47, 1,300 tempered steel columns show in this photo.
Lets Roll has me blocked because I create an environment where disinfos become obvious. In that environment, lo and behold, no one wants to post.
You have not yet credibly explained why none of the 47, 1,300 tempered steel columns show in this photo.
Lets Roll has me blocked because I create an environment where disinfos become obvious. In that environment, lo and behold, no one wants to post.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 21 2006, 03:47 PM)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/CoreColumns01.jpg
Reply by 'Christophera'...
Reply by 'Christophera'...
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif
shows a rectangular ring of heavy columns sheared off square on a level plane with smaller, randomly spaced smaller vertical elements inside the core area. The tops of many of those have irregular salvage cuts. You claim they are the bases of core columns that extended all the way to the top of the tower. If the vertical elements you designate as core columns existed, they would also exist at this elevation. What we see looks like concrete, not steel core columns. IN fact none are seen at all.
They (the steel core columns) DO exist at this level and are clearly visible. You make the claim that what 'we' see "looks like concrete". Are you really stark raving mad? Do you claim that what YOU see (the steel columns standing within the core) are CONCRETE !!!
How many people do you think you are fooling with this nonsense? Clarify for us again --- Do you claim the posts which you have notated with green arrows are CONCRETE? Please draw some pretty colored arrows on your photo to show the 17 ft thick concrete box that you claim is there.
This post is clearly disinformation to any one actually reading the history of the exchanges between Fox and I.
Fox is intentionally confusing the images and the points already made by omission.
QUOTE
posted by Foxx
Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory?
If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region?
Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory?
If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region?
Reply by 'Christophera'...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| posted by Foxx Would you now admit that this refutes your 'concrete core' theory? If not, would you care to point out 'evidence' in this photo which supports a 17ft thick wall of concrete somewhere ... anywhere ...within the central core region? |
Reply by 'Christophera'...
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC1int.box.cols.gif
shows a rectangular ring of heavy columns sheared off square on a level plane with smaller, randomly spaced smaller vertical elements inside the core area. The tops of many of those have irregular salvage cuts. You claim they are the bases of core columns that extended all the way to the top of the tower. If the vertical elements you designate as core columns existed, they would also exist at this elevation. What we see looks like concrete, not steel core columns. IN fact none are seen at all.
They (the steel core columns) DO exist at this level and are clearly visible. You make the claim that what 'we' see "looks like concrete". Are you really stark raving mad? Do you claim that what YOU see (the steel columns standing within the core) are CONCRETE !!!
How many people do you think you are fooling with this nonsense? Clarify for us again --- Do you claim the posts which you have notated with green arrows are CONCRETE? Please draw some pretty colored arrows on your photo to show the 17 ft thick concrete box that you claim is there.
This post is clearly disinformation to any one actually reading the history of the exchanges between Fox and I.
Fox is intentionally confusing the images and the points already made by omission.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2006, 05:21 AM)
About the picture of the fractured bolts... Has anyone considered the possibility that some bolts were never installed! That picture shows plastic deformation of the holes on the lower right, but at least two holes on the upper left look pristine - I would say they never had any bolts in them.
I have wondered about this on other photos showing failed splices on perimeter columns. Could it be the WTC collapsed so easily because it was jerry-built?
NF
Maybe.
Foxx suggested, that according to his understanding, those columns would or should have been welded. Your observations and conclusion, combined with his, might suggest that the bolts were more of a registration/alignment device, then fasteners. A comprehensive welding procedure would finalize the joint process. If welding was understood, by the workers, to be the primary means of connection then, perhaps, a few bolts, enough to snug up the joints was deemed sufficient.
I don't understand how these columns were supported laterally and where the connection points to the horizontal components were. I tried to raise that issue in my previous posts by suggesting that one column seemed to resist lateral movement while the other could not.
As usual, just idle speculation on my part; in order to keep the ideas, good and bad, coming.
I have wondered about this on other photos showing failed splices on perimeter columns. Could it be the WTC collapsed so easily because it was jerry-built?
NF
Maybe.
Foxx suggested, that according to his understanding, those columns would or should have been welded. Your observations and conclusion, combined with his, might suggest that the bolts were more of a registration/alignment device, then fasteners. A comprehensive welding procedure would finalize the joint process. If welding was understood, by the workers, to be the primary means of connection then, perhaps, a few bolts, enough to snug up the joints was deemed sufficient.
I don't understand how these columns were supported laterally and where the connection points to the horizontal components were. I tried to raise that issue in my previous posts by suggesting that one column seemed to resist lateral movement while the other could not.
As usual, just idle speculation on my part; in order to keep the ideas, good and bad, coming.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 21 2006, 05:24 PM)
You have not yet credibly explained why none of the 47, 1,300 tempered steel columns show in this photo.
Lets Roll has me blocked because I create an environment where disinfos become obvious. In that environment, lo and behold, no one wants to post.
ooo. blocked, eh?
i've seen them contruct the towers. i've never seen any concrete forms on the topmost tier, as they worked their way up. i've repeatedly heard that the towers were a marvel of space, and used many new concepts and materials(i'm thinking 3M dampers, here as a good example.)
IF there were concrete cores, AND the concrete was loadbearing, then why was there such a high percentage of gypsum in the dust that covered manhattan? if they weren't using drywall to make the core walls, then WHERE did all the gypsum dust come from? there were hardly any walled offices, and many partitioned open floor plans. i'm sure the enginners had a limit to how much mass could be installed on the floor pans.
that big dink pic we keep seeing has no detail. the reason we don't see the 47 columns is not because they are not there, as you seem to be suggesting, it is because WHATEVER covers them, be it concrete or drywall, is STILL THERE, AND it's behind a cloud of dust. if you look at the pic from the other side, you can see the frame and all the columns clear enough. the core columns can be seen clearly in the construction pics and vids. it's not like they would remove them after they topped off the building.
once again, i don't see why it's so all-fired important. if there was a concrete core, it would be harder to break, maybe, but you'd have more mass to break it with.
what i find much more compelling is the work and observations of gordon. gordon's the first one i know of to come up with the right order of operations. the video shot of the corner(there's more than one, i think) that shows 'demolition waves' is pretty much a dead givaway that there were bombs that ripped down either side of the corner beams, freeing the perimeter walls from each other's lateral support. i haven't measured(no need, i figger), but it looks that that 'demolition wave' is going faster than freefall.
the fact that debris was arcing up and out of the descending building is enough to disprove gravity as the sole provider of energy. the shill argument is that it was knocked out sideways by the downward rush, but what we actually SEE is large chunks 'jumping' UP and away from the TOP of the collapse front.
as a shill chronology, ...increasingly large mass of crap comes raining down breaking what's underneath it, ...around halfway(this is where there is an obvious upwards expulsion of debris), the material being forced out laterally and up is hit so hard that it manages to ignore the inertia and momentum of the descending mass, and shoot effortlessly through, upward and outwards from it, USING THE ENERGY IT DERIVED FROM THE FALLING MASS.
Lets Roll has me blocked because I create an environment where disinfos become obvious. In that environment, lo and behold, no one wants to post.
ooo. blocked, eh?
i've seen them contruct the towers. i've never seen any concrete forms on the topmost tier, as they worked their way up. i've repeatedly heard that the towers were a marvel of space, and used many new concepts and materials(i'm thinking 3M dampers, here as a good example.)
IF there were concrete cores, AND the concrete was loadbearing, then why was there such a high percentage of gypsum in the dust that covered manhattan? if they weren't using drywall to make the core walls, then WHERE did all the gypsum dust come from? there were hardly any walled offices, and many partitioned open floor plans. i'm sure the enginners had a limit to how much mass could be installed on the floor pans.
that big dink pic we keep seeing has no detail. the reason we don't see the 47 columns is not because they are not there, as you seem to be suggesting, it is because WHATEVER covers them, be it concrete or drywall, is STILL THERE, AND it's behind a cloud of dust. if you look at the pic from the other side, you can see the frame and all the columns clear enough. the core columns can be seen clearly in the construction pics and vids. it's not like they would remove them after they topped off the building.
once again, i don't see why it's so all-fired important. if there was a concrete core, it would be harder to break, maybe, but you'd have more mass to break it with.
what i find much more compelling is the work and observations of gordon. gordon's the first one i know of to come up with the right order of operations. the video shot of the corner(there's more than one, i think) that shows 'demolition waves' is pretty much a dead givaway that there were bombs that ripped down either side of the corner beams, freeing the perimeter walls from each other's lateral support. i haven't measured(no need, i figger), but it looks that that 'demolition wave' is going faster than freefall.
the fact that debris was arcing up and out of the descending building is enough to disprove gravity as the sole provider of energy. the shill argument is that it was knocked out sideways by the downward rush, but what we actually SEE is large chunks 'jumping' UP and away from the TOP of the collapse front.
as a shill chronology, ...increasingly large mass of crap comes raining down breaking what's underneath it, ...around halfway(this is where there is an obvious upwards expulsion of debris), the material being forced out laterally and up is hit so hard that it manages to ignore the inertia and momentum of the descending mass, and shoot effortlessly through, upward and outwards from it, USING THE ENERGY IT DERIVED FROM THE FALLING MASS.
I believe there was some special bracing used between the core and the exterior columns at the 44th and 78th floors (near the sky lobbies). It is shown on page B-29, Figure B-17, of Volume 2 of the NIST Interim Report, but IRONICALLY, it is missing from the drawing on page 34, Figure 3-4, of the Final NIST NCSTAR 1-2A Report.
Does anyone know anything more about this bracing?
NF
Does anyone know anything more about this bracing?
NF
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 20 2006, 09:11 PM)
The pic I posted earlier regarding bolt failure. Forgot to mention that all three of these remaining bolts failed at the threads. That's not unusual. The threads act as stress concentrators. When the bolt is bent, there is a tensile stress created on one side of the bolt. That stress gets amplified by the sharp geometry of the thread and can act as a crack initiation point. Once the crack starts at a thread, it can propagate across the entire bolt.
Sometimes threads are rolled instead of cut as a way of minimizing the likelihood of fractures starting at threads.
well, i thought i'd weigh in on this issue, even though i think it's trying to see what caused the fire by analysing soot, when there's a broken gas main still spouting flame.
two of the three empty holes look pristine, because they are the ones that sheered instantly from the explosive impact(be it gravity driven or bomb driven). the three that held(because now, they were more free to move around) wore those flanges around the bolt holes by twisting and whatnot as they fell, still holding onto the adjacent perimeter tree. those deep scrapes were made by the bolts that were still attached to the adjacent tree. when they finally did fail, the nut stayed onto the sheered top of the bolt.
this is evidence of nothing relevent, i figger. this would be expected in both a natural collapse, or a controlled demolition.
those trees were obviously ONLY bolted together. i think you'd be hard put to get labourers to build the world's tallest skscraper while leaving out half the bolts that are holding the building up.
fracture vs. tear/deform is a relevent consideration, though, imo. fracture is not an easy thing to get ductile steel to do.
interesting that bush used the term 'shattered steel' in one of his post 911 'two minutes of hate' speeches.
p.s. not all those arguments were 'directed' at you, shagster. i was addressing others who 'weighed in', too.
Sometimes threads are rolled instead of cut as a way of minimizing the likelihood of fractures starting at threads.
well, i thought i'd weigh in on this issue, even though i think it's trying to see what caused the fire by analysing soot, when there's a broken gas main still spouting flame.
two of the three empty holes look pristine, because they are the ones that sheered instantly from the explosive impact(be it gravity driven or bomb driven). the three that held(because now, they were more free to move around) wore those flanges around the bolt holes by twisting and whatnot as they fell, still holding onto the adjacent perimeter tree. those deep scrapes were made by the bolts that were still attached to the adjacent tree. when they finally did fail, the nut stayed onto the sheered top of the bolt.
this is evidence of nothing relevent, i figger. this would be expected in both a natural collapse, or a controlled demolition.
those trees were obviously ONLY bolted together. i think you'd be hard put to get labourers to build the world's tallest skscraper while leaving out half the bolts that are holding the building up.
fracture vs. tear/deform is a relevent consideration, though, imo. fracture is not an easy thing to get ductile steel to do.
interesting that bush used the term 'shattered steel' in one of his post 911 'two minutes of hate' speeches.
p.s. not all those arguments were 'directed' at you, shagster. i was addressing others who 'weighed in', too.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 21 2006, 06:37 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 21 2006, 05:24 PM)
You have not yet credibly explained why none of the 47, 1,300 tempered steel columns show in this photo.
Lets Roll has me blocked because I create an environment where disinfos become obvious. In that environment, lo and behold, no one wants to post.
i've seen them contruct the towers. i've never seen any concrete forms on the topmost tier, as they worked their way up. i've repeatedly heard that the towers were a marvel of space, and used many new concepts and materials(i'm thinking 3M dampers, here as a good example.)
You wouldn’t see the concrete or the forms. The steel was up to 7 floors over the top of the concrete core. There was a post here within the last ten pages that pointed out, with a recent photo, that WTC 7 being rebuilt right now with a concrete core that cannot be seen at all.
IF there were concrete cores, AND the concrete was loadbearing, then why was there such a high percentage of gypsum in the dust that covered manhattan? if they weren't using drywall to make the core walls, then WHERE did all the gypsum dust come from? there were hardly any walled offices, and many partitioned open floor plans. i'm sure the enginners had a limit to how much mass could be installed on the floor pans.
There was gypsum and the core walls in and out were lined with it as well as the elevator shafts. Gypsum being light would tend to float and be found in surrounding areas in quantity. Since it lined the core walls, and I contend the core was built with high explosives in it, the gypsum would be very directly finely pulverized and made airborne, it figures a fairly large amount would be found.
that big dink pic we keep seeing has no detail. the reason we don't see the 47 columns is not because they are not there, as you seem to be suggesting, it is because WHATEVER covers them, be it concrete or drywall, is STILL THERE, AND it's behind a cloud of dust. if you look at the pic from the other side, you can see the frame and all the columns clear enough. the core columns can be seen clearly in the construction pics and vids. it's not like they would remove them after they topped off the building.
I’ve never seen any image that shows core columns. I see interior box columns that are outside the core, but never inside the core. Here is one looking down the core area.
No columns, no concrete either, but those horizontal puffs of particulate show that it has just detonated. No core columns here either. The spire is an interior box column.
once again, i don't see why it's so all-fired important. if there was a concrete core, it would be harder to break, maybe, but you'd have more mass to break it with.
The bending, melting steel from fire depends on the steel core columns. Concrete doesn’t bend or melt. Also, concrete can fracture and fall instantly creating free fall, steel cannot, or at least not within what we saw. It would look totally different.
the fact that debris was arcing up and out of the descending building is enough to disprove gravity as the sole provider of energy. the shill argument is that it was knocked out sideways by the downward rush, but what we actually SEE is large chunks 'jumping' UP and away from the TOP of the collapse front.
Absolutely. This proves that LOTS of high explosives were used.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
I hope we are talking about the same thing here. I think we both agree the WTC complex was an 'inside job'. We disagree on how it was perpetrated. Obviously the nation and the world have been told a big lie and the media has been used very efficiently to convince the world 'the official story is the truth'. In my opinion the concentration should be kept on WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers when getting the message out to the general public. THIS IS KEY!!!! Without more of the public asking questions we are going to be sitting here arguing the minutia for a long time with little or no results. DID SO,DID NOT. Getting the population interested and curious is the problem to be solved. When more people start demanding the truth the other issues will start revealing themselves. The footage of WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers are basic to the truth. These are easily digested by the common person without having a physics or engineering degree. WTC 7 in my opinion is the toe in the door.
You are correct, but the cart is before the horse.
People still believe authority. They have to have their credibility impeached freshly, in a way that shows their malfeasance. Not just incompetence or neglect.
Now, show from all that you mentioned as a worthy focus for our movement, or from the presently useless points I mentioned, something that shows malfeasing intention as an ACTION.
Christophera, who do you think you are fooling with your BS, here? You are so full of crap, I'm sure you just make it up as you go along. There was no 1990 pbs documentary - you have made up this delusional story to support your concrete core nonsense. The photo of the GZ excavation clearly exposes your lie and misinformation, and now you are making up stories about the web history related to 9/11 events. Here's an example of just how clear your 'recollections' are... you claim you saw Hoffmans page in late 2002... now how do you explain this in view of the fact that Hoffman didn't even begin publishing his website until mid 2003. So much for your 'memory' of what you have seen.
Christophera, who do you think you are fooling with your BS, here? You are so full of crap, I'm sure you just make it up as you go along. There was no 1990 pbs documentary - you have made up this delusional story to support your concrete core nonsense. The photo of the GZ excavation clearly exposes your lie and misinformation, and now you are making up stories about the web history related to 9/11 events. Here's an example of just how clear your 'recollections' are... you claim you saw Hoffmans page in late 2002... now how do you explain this in view of the fact that Hoffman didn't even begin publishing his website until mid 2003. So much for your 'memory' of what you have seen.
posted at 9-11 Research
We first posted the 9-11 Research website on the World Wide Web at the URL 911research.wtc7.net in mid-2003, within weeks of the rollout of wtc7.net.
You can't even keep your facts and memory straight from 3 years ago... and you expect people to believe that you 'remember' a pbs documentary from 16 years ago !!! What a load of BS. Whether you are purposeful in promoting lies and errors, or just some nutcase lost in delusion - you are certainly a misinformationist, IF NOT an outright Disinformationist.
It is people like you and Jayhan who are more dangerous to the truth than even the misinformed and ignorant OCT's. For this reason your lies and errors should be continually pointed out so as to keep others from being misled by your nonsense. Perhaps you will find a more receptive audience for your bull at 'Lets Roll'. Cut the crap, or make like the birds.
Yea, 2,003, okay, maybe. It is not when I remembered, 'cause I'm remembering little things all the time, it's WHAT I remembered. I'm not even sure it was Hoffmans site. I was told that was the first one to put forth the energy sink/dust theory to prove out demolition. I used it to show what got me thinking about the documentary.
There you go again. Trying to change the subject and distract from the fact that you have not supported the core you are trying to assert stood.
Shame on you. There are children out there that do not know how their parents died.
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns visible in this and other photos?
Lets Roll has me blocked because I create an environment where disinfos become obvious. In that environment, lo and behold, no one wants to post.
QUOTE (newton+)
i've seen them contruct the towers. i've never seen any concrete forms on the topmost tier, as they worked their way up. i've repeatedly heard that the towers were a marvel of space, and used many new concepts and materials(i'm thinking 3M dampers, here as a good example.)
You wouldn’t see the concrete or the forms. The steel was up to 7 floors over the top of the concrete core. There was a post here within the last ten pages that pointed out, with a recent photo, that WTC 7 being rebuilt right now with a concrete core that cannot be seen at all.
QUOTE (newton+)
IF there were concrete cores, AND the concrete was loadbearing, then why was there such a high percentage of gypsum in the dust that covered manhattan? if they weren't using drywall to make the core walls, then WHERE did all the gypsum dust come from? there were hardly any walled offices, and many partitioned open floor plans. i'm sure the enginners had a limit to how much mass could be installed on the floor pans.
There was gypsum and the core walls in and out were lined with it as well as the elevator shafts. Gypsum being light would tend to float and be found in surrounding areas in quantity. Since it lined the core walls, and I contend the core was built with high explosives in it, the gypsum would be very directly finely pulverized and made airborne, it figures a fairly large amount would be found.
QUOTE (newton+)
that big dink pic we keep seeing has no detail. the reason we don't see the 47 columns is not because they are not there, as you seem to be suggesting, it is because WHATEVER covers them, be it concrete or drywall, is STILL THERE, AND it's behind a cloud of dust. if you look at the pic from the other side, you can see the frame and all the columns clear enough. the core columns can be seen clearly in the construction pics and vids. it's not like they would remove them after they topped off the building.
I’ve never seen any image that shows core columns. I see interior box columns that are outside the core, but never inside the core. Here is one looking down the core area.
No columns, no concrete either, but those horizontal puffs of particulate show that it has just detonated. No core columns here either. The spire is an interior box column.
QUOTE (newton+)
once again, i don't see why it's so all-fired important. if there was a concrete core, it would be harder to break, maybe, but you'd have more mass to break it with.
The bending, melting steel from fire depends on the steel core columns. Concrete doesn’t bend or melt. Also, concrete can fracture and fall instantly creating free fall, steel cannot, or at least not within what we saw. It would look totally different.
QUOTE (newton+)
the fact that debris was arcing up and out of the descending building is enough to disprove gravity as the sole provider of energy. the shill argument is that it was knocked out sideways by the downward rush, but what we actually SEE is large chunks 'jumping' UP and away from the TOP of the collapse front.
Absolutely. This proves that LOTS of high explosives were used.
20 million dollars and 5 years later and still no answer to why the WTC buildings collapsed.
This man knew within 2 days for free -
9/11: Defense Contractor and CNN collaborated on Analysis of Collapse of World Trade Center Towers
by Elias Davidsson
March 19, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
On 13 September 2001, CNN interviewed "expert in blast engineering" Tod Rittenhouse from Weidlinger Associates on the collapse of the World Trade Towers. He was presented as a person who "has been the blast engineer for a number of embassies and government buildings" and had been called "to discuss such problems as the Oklahoma City bombing and the previous World Trade Center calamity." In his introductory remarks, Rittenhouse said: " I did not want to believe that a complete collapse could occur." He then proceeded to explain why the buildings collapsed, merely 48 hours after the events.
An outfit entitled FACS (Foundation for American Communications), "secured Weidlinger engineers as a resource for journalists. The firm is a leader in defense-related blast effects research and design programs for more than four decades." The mission of FACS, as posted on its website is "to improve the quality of information reaching the public through the news".
Weidlinger's President and CEO, formerly "responsible for significant contracts with the Department of Defense" is now Dr. Raymond Daddazio, who is presented as "principal liaison with the U.S. government's Technical Support Working Group's Physical Security Program, which identifies, prioritizes and coordinates interagency and international research and development requirements for combating terrorism." Dr. Daddazio succeeds Dr. Jeremy Isenberg, who served in this role from 1993 through 2005.
For further details see:
Experts from defense-related corporation comment on WTC collapse: http://www.aldeilis.net/aldeilis/content/view/1450/107/
This man knew within 2 days for free -
9/11: Defense Contractor and CNN collaborated on Analysis of Collapse of World Trade Center Towers
by Elias Davidsson
March 19, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
On 13 September 2001, CNN interviewed "expert in blast engineering" Tod Rittenhouse from Weidlinger Associates on the collapse of the World Trade Towers. He was presented as a person who "has been the blast engineer for a number of embassies and government buildings" and had been called "to discuss such problems as the Oklahoma City bombing and the previous World Trade Center calamity." In his introductory remarks, Rittenhouse said: " I did not want to believe that a complete collapse could occur." He then proceeded to explain why the buildings collapsed, merely 48 hours after the events.
An outfit entitled FACS (Foundation for American Communications), "secured Weidlinger engineers as a resource for journalists. The firm is a leader in defense-related blast effects research and design programs for more than four decades." The mission of FACS, as posted on its website is "to improve the quality of information reaching the public through the news".
Weidlinger's President and CEO, formerly "responsible for significant contracts with the Department of Defense" is now Dr. Raymond Daddazio, who is presented as "principal liaison with the U.S. government's Technical Support Working Group's Physical Security Program, which identifies, prioritizes and coordinates interagency and international research and development requirements for combating terrorism." Dr. Daddazio succeeds Dr. Jeremy Isenberg, who served in this role from 1993 through 2005.
For further details see:
Experts from defense-related corporation comment on WTC collapse: http://www.aldeilis.net/aldeilis/content/view/1450/107/
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 21 2006, 05:18 PM)
[QUOTE=Guest_Rove's shill,Mar 21 2006, 09:57 AM] [QUOTE] Christophera Somebody made a copy of it. All we have to do is get it being a hot issue and some engineer or architect who doesn't realize that FEMA is saying the core was multiple steel columns, will make a few copies and send them out to various targets and the beginning of the end of the lie will be born. As far as I can tell the existence/persistence of issues like; cellphones, pods, missiles, stock puts, goat storys, passports, still living hijackers, remotes, bumble planes, nukes, pentagon etc, are only kept visible by artificial means, hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread. [/QUOTE]
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
I hope we are talking about the same thing here. I think we both agree the WTC complex was an 'inside job'. We disagree on how it was perpetrated. Obviously the nation and the world have been told a big lie and the media has been used very efficiently to convince the world 'the official story is the truth'. In my opinion the concentration should be kept on WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers when getting the message out to the general public. THIS IS KEY!!!! Without more of the public asking questions we are going to be sitting here arguing the minutia for a long time with little or no results. DID SO,DID NOT. Getting the population interested and curious is the problem to be solved. When more people start demanding the truth the other issues will start revealing themselves. The footage of WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers are basic to the truth. These are easily digested by the common person without having a physics or engineering degree. WTC 7 in my opinion is the toe in the door.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread. [/QUOTE]
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
I hope we are talking about the same thing here. I think we both agree the WTC complex was an 'inside job'. We disagree on how it was perpetrated. Obviously the nation and the world have been told a big lie and the media has been used very efficiently to convince the world 'the official story is the truth'. In my opinion the concentration should be kept on WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers when getting the message out to the general public. THIS IS KEY!!!! Without more of the public asking questions we are going to be sitting here arguing the minutia for a long time with little or no results. DID SO,DID NOT. Getting the population interested and curious is the problem to be solved. When more people start demanding the truth the other issues will start revealing themselves. The footage of WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers are basic to the truth. These are easily digested by the common person without having a physics or engineering degree. WTC 7 in my opinion is the toe in the door.
Ooop's hit wrong button. Will have the real thing up soon.
QUOTE (Guest_Rove's shill+Mar 21 2006, 09:37 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 21 2006, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Rove's shill+Mar 21 2006, 09:57 AM)
QUOTE
Christophera Somebody made a copy of it. All we have to do is get it being a hot issue and some engineer or architect who doesn't realize that FEMA is saying the core was multiple steel columns, will make a few copies and send them out to various targets and the beginning of the end of the lie will be born. As far as I can tell the existence/persistence of issues like; cellphones, pods, missiles, stock puts, goat storys, passports, still living hijackers, remotes, bumble planes, nukes, pentagon etc, are only kept visible by artificial means, hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
I hope we are talking about the same thing here. I think we both agree the WTC complex was an 'inside job'. We disagree on how it was perpetrated. Obviously the nation and the world have been told a big lie and the media has been used very efficiently to convince the world 'the official story is the truth'. In my opinion the concentration should be kept on WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers when getting the message out to the general public. THIS IS KEY!!!! Without more of the public asking questions we are going to be sitting here arguing the minutia for a long time with little or no results. DID SO,DID NOT. Getting the population interested and curious is the problem to be solved. When more people start demanding the truth the other issues will start revealing themselves. The footage of WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers are basic to the truth. These are easily digested by the common person without having a physics or engineering degree. WTC 7 in my opinion is the toe in the door.
You are correct, but the cart is before the horse.
People still believe authority. They have to have their credibility impeached freshly, in a way that shows their malfeasance. Not just incompetence or neglect.
Now, show from all that you mentioned as a worthy focus for our movement, or from the presently useless points I mentioned, something that shows malfeasing intention as an ACTION.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 21 2006, 12:56 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Christophera
Let me tell the story of how I remembered the 1990 documentary...bla,bla,blah... Then Hoffmans page came out in late 2002. In the fall I saw it.
Let me tell the story of how I remembered the 1990 documentary...bla,bla,blah... Then Hoffmans page came out in late 2002. In the fall I saw it.
Christophera, who do you think you are fooling with your BS, here? You are so full of crap, I'm sure you just make it up as you go along. There was no 1990 pbs documentary - you have made up this delusional story to support your concrete core nonsense. The photo of the GZ excavation clearly exposes your lie and misinformation, and now you are making up stories about the web history related to 9/11 events. Here's an example of just how clear your 'recollections' are... you claim you saw Hoffmans page in late 2002... now how do you explain this in view of the fact that Hoffman didn't even begin publishing his website until mid 2003. So much for your 'memory' of what you have seen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Christophera Let me tell the story of how I remembered the 1990 documentary...bla,bla,blah... Then Hoffmans page came out in late 2002. In the fall I saw it. |
Christophera, who do you think you are fooling with your BS, here? You are so full of crap, I'm sure you just make it up as you go along. There was no 1990 pbs documentary - you have made up this delusional story to support your concrete core nonsense. The photo of the GZ excavation clearly exposes your lie and misinformation, and now you are making up stories about the web history related to 9/11 events. Here's an example of just how clear your 'recollections' are... you claim you saw Hoffmans page in late 2002... now how do you explain this in view of the fact that Hoffman didn't even begin publishing his website until mid 2003. So much for your 'memory' of what you have seen.
posted at 9-11 Research
We first posted the 9-11 Research website on the World Wide Web at the URL 911research.wtc7.net in mid-2003, within weeks of the rollout of wtc7.net.
You can't even keep your facts and memory straight from 3 years ago... and you expect people to believe that you 'remember' a pbs documentary from 16 years ago !!! What a load of BS. Whether you are purposeful in promoting lies and errors, or just some nutcase lost in delusion - you are certainly a misinformationist, IF NOT an outright Disinformationist.
It is people like you and Jayhan who are more dangerous to the truth than even the misinformed and ignorant OCT's. For this reason your lies and errors should be continually pointed out so as to keep others from being misled by your nonsense. Perhaps you will find a more receptive audience for your bull at 'Lets Roll'. Cut the crap, or make like the birds.
Yea, 2,003, okay, maybe. It is not when I remembered, 'cause I'm remembering little things all the time, it's WHAT I remembered. I'm not even sure it was Hoffmans site. I was told that was the first one to put forth the energy sink/dust theory to prove out demolition. I used it to show what got me thinking about the documentary.
There you go again. Trying to change the subject and distract from the fact that you have not supported the core you are trying to assert stood.
Shame on you. There are children out there that do not know how their parents died.
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns visible in this and other photos?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/CoreColumns01.jpg
Reply by Christophera...
Reply by Christophera...
This post is clearly disinformation to anyone actually reading the history of the exchanges between Foxx and I.
Foxx is intentionally confusing the images and the points already made by ommision.
Your 'answer' does nothing to 'answer' the questions posed above, but rather is an attempt to circumvent the honest questions posed to you which you refuse to address.
I am not confusing the image at all. It is plain to see that these are the steel columns (or what's left of them standing in their original configuration).
You have claimed that there were NO steel columns within the outer ring of the central core columns - yet - there they are - as bold as life.
It is misinformation / disinformation to claim that they didn't exist when everyone can see them with their own eyes.
As for your statement that I am... "confusing" the "points already made by omission"... It is a nonsensical statement.
You have made no valid points on this thread whatsoever.
You have failed to show any evidence of a concrete core... the photos you post, which you claim show a 17 ft thick concrete wall do no such thing.
I asked you to show where in the above photo is any evidence of this alleged 17 ft thick concrete wall, you can not do so because the photo is evidence it did not exist.
Undaunted, you 'maintain the course' in your erroneous propaganda, which is really no better than the FEMA or NIST fairy tales.
Point out WHERE in the photo is this alleged 17' thick concrete core. I really want to see how far you are willing to press your colored arrows nonsense.
No one has yet convinced me that what I am seeing in that one photo is anything more than the lingering dust cloud. hell - it isn't even as clear as Jayhans pod photos. That photo is evidence of nothing at all.
Your entire theory seems to be based upon blurred images, and an even blurrier memory of a non-existant documentary which no one else in the world claims to have ever seen.
No one has yet convinced me that what I am seeing in that one photo is anything more than the lingering dust cloud. hell - it isn't even as clear as Jayhans pod photos. That photo is evidence of nothing at all.
Your entire theory seems to be based upon blurred images, and an even blurrier memory of a non-existant documentary which no one else in the world claims to have ever seen.
Too bad you are not accountable to reason. The proof of the concrete core is redundant. Your evidence for steel core columns is so vacuous, you have no fixed position of data on the core based on impartial, raw evidence.
Those who are honest with their observations of the reality of the WTC on 9-11 can logically work their way through this.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
page and its evidence and support, there is no evidence for the steel, and adequate evidence for the concrete to assume we have been lied to one more time.
You however do not use information, you work to dismiss it and deny the meaning.
We share rights and freedoms, and the truth is needed to retain them for our childrens futures. You are un accountable to your instincts. You cannot be trusted.
Alex welcomes actor Charlie Sheen, star of Platoon, Wall Street, Young Guns, and most recently the CBS comedy Two & a Half Men, to discuss his views on the world, 9/11 and much more.
Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.
Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government's version of events.
Click here for radio interview with Charlie Sheen on 9/11
More and more people are beginning to WAKE UP
My brain farted, it snorted, it danced around in its cage, REBAR, What was it about that stinking rebar in that cast concrete core. WHAT WAS IT?? Well, that stressed my brain out and it remembered over a period of a few days, the butt weld. A deep fillet weld, one I’ve done quite a few of.
If you have done quite a few of these welds, why don’t you know the difference between a butt and fillet weld?
I assume the large core columns were shallow butt welds. Very little of the forces would be lateral so the weld would not need to be strong. This would explain the uniform square end shapes of the large columns. According to NIST, the upper columns not encased in gypsum were fireproofed with Blaze shield d-z (cement and glass insulation) up to 2.2 inches thick so your concrete core is not all wrong.
I read in the DU forum that you claim to be a draftsmen. Do you use Photo Shop for your drawings?
This detail view is hard to understand . What is the purpose of the gusset plate and what is holding the beams and columns together? Plus, why would they hand fabricate the box columns?
My brain farted, it snorted, it danced around in its cage, REBAR, What was it about that stinking rebar in that cast concrete core. WHAT WAS IT?? Well, that stressed my brain out and it remembered over a period of a few days, the butt weld. A deep fillet weld, one I’ve done quite a few of.
If you have done quite a few of these welds, why don’t you know the difference between a butt and filet weld?
I assume the large core columns were shallow butt welds. Very little of the load would be lateral so they would not need to be strong. This would explain the uniform square end shapes of the large columns. According to NIST, the upper columns not encased in gypsum were fireproofed with Blaze shield d-z (cement and glass insulation) up to 2.2 inches thick so your concrete core is not all wrong.
I read in the DU forum that you claim to be a draftsmen. Do you use Photo Shop for your drawings?
This section is hard to understand . What is the purpose of the gusset plate and what is holding the beams and columns together? Plus, why would they hand fabricate the box columns?
Hmm, terms. When multiple passes are required to "fill" a beveled area, the term "fillet" is often used although not correct because the butt requires a bevel to be made that is then filled and a 90 degree intersection makes a bevel automatically, but its the same basic action either way. One hundred percent welds in thick material are always deep fillits.
Your suggestion that there was just a partial thickness weld could be true because what we see as a bevel could almost be seen as 1/2 a broken weld bead, but it would only be 1 or 2 passes at most. Not nearly strong enough for any role as a full length column particularly as elements designed to transfer torque to the concrete core.
This image here,
is 3 inch high tensile steel rebar on 4 foot centers 7500 feet distant. Note how many there are, note the slight curve, note the slope formed by the tops of the rebar. If there were not so many we night not see just one or three, but there are so we see them as fine individual elements. Allow me an explanation which feels a bit outrageous, even for me but I know why that slope is there and can explain it in a way that makes perfect sense, consistent with everything I’ve ever described and in accord with common engineering understandings.
The documentary took note of particular events in the construction of WTC 1. There was a bad winter, 1967 I think. Rebar which had not been rotated out of the high security storage container, yes, rotated to keep the “special plastic” coating viable, had been butt welded, forms nearly finished, then snow and ice for 60 days or something. When the weather improved contractors got a hasty okay on pouring concrete. After some thought on the exposure time someone from high up tested the “special plastic coating” and decided it was no longer viable to protect the rebar from corrosion and vibration. Work stopped for a few days while command decisions were made, then work resumed because the time and cost were just too great.
in describing how engineers maximized the towers resistance to wind, or the tendency to fly the side of the towers with proportions of the Twin Towers, a measure was taken to remove the horizontal joint from the 40 foot maximum vertical tiers of concrete and create better resistance to twisting by having rebar and concrete joined on a slope only. The slopes were in opposite directions on opposite sides. A locked in double sawtooth design around the rectangular tube.
There was only really one good image of the core inside the forms in the whole documentary. There were a few 1 or 3 seconds pans where the rough aggregate top of pour was open in bright light while the 3 inch rebar protruded. The good shot was a still, black and white taken looking up the top of the sloping core wall inside the forms when the outer wood forms were just being applied to the inner face of the interior box columns after the inner steel breakdown form was in place.
Anyway, .......... the tops of the rebar in the image above are sloped because the engineers specified the sloping joints in the concrete pours and butt welds of the rebar. The C4 coating on those bars was no good so they broke at the welds where it transitioned to good C4. Every 40 feet of core had an inspection port over each rebar in random positions located in the inner steel breakdown forms. This was sealed with tar or parrafin. New smaller horizontal bar was tied to the 3 inch vertical rebar and that horizontal bar broke the concrete off of the 3 inch bar to leave it standing momentarily when the image was taken.
The interior box columns were hand fabricated because they were tapered to match the tapered core at lower elevations. Up top like the salvage photo shows, the interior box columns were square and also extruded.
Closeups of very heavy lower box columns show a thin piece down the narrow side with massive 100% welds holding wide side plates in.
The gusset plate may need to be there to brace the corner but we do not see it below as it would be if it was part of the column, beam intersection.
It could exist in that position as a lighter steel plate associated with joining the floor panels to the columns and beams in the corners to seal for the concrete pour of the floors. If it did exist in that position and was of suffcient thickness, under and above a layer of C4, the gusset configured plates could form a shape charge with an extremely dense gas jet into a collapsing plane that could concieveably cut through 3 to 4 inches of tempered steel leaving a square and relatively smooth flat edge.
This is higher res. I use a mac with an old drawing program that kicks a**, speed wise on anything available today.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
I hope we are talking about the same thing here. I think we both agree the WTC complex was an 'inside job'. We disagree on how it was perpetrated. Obviously the nation and the world have been told a big lie and the media has been used very efficiently to convince the world 'the official story is the truth'. In my opinion the concentration should be kept on WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers when getting the message out to the general public. THIS IS KEY!!!! Without more of the public asking questions we are going to be sitting here arguing the minutia for a long time with little or no results. DID SO,DID NOT. Getting the population interested and curious is the problem to be solved. When more people start demanding the truth the other issues will start revealing themselves. The footage of WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers are basic to the truth. These are easily digested by the common person without having a physics or engineering degree. WTC 7 in my opinion is the toe in the door.
You are correct, but the cart is before the horse.
People still believe authority. They have to have their credibility impeached freshly, in a way that shows their malfeasance. Not just incompetence or neglect.
Now, show from all that you mentioned as a worthy focus for our movement, or from the presently useless points I mentioned, something that shows malfeasing intention as an ACTION.
OK chris, I'm still not getting your point. So your telling me that when you confront someone that has never been exposed to any of this information before, and are to convince them of the truth you speak of, you will start your scenario with the C4 coated rebar used in the construction of the Towers in 1967? You won't make three sentences before they reach for their pepper spray. You are kidding, right? It's a possibility, I agree, but damn hard to prove. I think that's what other posters are concerned about also. The evidence available to us is thin at best. Mostly video would'nt you agree? So why not use the most irrefutable of the video evidence. Until you can produce the documentary, or until enough people are demanding another investigation that the proper amount of resources are available to prove your theory, I have to agree with other posters that you distract from the focus. This doesn't mean stop your research, but definetly step back until your stance is unsinkable.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
I hope we are talking about the same thing here. I think we both agree the WTC complex was an 'inside job'. We disagree on how it was perpetrated. Obviously the nation and the world have been told a big lie and the media has been used very efficiently to convince the world 'the official story is the truth'. In my opinion the concentration should be kept on WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers when getting the message out to the general public. THIS IS KEY!!!! Without more of the public asking questions we are going to be sitting here arguing the minutia for a long time with little or no results. DID SO,DID NOT. Getting the population interested and curious is the problem to be solved. When more people start demanding the truth the other issues will start revealing themselves. The footage of WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers are basic to the truth. These are easily digested by the common person without having a physics or engineering degree. WTC 7 in my opinion is the toe in the door.
You are correct, but the cart is before the horse.
People still believe authority. They have to have their credibility impeached freshly, in a way that shows their malfeasance. Not just incompetence or neglect.
Now, show from all that you mentioned as a worthy focus for our movement, or from the presently useless points I mentioned, something that shows malfeasing intention as an ACTION.
OK chris, I'm still not getting your point. So your telling me that when you confront someone that has never been exposed to any of this information before, and are to convince them of the truth you speak of, you will start your scenario with the C4 coated rebar used in the construction of the Towers in 1967? You won't make three sentences before they reach for their pepper spray. You are kidding, right? It's a possibility, I agree, but damn hard to prove. I think that's what other posters are concerned about also. The evidence available to us is thin at best. Mostly video would'nt you agree? So why not use the most irrefutable of the video evidence. Until you can produce the documentary, or until enough people are demanding another investigation that the proper amount of resources are available to prove your theory, I have to agree with other posters that you distract from the focus. This doesn't mean stop your research, but definetly step back until your stance is unsinkable.
I do not suggest starting with the C4 coated rebar. Can't figure how you assumed that.
this page does not talk about that.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Starting with the simple fact that steel core columns cannot free fall within the event we saw and are not seen, then the fact that concrete can instantly fracture and fall and the concrete core is seen in many places while steel core columns are not and, they must, if they existed.
The steel core columns really do have to be visible under conditions, if they existed, and whatever structure existed must enable free fall within the event witnesed. Those are absolutes.
Try and think of an intentional act that shows culpabiity to demolition. And not 7, we don't know enough about 7, and it did burn, and steel does bend and melt and America is dumb. They've known about 7 for 5 years now and won't act. Actually, they're mostly afraid, a fear they've never known before, but media has created an intellectual laziness, and America bought into it
Focus, think, ............ what shows an intent to decieve and hide, cover demolition, that also has no excuse.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
They (the steel core columns) DO exist at this level and are clearly visible. You make the claim that what 'we' see "looks like concrete". Are you really stark raving mad? Do you claim that what YOU see (the steel columns standing within the core) are CONCRETE !!!
{BTW, who do you include when you refer to 'we'?}
How many people do you think you are fooling with this nonsense? Clarify for us again --- Do you claim the posts which you have notated with green arrows are CONCRETE? Please draw some pretty colored arrows on your photo to show the 17 ft thick concrete box that you claim is there.
They (the steel core columns) DO exist at this level and are clearly visible. You make the claim that what 'we' see "looks like concrete". Are you really stark raving mad? Do you claim that what YOU see (the steel columns standing within the core) are CONCRETE !!!
{BTW, who do you include when you refer to 'we'?}
How many people do you think you are fooling with this nonsense? Clarify for us again --- Do you claim the posts which you have notated with green arrows are CONCRETE? Please draw some pretty colored arrows on your photo to show the 17 ft thick concrete box that you claim is there.
Reply by Christophera...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Foxx They (the steel core columns) DO exist at this level and are clearly visible. You make the claim that what 'we' see "looks like concrete". Are you really stark raving mad? Do you claim that what YOU see (the steel columns standing within the core) are CONCRETE !!! {BTW, who do you include when you refer to 'we'?} How many people do you think you are fooling with this nonsense? Clarify for us again --- Do you claim the posts which you have notated with green arrows are CONCRETE? Please draw some pretty colored arrows on your photo to show the 17 ft thick concrete box that you claim is there. |
Reply by Christophera...
This post is clearly disinformation to anyone actually reading the history of the exchanges between Foxx and I.
Foxx is intentionally confusing the images and the points already made by ommision.
Your 'answer' does nothing to 'answer' the questions posed above, but rather is an attempt to circumvent the honest questions posed to you which you refuse to address.
I am not confusing the image at all. It is plain to see that these are the steel columns (or what's left of them standing in their original configuration).
You have claimed that there were NO steel columns within the outer ring of the central core columns - yet - there they are - as bold as life.
It is misinformation / disinformation to claim that they didn't exist when everyone can see them with their own eyes.
As for your statement that I am... "confusing" the "points already made by omission"... It is a nonsensical statement.
You have made no valid points on this thread whatsoever.
You have failed to show any evidence of a concrete core... the photos you post, which you claim show a 17 ft thick concrete wall do no such thing.
I asked you to show where in the above photo is any evidence of this alleged 17 ft thick concrete wall, you can not do so because the photo is evidence it did not exist.
Undaunted, you 'maintain the course' in your erroneous propaganda, which is really no better than the FEMA or NIST fairy tales.
Point out WHERE in the photo is this alleged 17' thick concrete core. I really want to see how far you are willing to press your colored arrows nonsense.
QUOTE
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns visible in this and other photos?
No one has yet convinced me that what I am seeing in that one photo is anything more than the lingering dust cloud. hell - it isn't even as clear as Jayhans pod photos. That photo is evidence of nothing at all.
Your entire theory seems to be based upon blurred images, and an even blurrier memory of a non-existant documentary which no one else in the world claims to have ever seen.
FOXX:
Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, start all over again!!
I say the Twin Towers were slapped together with plaster walls, where there should have been CONCRETE. To make matters worse only the very lowest core columns were encased in concrete. And, perhaps, 1/2 the number of bolts needed to patch the thing together were used. Don't worry, we can weld it together later.
But, one high-speed Boeing impact is all you need and we have another unsinkable TITANIC going down.....
Or perhaps there really WAS a bomb on the TITANIC
NF
Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, start all over again!!
I say the Twin Towers were slapped together with plaster walls, where there should have been CONCRETE. To make matters worse only the very lowest core columns were encased in concrete. And, perhaps, 1/2 the number of bolts needed to patch the thing together were used. Don't worry, we can weld it together later.
But, one high-speed Boeing impact is all you need and we have another unsinkable TITANIC going down.....
Or perhaps there really WAS a bomb on the TITANIC
NF
Seems like the B-team have arrived.
Gordon.
Gordon.
HEH!
OH, YOU MEAN THE ONE UP FROM THE C TEAM???
Time to oil those plastic hinges, Gordon, the U.S. construction inDUSTtry is relying on you to save its A**
NF
Time to oil those plastic hinges, Gordon, the U.S. construction inDUSTtry is relying on you to save its A**
NF
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 21 2006, 11:51 PM)
QUOTE
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns visible in this and other photos?
No one has yet convinced me that what I am seeing in that one photo is anything more than the lingering dust cloud. hell - it isn't even as clear as Jayhans pod photos. That photo is evidence of nothing at all.
Your entire theory seems to be based upon blurred images, and an even blurrier memory of a non-existant documentary which no one else in the world claims to have ever seen.
Too bad you are not accountable to reason. The proof of the concrete core is redundant. Your evidence for steel core columns is so vacuous, you have no fixed position of data on the core based on impartial, raw evidence.
Those who are honest with their observations of the reality of the WTC on 9-11 can logically work their way through this.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
page and its evidence and support, there is no evidence for the steel, and adequate evidence for the concrete to assume we have been lied to one more time.
You however do not use information, you work to dismiss it and deny the meaning.
We share rights and freedoms, and the truth is needed to retain them for our childrens futures. You are un accountable to your instincts. You cannot be trusted.
Yamasaki designed a housing complex in the South around the 50s that was demolished early. People weren't too happy with that building. I don't remember the name of it right now.
Alex welcomes actor Charlie Sheen, star of Platoon, Wall Street, Young Guns, and most recently the CBS comedy Two & a Half Men, to discuss his views on the world, 9/11 and much more.
Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.
Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government's version of events.
Click here for radio interview with Charlie Sheen on 9/11
More and more people are beginning to WAKE UP
,,,,,,,,,,,, and Mr. Sheen is questioning what aspect of 9/11??
Seems he believes in CD and that "pull" means demolish.
I knew he was a bit loony but didn't know he was that far gone.
Too bad, I think 2 1/2 men is one of the funniest shows on TV now. Talent obviously is not a substitute for intelligence.
Seems he believes in CD and that "pull" means demolish.
I knew he was a bit loony but didn't know he was that far gone.
Too bad, I think 2 1/2 men is one of the funniest shows on TV now. Talent obviously is not a substitute for intelligence.
yesitdid,
Well at least you had the curiousity to check it out and listen to his interview.
You gotta admit though, that he raises a lot of very good points that the administration has been going to great lengths to hide and cover up.
And you gotta give the guy credit, "Mr. Sheen" for risking a lot on speaking his mind and standing up for what he believes in, as most of the people in the media are far too afraid to take a chance and speak out against the obvious crimes of this government as they fear they'll end up like the Dixie chicks.
Makes me wonder if they're gonna try to cancel is TV show or threaten him with some punishment unless he bows down like a dog and begs for forgiveness?
At least there are some ballsey people left in Hollywood who are willing to stand up to the evil empire and speak the truth about what they believe in, as oppsed to the little cowards on Fox news who bend over and smile, wherever and whenever their master tells them too, so you gotta give Mr. Sheen that.
Well at least you had the curiousity to check it out and listen to his interview.
You gotta admit though, that he raises a lot of very good points that the administration has been going to great lengths to hide and cover up.
And you gotta give the guy credit, "Mr. Sheen" for risking a lot on speaking his mind and standing up for what he believes in, as most of the people in the media are far too afraid to take a chance and speak out against the obvious crimes of this government as they fear they'll end up like the Dixie chicks.
Makes me wonder if they're gonna try to cancel is TV show or threaten him with some punishment unless he bows down like a dog and begs for forgiveness?
At least there are some ballsey people left in Hollywood who are willing to stand up to the evil empire and speak the truth about what they believe in, as oppsed to the little cowards on Fox news who bend over and smile, wherever and whenever their master tells them too, so you gotta give Mr. Sheen that.
i wouldn't go to dealy plaza if i were mister sheen.
foooooooookin' eh, though, cuckie baby. a hearty salute.
foooooooookin' eh, though, cuckie baby. a hearty salute.
Charlie Sheen, hell yeah.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 20 2006, 11:39 PM)
My brain farted, it snorted, it danced around in its cage, REBAR, What was it about that stinking rebar in that cast concrete core. WHAT WAS IT?? Well, that stressed my brain out and it remembered over a period of a few days, the butt weld. A deep fillet weld, one I’ve done quite a few of.
If you have done quite a few of these welds, why don’t you know the difference between a butt and fillet weld?
I assume the large core columns were shallow butt welds. Very little of the forces would be lateral so the weld would not need to be strong. This would explain the uniform square end shapes of the large columns. According to NIST, the upper columns not encased in gypsum were fireproofed with Blaze shield d-z (cement and glass insulation) up to 2.2 inches thick so your concrete core is not all wrong.
I read in the DU forum that you claim to be a draftsmen. Do you use Photo Shop for your drawings?
This detail view is hard to understand . What is the purpose of the gusset plate and what is holding the beams and columns together? Plus, why would they hand fabricate the box columns?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2006, 07:01 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 20 2006, 11:39 PM)
My brain farted, it snorted, it danced around in its cage, REBAR, What was it about that stinking rebar in that cast concrete core. WHAT WAS IT?? Well, that stressed my brain out and it remembered over a period of a few days, the butt weld. A deep fillet weld, one I’ve done quite a few of.
If you have done quite a few of these welds, why don’t you know the difference between a butt and filet weld?
I assume the large core columns were shallow butt welds. Very little of the load would be lateral so they would not need to be strong. This would explain the uniform square end shapes of the large columns. According to NIST, the upper columns not encased in gypsum were fireproofed with Blaze shield d-z (cement and glass insulation) up to 2.2 inches thick so your concrete core is not all wrong.
I read in the DU forum that you claim to be a draftsmen. Do you use Photo Shop for your drawings?
This section is hard to understand . What is the purpose of the gusset plate and what is holding the beams and columns together? Plus, why would they hand fabricate the box columns?
Hmm, terms. When multiple passes are required to "fill" a beveled area, the term "fillet" is often used although not correct because the butt requires a bevel to be made that is then filled and a 90 degree intersection makes a bevel automatically, but its the same basic action either way. One hundred percent welds in thick material are always deep fillits.
Your suggestion that there was just a partial thickness weld could be true because what we see as a bevel could almost be seen as 1/2 a broken weld bead, but it would only be 1 or 2 passes at most. Not nearly strong enough for any role as a full length column particularly as elements designed to transfer torque to the concrete core.
This image here,
is 3 inch high tensile steel rebar on 4 foot centers 7500 feet distant. Note how many there are, note the slight curve, note the slope formed by the tops of the rebar. If there were not so many we night not see just one or three, but there are so we see them as fine individual elements. Allow me an explanation which feels a bit outrageous, even for me but I know why that slope is there and can explain it in a way that makes perfect sense, consistent with everything I’ve ever described and in accord with common engineering understandings.
The documentary took note of particular events in the construction of WTC 1. There was a bad winter, 1967 I think. Rebar which had not been rotated out of the high security storage container, yes, rotated to keep the “special plastic” coating viable, had been butt welded, forms nearly finished, then snow and ice for 60 days or something. When the weather improved contractors got a hasty okay on pouring concrete. After some thought on the exposure time someone from high up tested the “special plastic coating” and decided it was no longer viable to protect the rebar from corrosion and vibration. Work stopped for a few days while command decisions were made, then work resumed because the time and cost were just too great.
in describing how engineers maximized the towers resistance to wind, or the tendency to fly the side of the towers with proportions of the Twin Towers, a measure was taken to remove the horizontal joint from the 40 foot maximum vertical tiers of concrete and create better resistance to twisting by having rebar and concrete joined on a slope only. The slopes were in opposite directions on opposite sides. A locked in double sawtooth design around the rectangular tube.
There was only really one good image of the core inside the forms in the whole documentary. There were a few 1 or 3 seconds pans where the rough aggregate top of pour was open in bright light while the 3 inch rebar protruded. The good shot was a still, black and white taken looking up the top of the sloping core wall inside the forms when the outer wood forms were just being applied to the inner face of the interior box columns after the inner steel breakdown form was in place.
Anyway, .......... the tops of the rebar in the image above are sloped because the engineers specified the sloping joints in the concrete pours and butt welds of the rebar. The C4 coating on those bars was no good so they broke at the welds where it transitioned to good C4. Every 40 feet of core had an inspection port over each rebar in random positions located in the inner steel breakdown forms. This was sealed with tar or parrafin. New smaller horizontal bar was tied to the 3 inch vertical rebar and that horizontal bar broke the concrete off of the 3 inch bar to leave it standing momentarily when the image was taken.
The interior box columns were hand fabricated because they were tapered to match the tapered core at lower elevations. Up top like the salvage photo shows, the interior box columns were square and also extruded.
Closeups of very heavy lower box columns show a thin piece down the narrow side with massive 100% welds holding wide side plates in.
The gusset plate may need to be there to brace the corner but we do not see it below as it would be if it was part of the column, beam intersection.
It could exist in that position as a lighter steel plate associated with joining the floor panels to the columns and beams in the corners to seal for the concrete pour of the floors. If it did exist in that position and was of suffcient thickness, under and above a layer of C4, the gusset configured plates could form a shape charge with an extremely dense gas jet into a collapsing plane that could concieveably cut through 3 to 4 inches of tempered steel leaving a square and relatively smooth flat edge.
This is higher res. I use a mac with an old drawing program that kicks a**, speed wise on anything available today.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 21 2006, 09:51 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Rove's shill+Mar 21 2006, 09:37 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 21 2006, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Rove's shill+Mar 21 2006, 09:57 AM)
QUOTE
Christophera Somebody made a copy of it. All we have to do is get it being a hot issue and some engineer or architect who doesn't realize that FEMA is saying the core was multiple steel columns, will make a few copies and send them out to various targets and the beginning of the end of the lie will be born. As far as I can tell the existence/persistence of issues like; cellphones, pods, missiles, stock puts, goat storys, passports, still living hijackers, remotes, bumble planes, nukes, pentagon etc, are only kept visible by artificial means, hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
I hope we are talking about the same thing here. I think we both agree the WTC complex was an 'inside job'. We disagree on how it was perpetrated. Obviously the nation and the world have been told a big lie and the media has been used very efficiently to convince the world 'the official story is the truth'. In my opinion the concentration should be kept on WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers when getting the message out to the general public. THIS IS KEY!!!! Without more of the public asking questions we are going to be sitting here arguing the minutia for a long time with little or no results. DID SO,DID NOT. Getting the population interested and curious is the problem to be solved. When more people start demanding the truth the other issues will start revealing themselves. The footage of WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers are basic to the truth. These are easily digested by the common person without having a physics or engineering degree. WTC 7 in my opinion is the toe in the door.
You are correct, but the cart is before the horse.
People still believe authority. They have to have their credibility impeached freshly, in a way that shows their malfeasance. Not just incompetence or neglect.
Now, show from all that you mentioned as a worthy focus for our movement, or from the presently useless points I mentioned, something that shows malfeasing intention as an ACTION.
OK chris, I'm still not getting your point. So your telling me that when you confront someone that has never been exposed to any of this information before, and are to convince them of the truth you speak of, you will start your scenario with the C4 coated rebar used in the construction of the Towers in 1967? You won't make three sentences before they reach for their pepper spray. You are kidding, right? It's a possibility, I agree, but damn hard to prove. I think that's what other posters are concerned about also. The evidence available to us is thin at best. Mostly video would'nt you agree? So why not use the most irrefutable of the video evidence. Until you can produce the documentary, or until enough people are demanding another investigation that the proper amount of resources are available to prove your theory, I have to agree with other posters that you distract from the focus. This doesn't mean stop your research, but definetly step back until your stance is unsinkable.
Extract from a long quite detailed and mixed article in New York Metro Magazine - (Sunder chaired NIST)
..After Dr. Sunder’s presentation (planes and fire did it), a woman from N.Y. 9/11 Truth stood up and said she hadn’t been able “to sleep at night” since her best friend had died at the WTC. She had hoped NIST would clear up doubts, but this was not the case. “I have here a report which contradicts much of what you say.”
The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University, in front of Dr. Sunder. Jones makes the case for controlled demolition, claiming the persistence of “molten metal” at ground zero indicates the likely presence of “high-temperature cutter-charges . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”
“I hope you read this; perhaps it will enable you to see things a different way,” the woman said.
“Actually, I have read it,” Dr. Sunder said with a sigh.
Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”
I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?
This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.
NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”
Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html
"Facts are facts" - been nice to hear what facts Sunder refers to.
..After Dr. Sunder’s presentation (planes and fire did it), a woman from N.Y. 9/11 Truth stood up and said she hadn’t been able “to sleep at night” since her best friend had died at the WTC. She had hoped NIST would clear up doubts, but this was not the case. “I have here a report which contradicts much of what you say.”
The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University, in front of Dr. Sunder. Jones makes the case for controlled demolition, claiming the persistence of “molten metal” at ground zero indicates the likely presence of “high-temperature cutter-charges . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”
“I hope you read this; perhaps it will enable you to see things a different way,” the woman said.
“Actually, I have read it,” Dr. Sunder said with a sigh.
Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”
I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?
This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.
NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”
Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html
"Facts are facts" - been nice to hear what facts Sunder refers to.
Sorry to go off topic a little, but can't Bush talk about anything other than the war in Iraq? That's all I ever hear from him. Think of the benefits if he had that type of tenacity regarding a 911 investigation or the cleanup of the Katrina disaster. That lack of concern for domestic issues is puzzling. His State of the Union address was all about Iraq, with a paragraph at the end about Katrina. People deserve to have their domestic issues addressed.
Right after 911 Bush said an investigation wasn't necessary and instead told people to go out and shop more and take a vacation in his brother's state of Florida. Then a few weeks before the 2002 Congressional elections, he changed his mind and said he was for an investigation. Then after the elections, he appointed a couple of has-been politician stiffs to head the commission, one of whom resigned from the commission shortly after his appointment.
From what I've read, about 140 samples of steel were collected from WTC. That's a very small number considering the seven buildings. The government has literally put blown-up aircraft back together piece by piece, such as the jumbo jet that was apparently downed by that Egyptian co-pilot off Long Island and whose pieces were painstakingly recovered from the ocean. Incidentally, that downing should have alerted the government to the possible use of jumbo jets being intentionally downed or run into buildings, not to mention the need to keep cockpit doors secure. The Challenger shuttle was recovered from the ocean and put back together piece by piece and is still in storage at Kennedy. A full investigation was conducted with a panel of professionals from all backgrounds. Yet when 911 happened, we heard from Bush that an investigation wasn't necessary. No matter what theory people believe in, the response that Bush gave is unacceptable.
Right after 911 Bush said an investigation wasn't necessary and instead told people to go out and shop more and take a vacation in his brother's state of Florida. Then a few weeks before the 2002 Congressional elections, he changed his mind and said he was for an investigation. Then after the elections, he appointed a couple of has-been politician stiffs to head the commission, one of whom resigned from the commission shortly after his appointment.
From what I've read, about 140 samples of steel were collected from WTC. That's a very small number considering the seven buildings. The government has literally put blown-up aircraft back together piece by piece, such as the jumbo jet that was apparently downed by that Egyptian co-pilot off Long Island and whose pieces were painstakingly recovered from the ocean. Incidentally, that downing should have alerted the government to the possible use of jumbo jets being intentionally downed or run into buildings, not to mention the need to keep cockpit doors secure. The Challenger shuttle was recovered from the ocean and put back together piece by piece and is still in storage at Kennedy. A full investigation was conducted with a panel of professionals from all backgrounds. Yet when 911 happened, we heard from Bush that an investigation wasn't necessary. No matter what theory people believe in, the response that Bush gave is unacceptable.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 22 2006, 06:08 AM)
yesitdid,
Well at least you had the curiousity to check it out and listen to his interview.
You gotta admit though, that he raises a lot of very good points that the administration has been going to great lengths to hide and cover up.
And you gotta give the guy credit, "Mr. Sheen" for risking a lot on speaking his mind and standing up for what he believes in, as most of the people in the media are far too afraid to take a chance and speak out against the obvious crimes of this government as they fear they'll end up like the Dixie chicks.
Makes me wonder if they're gonna try to cancel is TV show or threaten him with some punishment unless he bows down like a dog and begs for forgiveness?
At least there are some ballsey people left in Hollywood who are willing to stand up to the evil empire and speak the truth about what they believe in, as oppsed to the little cowards on Fox news who bend over and smile, wherever and whenever their master tells them too, so you gotta give Mr. Sheen that.
Good post! My perspective exactly. Anyone found a way to thank him?
Well at least you had the curiousity to check it out and listen to his interview.
You gotta admit though, that he raises a lot of very good points that the administration has been going to great lengths to hide and cover up.
And you gotta give the guy credit, "Mr. Sheen" for risking a lot on speaking his mind and standing up for what he believes in, as most of the people in the media are far too afraid to take a chance and speak out against the obvious crimes of this government as they fear they'll end up like the Dixie chicks.
Makes me wonder if they're gonna try to cancel is TV show or threaten him with some punishment unless he bows down like a dog and begs for forgiveness?
At least there are some ballsey people left in Hollywood who are willing to stand up to the evil empire and speak the truth about what they believe in, as oppsed to the little cowards on Fox news who bend over and smile, wherever and whenever their master tells them too, so you gotta give Mr. Sheen that.
Good post! My perspective exactly. Anyone found a way to thank him?
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 22 2006, 10:32 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 21 2006, 09:51 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Rove's shill+Mar 21 2006, 09:37 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 21 2006, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Rove's shill+Mar 21 2006, 09:57 AM)
QUOTE
Christophera Somebody made a copy of it. All we have to do is get it being a hot issue and some engineer or architect who doesn't realize that FEMA is saying the core was multiple steel columns, will make a few copies and send them out to various targets and the beginning of the end of the lie will be born. As far as I can tell the existence/persistence of issues like; cellphones, pods, missiles, stock puts, goat storys, passports, still living hijackers, remotes, bumble planes, nukes, pentagon etc, are only kept visible by artificial means, hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible.
I'm staying out of the concrete core issue but I definitely don't agree with the above.
If it pans out great. I think the key is WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers. Definitely WTC 7 is a no brainer and can be digested by the average citizen. Also some sort of litmus test for posters? I stumbled on this site a few months ago, but was on the pentagon thread, surprized about the third grade attacks on other posters like CF. There were very few voices of reason ( Frater, Newton thanks) Anyway I think anyone will be hard pressed to refute WTC 7 on a physics thread like this. Sorry about the cheerleading lately but I think Gordon has been landing the logical, scientific haymakers to the jaw I have been expecting since following this thread.
I agree with you on 7, notice it wasn't on the list. However, being such a done deal, it needs no discussion. Also, as a privately owned structure, we have no right to know anything about it, so what do we have to discuss? Almost nothing.
Think about proving intent. Think about that list. What on that list clearly underlines intent. What issue shows intent clearly out of the full selection? Go ahead, find one. After you cannot find one that is serious enough, you'll realize that you too have been distracted.
Be mindful that those issue of the list are valuable issues, just not now. Now they are distractions. They are not to be forgotten, they are to be saved for when they can be meaningful.
And what about this,
"hyping insignificant or impossible information to obscure the information that makes the event understood as possible."
Does that too escape you? Are you going to allow it and relinquish meaningful focus?
I hope we are talking about the same thing here. I think we both agree the WTC complex was an 'inside job'. We disagree on how it was perpetrated. Obviously the nation and the world have been told a big lie and the media has been used very efficiently to convince the world 'the official story is the truth'. In my opinion the concentration should be kept on WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers when getting the message out to the general public. THIS IS KEY!!!! Without more of the public asking questions we are going to be sitting here arguing the minutia for a long time with little or no results. DID SO,DID NOT. Getting the population interested and curious is the problem to be solved. When more people start demanding the truth the other issues will start revealing themselves. The footage of WTC 7 and the fall times of the towers are basic to the truth. These are easily digested by the common person without having a physics or engineering degree. WTC 7 in my opinion is the toe in the door.
You are correct, but the cart is before the horse.
People still believe authority. They have to have their credibility impeached freshly, in a way that shows their malfeasance. Not just incompetence or neglect.
Now, show from all that you mentioned as a worthy focus for our movement, or from the presently useless points I mentioned, something that shows malfeasing intention as an ACTION.
OK chris, I'm still not getting your point. So your telling me that when you confront someone that has never been exposed to any of this information before, and are to convince them of the truth you speak of, you will start your scenario with the C4 coated rebar used in the construction of the Towers in 1967? You won't make three sentences before they reach for their pepper spray. You are kidding, right? It's a possibility, I agree, but damn hard to prove. I think that's what other posters are concerned about also. The evidence available to us is thin at best. Mostly video would'nt you agree? So why not use the most irrefutable of the video evidence. Until you can produce the documentary, or until enough people are demanding another investigation that the proper amount of resources are available to prove your theory, I have to agree with other posters that you distract from the focus. This doesn't mean stop your research, but definetly step back until your stance is unsinkable.
I do not suggest starting with the C4 coated rebar. Can't figure how you assumed that.
this page does not talk about that.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Starting with the simple fact that steel core columns cannot free fall within the event we saw and are not seen, then the fact that concrete can instantly fracture and fall and the concrete core is seen in many places while steel core columns are not and, they must, if they existed.
The steel core columns really do have to be visible under conditions, if they existed, and whatever structure existed must enable free fall within the event witnesed. Those are absolutes.
Try and think of an intentional act that shows culpabiity to demolition. And not 7, we don't know enough about 7, and it did burn, and steel does bend and melt and America is dumb. They've known about 7 for 5 years now and won't act. Actually, they're mostly afraid, a fear they've never known before, but media has created an intellectual laziness, and America bought into it
Focus, think, ............ what shows an intent to decieve and hide, cover demolition, that also has no excuse.
Dear friends:
I am writing to call your attention to the article by Mark Jacobson entitled “The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll” appearing in this week’s issue of New York Magazine dated March 27, 2006, available online at: http://www.nymag.com/news/features/16464/index.html, of which I am enclosing a copy.
I would invite you to interpret this important signal piece as a warning issued by a section of the US ruling elite of their readiness to use some form of revisionist exposé of the real story of 9/11 as a political weapon – a more powerful version of the Watergate tapes -- for the purpose of neutralizing the obviously unhinged Bush-Cheney rogue regime, including administration plans for new synthetic terrorist provocations leading to an attack on Iran and further totalitarian measures
on the home front.
Flaws and weaknesses in the article, which are obvious enough, change nothing in this picture. The 9/11 truth movement is now offered a perhaps unique opportunity to change the course of world history for the better. This can be done by mobilizing world public opinion on the basis of a unifying political platform of full MIHOP, identifying the September criminals as intelligence networks inside the US-UK military/security bureaucracy, exercising control above and behind the Bush-Cheney White House and Tony Blair’s 10 Downing Street.
The overriding POLITICAL issue at hand is the reality of MIHOP, the key to avoiding opportunism on the one hand and the sectarianism of purely technical disputes on the other. It is time to direct all available polemical energies outward, towards breaking the influence of the gatekeepers on the left and the right, and towards maximizing the political impact of the 9/11 scandal.
Webster Griffin Tarpley
I am writing to call your attention to the article by Mark Jacobson entitled “The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll” appearing in this week’s issue of New York Magazine dated March 27, 2006, available online at: http://www.nymag.com/news/features/16464/index.html, of which I am enclosing a copy.
I would invite you to interpret this important signal piece as a warning issued by a section of the US ruling elite of their readiness to use some form of revisionist exposé of the real story of 9/11 as a political weapon – a more powerful version of the Watergate tapes -- for the purpose of neutralizing the obviously unhinged Bush-Cheney rogue regime, including administration plans for new synthetic terrorist provocations leading to an attack on Iran and further totalitarian measures
on the home front.
Flaws and weaknesses in the article, which are obvious enough, change nothing in this picture. The 9/11 truth movement is now offered a perhaps unique opportunity to change the course of world history for the better. This can be done by mobilizing world public opinion on the basis of a unifying political platform of full MIHOP, identifying the September criminals as intelligence networks inside the US-UK military/security bureaucracy, exercising control above and behind the Bush-Cheney White House and Tony Blair’s 10 Downing Street.
The overriding POLITICAL issue at hand is the reality of MIHOP, the key to avoiding opportunism on the one hand and the sectarianism of purely technical disputes on the other. It is time to direct all available polemical energies outward, towards breaking the influence of the gatekeepers on the left and the right, and towards maximizing the political impact of the 9/11 scandal.
Webster Griffin Tarpley
[QUOTE]Try and think of an intentional act that shows culpabiity to demolition. And not 7, we don't know enough about 7, and it did burn, and steel does bend and melt and America is dumb. They've known about 7 for 5 years now and won't act.
Focus, think, ............ what shows an intent to decieve and hide, cover demolition, that also has no excuse.
The footage of WTC 7 is absolutely moving than anything you have brought to the table. I don't believe America is dumb as much as they are slow. The images of the planes hitting the towers were permantly seared into our psyches. It will take images just as powerful to bring doubt to those same psyches. WTC foootage provides that. Americans will act eventually, but most have not seen the footage of WTC 7.
Focus, think, ............ what shows an intent to decieve and hide, cover demolition, that also has no excuse.
The footage of WTC 7 is absolutely moving than anything you have brought to the table. I don't believe America is dumb as much as they are slow. The images of the planes hitting the towers were permantly seared into our psyches. It will take images just as powerful to bring doubt to those same psyches. WTC foootage provides that. Americans will act eventually, but most have not seen the footage of WTC 7.
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 22 2006, 07:44 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+)
Try and think of an intentional act that shows culpabiity to demolition. And not 7, we don't know enough about 7, and it did burn, and steel does bend and melt and America is dumb. They've known about 7 for 5 years now and won't act.
Focus, think, ............ what shows an intent to decieve and hide, cover demolition, that also has no excuse.
The footage of WTC 7 is absolutely moving than anything you have brought to the table. I don't believe America is dumb as much as they are slow. The images of the planes hitting the towers were permantly seared into our psyches. It will take images just as powerful to bring doubt to those same psyches. WTC foootage provides that. Americans will act eventually, but most have not seen the footage of WTC 7.
I see your point.
Do you realize there are a lot of people that do not know that a 3rd tower which was not hit by a plane fell like a curtain?
They were overloaded with information years ago, can we beleive that there is away to do that again? No, not reasonably. Can we make 7 stand out now, No, not without media. Media has abandoned America, indeed, scuttling it.
So we talk about something they already know about, already think they know everything about from the government media TV, and we prove a lie intrinsically related to free fall.
Suddenly the source for all of their information is totally thrown into question. They don't think they know anymore, they are ready to listen again. Then the other stuff.
Then,
Why that lie?
Focus, think, ............ what shows an intent to decieve and hide, cover demolition, that also has no excuse.
The footage of WTC 7 is absolutely moving than anything you have brought to the table. I don't believe America is dumb as much as they are slow. The images of the planes hitting the towers were permantly seared into our psyches. It will take images just as powerful to bring doubt to those same psyches. WTC foootage provides that. Americans will act eventually, but most have not seen the footage of WTC 7.
I see your point.
Do you realize there are a lot of people that do not know that a 3rd tower which was not hit by a plane fell like a curtain?
They were overloaded with information years ago, can we beleive that there is away to do that again? No, not reasonably. Can we make 7 stand out now, No, not without media. Media has abandoned America, indeed, scuttling it.
So we talk about something they already know about, already think they know everything about from the government media TV, and we prove a lie intrinsically related to free fall.
Suddenly the source for all of their information is totally thrown into question. They don't think they know anymore, they are ready to listen again. Then the other stuff.
Then,
Why that lie?
I all boils down to faith. Faith in the truth, which requires honest seeking and searching with an open mind and a serious desire to know and understand the truth in what really happened, VERSUS blind faith in what other people say.
You see it's so obvious that the WTC complex came down from control demolition, that you have to be a complete, mindless, brain dead zombie to think otherwise. In fact it is physically impossible for the buildings to have come down without control demolition, anyone who is honest and sincere will admit that.
But it's like the people who followed Jim Jones and drank the poison kool-aid and even gave it to their kids, even though it defied logic and reason and common sense THEY DID IT ANYWAY, just like the people who claim the buildings came down via fires, which by the way is so impossible that even a child knows that.
However, it's because of faith in their religious leaders, their governmental leaders, or whatever cohorts they have helping them, that all too many people completely TURN OFF all of their common sense and ability to think, discern and reason and hence they blindly follow an obvious scam.
I sometimes ask myself, "How could these people be so mentally retarded as to think fires did the IMPOSSIBLE" and then how could they spend hours and hours trying to prove that the laws of physics changed on 9/11? And I have to wonder are these people really that stupid, or are they so far into their blind faith that they just don't have the ability to think and reason.
I know, I know, it's similar to a Johnnie Cochran defense, where the DNA and all the other evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty. All the facts in the world won't change the defense lawyers persistant arguement that OJ was innocent.
So maybe these guys are just so wrapped up in defending their government or their pride or their other religious leader that they just don't have the time to honestly observe the facts, that are so obvious a small child knows what happened.
As Jesus said "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do"
Sheen referenced firefighters in the buildings who were eyewitnesses to demolition style implosions and bombs.
click here for radio interview with Charlie Sheen
You see it's so obvious that the WTC complex came down from control demolition, that you have to be a complete, mindless, brain dead zombie to think otherwise. In fact it is physically impossible for the buildings to have come down without control demolition, anyone who is honest and sincere will admit that.
But it's like the people who followed Jim Jones and drank the poison kool-aid and even gave it to their kids, even though it defied logic and reason and common sense THEY DID IT ANYWAY, just like the people who claim the buildings came down via fires, which by the way is so impossible that even a child knows that.
However, it's because of faith in their religious leaders, their governmental leaders, or whatever cohorts they have helping them, that all too many people completely TURN OFF all of their common sense and ability to think, discern and reason and hence they blindly follow an obvious scam.
I sometimes ask myself, "How could these people be so mentally retarded as to think fires did the IMPOSSIBLE" and then how could they spend hours and hours trying to prove that the laws of physics changed on 9/11? And I have to wonder are these people really that stupid, or are they so far into their blind faith that they just don't have the ability to think and reason.
I know, I know, it's similar to a Johnnie Cochran defense, where the DNA and all the other evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty. All the facts in the world won't change the defense lawyers persistant arguement that OJ was innocent.
So maybe these guys are just so wrapped up in defending their government or their pride or their other religious leader that they just don't have the time to honestly observe the facts, that are so obvious a small child knows what happened.
As Jesus said "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do"
Sheen referenced firefighters in the buildings who were eyewitnesses to demolition style implosions and bombs.
click here for radio interview with Charlie Sheen
Have you looked at 911 Myths? This site clarifies many matters.
Have you looked at 911 Myths? This site clarifies many matters.
Yes. Try this site's search facility and you will find several posts which refer to the site you talk of. Which particular matters were clarified?
Gordon.
Yes. Try this site's search facility and you will find several posts which refer to the site you talk of. Which particular matters were clarified?
Gordon.
I am new to PhysOrgForums (and I thought I had registered). Regarding the 911 Myths site, I was particularly struck by the analysis of Asif Usmani of the University of Edinburgh. This analysis, if correct, explains the collapse of the South Tower, simply by the uncontrolled fire.
Thank CNN, if you think it appropriate, for airing Sheen's interview with fringe reporter Alex Jones
I told them:
It's encouraging that you would air something that is so important to our country.
It is apparent that there are a great many people dissatisfied with the conclusions of the 911 commission, and some government agencies.
You, the media, are supposed to be the watchdog of the government, on our behalf. It's time for you to use your teeth and report on the opinion of those who would call for a new, truly independent analysis of what happened that fateful day.
Thank you for your time.
I told them:
It's encouraging that you would air something that is so important to our country.
It is apparent that there are a great many people dissatisfied with the conclusions of the 911 commission, and some government agencies.
You, the media, are supposed to be the watchdog of the government, on our behalf. It's time for you to use your teeth and report on the opinion of those who would call for a new, truly independent analysis of what happened that fateful day.
Thank you for your time.
An unending diatribe of bull ...
What you see in the above photo is ...
So, according to the lunacy of Algoxy / Christophera from a mile and a half we are able to pick out items 3" thick, and the spire that we are seeing is nothing more than 3" thick rebar.... No 3 ft thick steel columns there at all... no sireeBob. Them's 3 inch thick steel rebar you are looking at.
I am amazed. I thought ONLY the OCT's could come up with outrageously wacky theories. Seems not.
So, according to the lunacy of Algoxy / Christophera from a mile and a half we are able to pick out items 3" thick, and the spire that we are seeing is nothing more than 3" thick rebar.... No 3 ft thick steel columns there at all... no sireeBob. Them's 3 inch thick steel rebar you are looking at.
I am amazed. I thought ONLY the OCT's could come up with outrageously wacky theories. Seems not.
more nonsense by Algoxy
The documentary took note of particular events in the construction of WTC 1.... bla, bla, blah...
I remind all, that this is the alleged documentary that no other researcher in the entire world has ever seen (mainly due to the fact that it is either an outright lie OR a figment of Christopheras imagination). I suppose he was the only one in the world watching that alleged documentary on that particular evening. He cannot remember when Hoffman first published his site 3 years ago, but remembers with crystal clarity some mythological documentary from 16 years ago. Does this raise any red flags for anyone else.
Christophera CLAIMS 'this'... 'that'... and 'the other thing' about all these 'memories' coming back to him WHEN he saw the towers fall on Sept 11, 2001.
Anyone else find it 'odd' that he didn't mention ANYTHING about 9/11 events in his website at the time - which had nothing to do with 9/11... ( http://algoxy.com/ ),and only began publishing this wacky concrete core theory about a year ago...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
If all these 'memories' about this alleged documentary came back to him on Sept 11 2001... why did he wait for 3 - 4 years to start publishing 9/11 Concrete core BS ?
He makes unending CLAIMS that there is absolutely NO evidence of steel core columns in the WTC, which fly in the face of factual photographic evidence, as shown below....
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_lg.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coreCol_beams.jpg
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
And either makes nonsensical claims regarding these photos ranging from ... they were 'elevator guide rails' to 'what you are seeing are concrete posts' !!!
Still, he refuses to point out the alleged 17 ft thick concrete wall in the last photo of the excavation, (for the #1 reason that it refutes his whole concrete core boogie woogie). IF there was a concrete box in the core rather than steel central core columns it would surely be evidenced in that photo.
Now he resorts to YID sophistry and rhetorics, amidst shill tactics of 28 point text, and reverse claims that anyone who refutes his nonsense is a 'disinfo'.
Just as I could not sit idly by while the gov't shill disinfo team polluted this thread with their nonsense, neither will I site idly by and watch the Jayhans and Algoxys pollute this thread with utter disinfo nonsense which ONLY plays into the hand of gov't spooks who use such looney-toons as strawmen to attack the entire 9/11 truth movement. Christophera has failed to provide ANY evidence of this wacky concrete core theory, and everyone SHOULD SEE how these nuts (whether deliberately or NOT) only support the lies of the official fairy tale.
It is not surprising that the 9/11 conspiracy attracts many wackos from... skin-heads & and anti-semetic groups, to religious nuts, to just plain crazies, but I caution all honest researchers and searchers to stick to known facts and not go prancing off into fairy tales which have even less credibility than the FEMA NIST fairy tales. Pods, and holograms, and concrete cores come from the land of delusions... no matter whether they are propagated from spook psyopts or just plain delusional idiots.
leave me the hell out of this Foxx. I can't stand the guy either.
leave me the hell out of this Foxx. I can't stand the guy either.
So, according to the lunacy of Algoxy / Christophera from a mile and a half we are able to pick out items 3" thick, and the spire that we are seeing is nothing more than 3" thick rebar.... No 3 ft thick steel columns there at all... no sireeBob. Them's 3 inch thick steel rebar you are looking at.
I may hate myself in the morning for helping Foxx(shudders) but I feel I should point out that a 3 inch wide object at 7500 feet will subtend 0.002 degrees while the 20/20 vision would enable a human to distinguish objects 0.017 degrees wide. In other words a 3 inch wide object is about 1/10th the size of anything that a person with 20/20 vision could distinguish from 7500 feet.
A 3 foot wide object subtends an arc of 0.022 degrees at 7500 feet approx 30% larger than is distinguishable by a person with 20/20 vision..
What you see in the above photo is ...
QUOTE
more nonsense by Algoxy
"3 inch high tensile steel rebar on 4 foot centers 7500 feet distant."
"3 inch high tensile steel rebar on 4 foot centers 7500 feet distant."
So, according to the lunacy of Algoxy / Christophera from a mile and a half we are able to pick out items 3" thick, and the spire that we are seeing is nothing more than 3" thick rebar.... No 3 ft thick steel columns there at all... no sireeBob. Them's 3 inch thick steel rebar you are looking at.
I am amazed. I thought ONLY the OCT's could come up with outrageously wacky theories. Seems not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| more nonsense by Algoxy "3 inch high tensile steel rebar on 4 foot centers 7500 feet distant." |
So, according to the lunacy of Algoxy / Christophera from a mile and a half we are able to pick out items 3" thick, and the spire that we are seeing is nothing more than 3" thick rebar.... No 3 ft thick steel columns there at all... no sireeBob. Them's 3 inch thick steel rebar you are looking at.
I am amazed. I thought ONLY the OCT's could come up with outrageously wacky theories. Seems not.
more nonsense by Algoxy
The documentary took note of particular events in the construction of WTC 1.... bla, bla, blah...
I remind all, that this is the alleged documentary that no other researcher in the entire world has ever seen (mainly due to the fact that it is either an outright lie OR a figment of Christopheras imagination). I suppose he was the only one in the world watching that alleged documentary on that particular evening. He cannot remember when Hoffman first published his site 3 years ago, but remembers with crystal clarity some mythological documentary from 16 years ago. Does this raise any red flags for anyone else.
Christophera CLAIMS 'this'... 'that'... and 'the other thing' about all these 'memories' coming back to him WHEN he saw the towers fall on Sept 11, 2001.
Anyone else find it 'odd' that he didn't mention ANYTHING about 9/11 events in his website at the time - which had nothing to do with 9/11... ( http://algoxy.com/ ),and only began publishing this wacky concrete core theory about a year ago...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://algoxy...11scenario.html
If all these 'memories' about this alleged documentary came back to him on Sept 11 2001... why did he wait for 3 - 4 years to start publishing 9/11 Concrete core BS ?
He makes unending CLAIMS that there is absolutely NO evidence of steel core columns in the WTC, which fly in the face of factual photographic evidence, as shown below....
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_lg.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/coreCol_beams.jpg
http://www.topflange.com/images/WTC130.jpg
And either makes nonsensical claims regarding these photos ranging from ... they were 'elevator guide rails' to 'what you are seeing are concrete posts' !!!
Still, he refuses to point out the alleged 17 ft thick concrete wall in the last photo of the excavation, (for the #1 reason that it refutes his whole concrete core boogie woogie). IF there was a concrete box in the core rather than steel central core columns it would surely be evidenced in that photo.
Now he resorts to YID sophistry and rhetorics, amidst shill tactics of 28 point text, and reverse claims that anyone who refutes his nonsense is a 'disinfo'.
Just as I could not sit idly by while the gov't shill disinfo team polluted this thread with their nonsense, neither will I site idly by and watch the Jayhans and Algoxys pollute this thread with utter disinfo nonsense which ONLY plays into the hand of gov't spooks who use such looney-toons as strawmen to attack the entire 9/11 truth movement. Christophera has failed to provide ANY evidence of this wacky concrete core theory, and everyone SHOULD SEE how these nuts (whether deliberately or NOT) only support the lies of the official fairy tale.
It is not surprising that the 9/11 conspiracy attracts many wackos from... skin-heads & and anti-semetic groups, to religious nuts, to just plain crazies, but I caution all honest researchers and searchers to stick to known facts and not go prancing off into fairy tales which have even less credibility than the FEMA NIST fairy tales. Pods, and holograms, and concrete cores come from the land of delusions... no matter whether they are propagated from spook psyopts or just plain delusional idiots.
Foxx,
The only thing the government conspiracy theory has to keep it going is lies. What else are they gonna do, tell the truth and risk world wide panic?
If they admitted the truth in that the towers were imploded who knows what effect that would have on the economy, the Dow Jones, and the whole political system.
They've boxed themselves in to the point where they're stuck and cannot get out. Just like in Iraq, even though DECENT PEOPLE know it was wrong to slaughter 100,000 innocent civilians and over 2,300 US troops by illegally invading another country, (so they could bilk the US tax payer out of hundreds of billions) not to mention all that free oil, the US government is stuck and can't even come close to admitting the truth.
So it's up to us, the people of this nation, (the ones who our public servants are supposed to be working for) to cut through the bull and discover for ourselves that the hired help has been lying to us and ripping us off for years.
But most people don't understand the government is hired help, public servants, employed by us the US tax payer. Instead they worship them like they are great gods of the earth and bow down to them and turn off all their ability to think and reason and utilize common sense, they feel it's their patriotic duty to worship a corrupt government that has resorted to murder and mayhem.
But don't feel all alone, the Germans had the same problem about 63 years ago. They too thought it was patriotic to bow down to their elected leader and never question his actions, so why would anyone with common sense feel that the US is any different?
In the days of the Nazi's I'm sure there were many decent Germans who had some morals that wouldn't have gone along with the things their guy commanded, but little by little those old propaganda tricks have their ways of wearing people down and getting so far into the pits that they too feel stuck.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the people on this board, who still try to defend the governmental fairy tale probably know deep in their heart that they've been hoodwinked and fell for the lies.
Yeah, I'd be willing to bet that some of those guys in here must have learned something from the information you and gordon and others have posted about the reality of the situation to the point where they know it was impossible for the buildings to come down according to bush and that control demolition is in fact what happened.
But even these guys are stuck. Yeah, maybe they can change their screen name and pretend to be something else, but in their minds they're so far into this BS, that they feel they just can't get out of it.
I know it's frustrating to talk to a bunch of rock heads that are so dense no logic can get through, but then I try to remember their CONDITION and I'm sure it must be very tough for them. After all they gotta look themselves in the mirror, knowing their promoting BS.
One thing I'll say, whether you hate my guts or not. Try not to be so overly generalistic and judgemental on everyone who mentions they're belief in God and truth in the scriptures. It's true that about 99.9% of all the religious people in this nation and maybe in the world are a bunch of hypocritical false prophets, twisting every verse and fact 9 ways to Sunday in order to make a dishonest buck and get power and sex, but try not to let their problems make you judge God and/or the bible itself. Try to think about these things on your own.
The only thing the government conspiracy theory has to keep it going is lies. What else are they gonna do, tell the truth and risk world wide panic?
If they admitted the truth in that the towers were imploded who knows what effect that would have on the economy, the Dow Jones, and the whole political system.
They've boxed themselves in to the point where they're stuck and cannot get out. Just like in Iraq, even though DECENT PEOPLE know it was wrong to slaughter 100,000 innocent civilians and over 2,300 US troops by illegally invading another country, (so they could bilk the US tax payer out of hundreds of billions) not to mention all that free oil, the US government is stuck and can't even come close to admitting the truth.
So it's up to us, the people of this nation, (the ones who our public servants are supposed to be working for) to cut through the bull and discover for ourselves that the hired help has been lying to us and ripping us off for years.
But most people don't understand the government is hired help, public servants, employed by us the US tax payer. Instead they worship them like they are great gods of the earth and bow down to them and turn off all their ability to think and reason and utilize common sense, they feel it's their patriotic duty to worship a corrupt government that has resorted to murder and mayhem.
But don't feel all alone, the Germans had the same problem about 63 years ago. They too thought it was patriotic to bow down to their elected leader and never question his actions, so why would anyone with common sense feel that the US is any different?
In the days of the Nazi's I'm sure there were many decent Germans who had some morals that wouldn't have gone along with the things their guy commanded, but little by little those old propaganda tricks have their ways of wearing people down and getting so far into the pits that they too feel stuck.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the people on this board, who still try to defend the governmental fairy tale probably know deep in their heart that they've been hoodwinked and fell for the lies.
Yeah, I'd be willing to bet that some of those guys in here must have learned something from the information you and gordon and others have posted about the reality of the situation to the point where they know it was impossible for the buildings to come down according to bush and that control demolition is in fact what happened.
But even these guys are stuck. Yeah, maybe they can change their screen name and pretend to be something else, but in their minds they're so far into this BS, that they feel they just can't get out of it.
I know it's frustrating to talk to a bunch of rock heads that are so dense no logic can get through, but then I try to remember their CONDITION and I'm sure it must be very tough for them. After all they gotta look themselves in the mirror, knowing their promoting BS.
One thing I'll say, whether you hate my guts or not. Try not to be so overly generalistic and judgemental on everyone who mentions they're belief in God and truth in the scriptures. It's true that about 99.9% of all the religious people in this nation and maybe in the world are a bunch of hypocritical false prophets, twisting every verse and fact 9 ways to Sunday in order to make a dishonest buck and get power and sex, but try not to let their problems make you judge God and/or the bible itself. Try to think about these things on your own.
QUOTE
Now he resorts to YID sophistry and rhetorics, amidst shill tactics of 28 point text, and reverse claims that anyone who refutes his nonsense is a 'disinfo'.
leave me the hell out of this Foxx. I can't stand the guy either.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now he resorts to YID sophistry and rhetorics, amidst shill tactics of 28 point text, and reverse claims that anyone who refutes his nonsense is a 'disinfo'. |
leave me the hell out of this Foxx. I can't stand the guy either.
So, according to the lunacy of Algoxy / Christophera from a mile and a half we are able to pick out items 3" thick, and the spire that we are seeing is nothing more than 3" thick rebar.... No 3 ft thick steel columns there at all... no sireeBob. Them's 3 inch thick steel rebar you are looking at.
I may hate myself in the morning for helping Foxx(shudders) but I feel I should point out that a 3 inch wide object at 7500 feet will subtend 0.002 degrees while the 20/20 vision would enable a human to distinguish objects 0.017 degrees wide. In other words a 3 inch wide object is about 1/10th the size of anything that a person with 20/20 vision could distinguish from 7500 feet.
A 3 foot wide object subtends an arc of 0.022 degrees at 7500 feet approx 30% larger than is distinguishable by a person with 20/20 vision..
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 23 2006, 12:42 AM)
Have you looked at 911 Myths? This site clarifies many matters.
gee. i disagree. i think that site is full of unmitigated spin and disinfo. you really should read this whole thread(as hard as i can imagine that might be, with all the mudslinging and repetition of nonsense) if you want to understand what really happened.
the towers were demolished. period.
i notice they don't touch the fall time or the symmetry of tower seven's demise. they 'debunk'(rebunk, i like to call it) the silverstein quote, but IGNORE what actually happened to the tower. ie. falling in 6.5 seconds, in it's footprint. NIST hasn't touched it, either. nor has FEMA. that's because the truth of tower seven is indisputable. if you ignore something, you needn't dispute it.
however, 'they' are the only ones ignoring it. 'we' are not.
gee. i disagree. i think that site is full of unmitigated spin and disinfo. you really should read this whole thread(as hard as i can imagine that might be, with all the mudslinging and repetition of nonsense) if you want to understand what really happened.
the towers were demolished. period.
i notice they don't touch the fall time or the symmetry of tower seven's demise. they 'debunk'(rebunk, i like to call it) the silverstein quote, but IGNORE what actually happened to the tower. ie. falling in 6.5 seconds, in it's footprint. NIST hasn't touched it, either. nor has FEMA. that's because the truth of tower seven is indisputable. if you ignore something, you needn't dispute it.
however, 'they' are the only ones ignoring it. 'we' are not.
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 23 2006, 01:22 AM)
I am new to PhysOrgForums (and I thought I had registered). Regarding the 911 Myths site, I was particularly struck by the analysis of Asif Usmani of the University of Edinburgh. This analysis, if correct, explains the collapse of the South Tower, simply by the uncontrolled fire.
The actual fires at WTC 2 couldn't have brought down a steel-framed building... no how... no way.
I still haven't got everything cached here yet, (Haven't been concentrating on the south face fires due to their complete insignificance), but here are the photos I have got cached so far from NIST NCSTAR 1-5A chapter 9...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf ...
(see if you can find ANY that look anything similar to the Parque Central in Caracas or the Edeficio Windsor in Spain or the 1st Interstate in LA fires) --- the population has been duped by psyopts...
These are NOT raging infernos capable of destroying the structural integrity of the steel in WTC 2...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig00SouthTower.html
The only significant fire was at the northeast corner of WTC 2 (which was only about 1200 sq ft in total area)... hardly significant in a building this size.
Coincidentally, there was a relatively 'unreported / downplayed' circumstance associated with this particular isolated 'local' fire...
metal fires, and molten steel pouring out of that corner... Quite an anomaly, as far as building fires go...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
The computer sim models DO NOT support raging fires / temperatures in the central core area which could buckle the massive steel columns in that area, and without compromising the central core columns the building could NOT have collapsed due to fire alone...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/comsim001.html
The actual fires at WTC 2 couldn't have brought down a steel-framed building... no how... no way.
I still haven't got everything cached here yet, (Haven't been concentrating on the south face fires due to their complete insignificance), but here are the photos I have got cached so far from NIST NCSTAR 1-5A chapter 9...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf ...
(see if you can find ANY that look anything similar to the Parque Central in Caracas or the Edeficio Windsor in Spain or the 1st Interstate in LA fires) --- the population has been duped by psyopts...
These are NOT raging infernos capable of destroying the structural integrity of the steel in WTC 2...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig00SouthTower.html
The only significant fire was at the northeast corner of WTC 2 (which was only about 1200 sq ft in total area)... hardly significant in a building this size.
Coincidentally, there was a relatively 'unreported / downplayed' circumstance associated with this particular isolated 'local' fire...
metal fires, and molten steel pouring out of that corner... Quite an anomaly, as far as building fires go...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
The computer sim models DO NOT support raging fires / temperatures in the central core area which could buckle the massive steel columns in that area, and without compromising the central core columns the building could NOT have collapsed due to fire alone...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/comsim001.html
This is a good post in the DU forum from Christophera:
Please Don't Water The Weeds In The Garden Of Truth.
Discussing unimportant, irrelevant information in the 9-11 truth search is like watering weeds in the garden of truth.
Another factor is that there are many seeds in the 9-11 garden of truth. Many weeds have been planted and the dark gardeners of secrecy beg for water for their crop of distraction, so their prodigy may grow and over shadow the truth.
To NOT know the difference between what is productive discussion and what is not, is a sin of omission in the garden of truth, and fantastic indulgence in the sensational.
There are 2 major areas of unimportant irrelevant information.
1. Issues that depend on accountability of government.
2. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence.
Issues that depend on accountable government are important, but not now, because we have not yet created an accountable government. Those issues need to be preserved but not discussed. We, are not yet a we, as in "we the people". We are an it. "It, the public". An apology is due to newbies that have become interested in 9-11 by the repeated lawless behaviors of government. If experienced and sincere truth gardeners heed this message and provide this perspective to the public along with the best information they can present with discussion, it'll be good.
Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence are "MISINFORMATION" and are a great distracter/divider of the 9-11 truth seeking movement. They can be systematically be intentionally debunked making the entire search for 9-11 truth marginalized, repeatedly.
Then the resident shill makes a humorus and true observation :
Then the resident shill makes a humorus and true observation :
You're a weed in your own garden
As it seems your standard is for everyone except you.
Reply by YID
"leave me the hell out of this Foxx. I can't stand the guy either."
BWAAAAAHhahahahahahahah !!! That was good, YID - the funniest thing you have ever posted ...
"Hey... don't associate ME with dingbats !!!"
Well, YID, (IMHO) you've posted your fair share of looney beliefs, but I must admit not quite so looney as this concrete core theory.
Sorry, but my reference to you was in regard to sophist exercises to get out of corners... that Christophera posts. Actually, I shouldn't even have called them 'sophist' (as sophist implies a plausible possibility meant to obfuscate the truth), and I feel that Christophera doesn't even present that.
Now, moving on to your ocular measurements... NICE.
I could have looked up the quantitative factors related to this nonsense of 3 inch rebar showing up from a distance of 7500 ft, but didn't feel it was really necessary for those who have more than a couple of brain cells... it's an absolutely ridiculous statement....
nevertheless, after reading your post... perhaps I should have been more 'quantitative', as it does (I begrudgingly admit) clearly show the lunacy in more mathematical terms.
You are quite correct though, YID... you must be very careful of agreeing with me on anything - next you'll be wearing a tin-hat...
maybe there IS hope for you, after all?
QUOTE
Please Don't Water The Weeds In The Garden Of Truth.
Discussing unimportant, irrelevant information in the 9-11 truth search is like watering weeds in the garden of truth.
Another factor is that there are many seeds in the 9-11 garden of truth. Many weeds have been planted and the dark gardeners of secrecy beg for water for their crop of distraction, so their prodigy may grow and over shadow the truth.
To NOT know the difference between what is productive discussion and what is not, is a sin of omission in the garden of truth, and fantastic indulgence in the sensational.
There are 2 major areas of unimportant irrelevant information.
1. Issues that depend on accountability of government.
2. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence.
Issues that depend on accountable government are important, but not now, because we have not yet created an accountable government. Those issues need to be preserved but not discussed. We, are not yet a we, as in "we the people". We are an it. "It, the public". An apology is due to newbies that have become interested in 9-11 by the repeated lawless behaviors of government. If experienced and sincere truth gardeners heed this message and provide this perspective to the public along with the best information they can present with discussion, it'll be good.
Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence are "MISINFORMATION" and are a great distracter/divider of the 9-11 truth seeking movement. They can be systematically be intentionally debunked making the entire search for 9-11 truth marginalized, repeatedly.
Then the resident shill makes a humorus and true observation :
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Please Don't Water The Weeds In The Garden Of Truth. Discussing unimportant, irrelevant information in the 9-11 truth search is like watering weeds in the garden of truth. Another factor is that there are many seeds in the 9-11 garden of truth. Many weeds have been planted and the dark gardeners of secrecy beg for water for their crop of distraction, so their prodigy may grow and over shadow the truth. To NOT know the difference between what is productive discussion and what is not, is a sin of omission in the garden of truth, and fantastic indulgence in the sensational. There are 2 major areas of unimportant irrelevant information. 1. Issues that depend on accountability of government. 2. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence. Issues that depend on accountable government are important, but not now, because we have not yet created an accountable government. Those issues need to be preserved but not discussed. We, are not yet a we, as in "we the people". We are an it. "It, the public". An apology is due to newbies that have become interested in 9-11 by the repeated lawless behaviors of government. If experienced and sincere truth gardeners heed this message and provide this perspective to the public along with the best information they can present with discussion, it'll be good. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence are "MISINFORMATION" and are a great distracter/divider of the 9-11 truth seeking movement. They can be systematically be intentionally debunked making the entire search for 9-11 truth marginalized, repeatedly. |
Then the resident shill makes a humorus and true observation :
You're a weed in your own garden
As it seems your standard is for everyone except you.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2006, 04:38 AM)
This is a good post in the DU forum from Christophera:
DU?
Ducks Unlimited?
DU?
Ducks Unlimited?
QUOTE
by Foxx
Now he resorts to YID sophistry and rhetorics, amidst shill tactics of 28 point text, and reverse claims that anyone who refutes his nonsense is a 'disinfo'.
Now he resorts to YID sophistry and rhetorics, amidst shill tactics of 28 point text, and reverse claims that anyone who refutes his nonsense is a 'disinfo'.
Reply by YID
"leave me the hell out of this Foxx. I can't stand the guy either."
BWAAAAAHhahahahahahahah !!! That was good, YID - the funniest thing you have ever posted
..."Hey... don't associate ME with dingbats !!!"
Well, YID, (IMHO) you've posted your fair share of looney beliefs, but I must admit not quite so looney as this concrete core theory.
Sorry, but my reference to you was in regard to sophist exercises to get out of corners... that Christophera posts. Actually, I shouldn't even have called them 'sophist' (as sophist implies a plausible possibility meant to obfuscate the truth), and I feel that Christophera doesn't even present that.
Now, moving on to your ocular measurements... NICE.
I could have looked up the quantitative factors related to this nonsense of 3 inch rebar showing up from a distance of 7500 ft, but didn't feel it was really necessary for those who have more than a couple of brain cells... it's an absolutely ridiculous statement....
nevertheless, after reading your post... perhaps I should have been more 'quantitative', as it does (I begrudgingly admit) clearly show the lunacy in more mathematical terms.
You are quite correct though, YID... you must be very careful of agreeing with me on anything - next you'll be wearing a tin-hat...
maybe there IS hope for you, after all?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 23 2006, 04:50 AM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2006, 04:38 AM)
This is a good post in the DU forum from Christophera:
DU?
Ducks Unlimited?
QUACK !...
(another one)
I kinda like it when the shills and the tin-hats can get together and agree that there are those... even crazier than them.
Celebrity 'Gossip Rag' Lives Up To Its Name
Defamer attacks Charlie Sheen
Celebrity Los Angeles based gossip e-rag Defamer was one of the few, amidst the mainstream blackout, to pick up on Charlie Sheen's 9/11 comments. Using the pathetic tactic of attacking the messenger rather than the message the Defamer sought to label Sheen's statements as crackpot conspiracy theory.
The Defamer admits in the article that they didn't even take the time to listen to Sheen's interview with Alex Jones.
I suggest to the Defamer that they stick to talking about Paris Hilton, American Idol and teen orgies, and leave 9/11 to the people who have actually taken the time to research the subject matter, a practice that didn't seem too important to them before writing this hit piece.
The Defamer selectively quotes the one tiny section of our original article that wasn't about Sheen presenting the cold hard facts, and centered only around his gut instinct reaction on the day of 9/11. Taken out of context, this gives the impression that Sheen was aimlessly rambling around the subject and not making targeted statements based on documented evidence.
The comments tagged on the end of the hit piece also betray an ignorance and cowardice to face the truth. If you live in a world where the most important thing to you is what Angelina Jolie is wearing then being told your government lies to you and America is dying isn't going to compute.
These feverish morons can sit back and snicker at Charlie Sheen's past mistakes, ones that he has publicly apologized for, and yet would line up to lick boots when confronted with their morally resplendent Commander in Chief.
George Bush can be an admitted narcotics user, have DWI's, frolic around with homosexual porn star Jeff Gannon, scream at staffers and have fits of anger, lie naked in a coffin and masturbate as part of his skull and bones ritual, and engage in mock human sacrifice at Bohemian Grove, a place where gay male porn stars are bused in to 'service' the members', and yet Sheen we are told is not credible because his day job is about making people laugh.
Sheen comes from a family of political activists and the evidence he presented on 9/11 has been backed up in triplicate by such individuals as former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds and many more.
I hope everyone will e mail the Defamer at tips@defamer.com and politely request that they reserve their creative impulses for talking about what Brad Pitt had for lunch and other mindless offal, and leave 9/11 to the grown-ups.
click here for radio interview with Charlie Sheen
I didn't mean that at all, when I mentioned 'religious fanatics'.
It was more a reference to those who associate 'creationism' with '9/11 conspiracy' and the Bush statements that ... GOD ordained him to be 'pres' to fight the 'evil forces of satan'...
The guy is another Jim Jones (in my book), and god-forbid... someone actually made him president !!!
I am FAR from being 'anti-religious'...
but 'religion' is a different thread...
we are (I think) trying to keep to temporal physics & science on this thread.
Cheers
DU?
Ducks Unlimited?
QUACK !...
(another one)
I kinda like it when the shills and the tin-hats can get together and agree that there are those... even crazier than them.
CNN Showbiz Tonight Covers Charlie Sheen and 9/11 Skepticism
(27mb WMV)
(22mb Real Media)
Click here for video:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/911-skep...r-shake-on.html
Tonight marks the first instance where those that question 9/11 were given a fair shake at voicing their opinions. While little can be said in just 10 minutes of coverage, it was at the very least a reasonable discussion and an important milestone for the 9/11 truth community. 911truth.org's media coordinator Mike Berger did a great job with the short time he was allotted while the host A.J. Hammer allowed for a good live discussion and avoided the all-to-familiar Bill O'Reilly style of 'news'.
Despite the numerous questions surrounding 9/11 which have gone unmentioned by the mainstream media for the last 4+ years, and the growing number of respectable scholars, government officials, and family members demanding answers - this is the first time a major news station has covered 9/11 questions in any reasonable format, even if it was on a Hollywood celebrity show. If the mainstream media were to truly desire to cover 9/11 further I would hope in the future they might consider a longer format so that all of the news and facts they haven't bothered reporting over the last 4+ years might have a chance to finally be seen and heard. (Hey Showtime and HBO, are you listening?)
I urge all of those who support 9/11 being further discussed by CNN and their affiliates to contact them via their feedback form here. Be sure to reference the host A.J. Hammer, and the show 'Showbiz Tonight'.
Note: You can find more on Sheen's recent comments here.
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/911-skep...r-shake-on.html
Celebrity 'Gossip Rag' Lives Up To Its Name
Defamer attacks Charlie Sheen
Celebrity Los Angeles based gossip e-rag Defamer was one of the few, amidst the mainstream blackout, to pick up on Charlie Sheen's 9/11 comments. Using the pathetic tactic of attacking the messenger rather than the message the Defamer sought to label Sheen's statements as crackpot conspiracy theory.
The Defamer admits in the article that they didn't even take the time to listen to Sheen's interview with Alex Jones.
I suggest to the Defamer that they stick to talking about Paris Hilton, American Idol and teen orgies, and leave 9/11 to the people who have actually taken the time to research the subject matter, a practice that didn't seem too important to them before writing this hit piece.
The Defamer selectively quotes the one tiny section of our original article that wasn't about Sheen presenting the cold hard facts, and centered only around his gut instinct reaction on the day of 9/11. Taken out of context, this gives the impression that Sheen was aimlessly rambling around the subject and not making targeted statements based on documented evidence.
The comments tagged on the end of the hit piece also betray an ignorance and cowardice to face the truth. If you live in a world where the most important thing to you is what Angelina Jolie is wearing then being told your government lies to you and America is dying isn't going to compute.
These feverish morons can sit back and snicker at Charlie Sheen's past mistakes, ones that he has publicly apologized for, and yet would line up to lick boots when confronted with their morally resplendent Commander in Chief.
George Bush can be an admitted narcotics user, have DWI's, frolic around with homosexual porn star Jeff Gannon, scream at staffers and have fits of anger, lie naked in a coffin and masturbate as part of his skull and bones ritual, and engage in mock human sacrifice at Bohemian Grove, a place where gay male porn stars are bused in to 'service' the members', and yet Sheen we are told is not credible because his day job is about making people laugh.
Sheen comes from a family of political activists and the evidence he presented on 9/11 has been backed up in triplicate by such individuals as former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds and many more.
I hope everyone will e mail the Defamer at tips@defamer.com and politely request that they reserve their creative impulses for talking about what Brad Pitt had for lunch and other mindless offal, and leave 9/11 to the grown-ups.
click here for radio interview with Charlie Sheen
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 23 2006, 01:22 AM)
I am new to PhysOrgForums (and I thought I had registered). Regarding the 911 Myths site, I was particularly struck by the analysis of Asif Usmani of the University of Edinburgh. This analysis, if correct, explains the collapse of the South Tower, simply by the uncontrolled fire.
a man lies bleeding to death in the street. there is a small hole in his chest, that goes right through him, becoming wider and wider until it reaches the back. there is a smell of gunpowder in the air.
the police come, and declare the cause of death as a lack of blood.
hey, gordon, if you've got time, could you go kick this "AS IF!" USman-I's arse for me? edinburgh's a little out of my way.
a man lies bleeding to death in the street. there is a small hole in his chest, that goes right through him, becoming wider and wider until it reaches the back. there is a smell of gunpowder in the air.
the police come, and declare the cause of death as a lack of blood.
hey, gordon, if you've got time, could you go kick this "AS IF!" USman-I's arse for me? edinburgh's a little out of my way.
I cannot believe the importance that some are putting on the fact that actor Charlie Sheen is in the 9/11 CD camp.
This man's acting is very good, his comedy timing and delivery top notch. How in the world that makes his opinion better than , say, Bazant's or Sunder's escapes me. Has anyone asked Charleton Heston how he feels about this? Seems to me his opinion would be at least as informative.
Anyone wish to explain?
This man's acting is very good, his comedy timing and delivery top notch. How in the world that makes his opinion better than , say, Bazant's or Sunder's escapes me. Has anyone asked Charleton Heston how he feels about this? Seems to me his opinion would be at least as informative.
Anyone wish to explain?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 23 2006, 02:16 AM)
An unending diatribe of bull ...
You totally forget, or never noticed (Oh, and I remember that you don't use information) that I addressed this issue when first introducing this information.
The below is rebar and it is, in the numbers standing, visible. You might not see one or three but there are a hundred or so. They go around the same corner as is formed by the middle image.
The bottom image provides scale. It is an interior box column that is 14 inches wide The images are taken with the top image slightly after the bottom image from the same location. The rebar is what is left after the interior box columns fell.
The wall behind the interior box columns in this image is where the rebar is before the spire falls.
You totally forget, or never noticed (Oh, and I remember that you don't use information) that I addressed this issue when first introducing this information.
The below is rebar and it is, in the numbers standing, visible. You might not see one or three but there are a hundred or so. They go around the same corner as is formed by the middle image.
The bottom image provides scale. It is an interior box column that is 14 inches wide The images are taken with the top image slightly after the bottom image from the same location. The rebar is what is left after the interior box columns fell.
The wall behind the interior box columns in this image is where the rebar is before the spire falls.
QUOTE
by Steve52
One thing I'll say, whether you hate my guts or not. Try not to be so overly generalistic and judgemental on everyone who mentions they're belief in God and truth in the scriptures.
One thing I'll say, whether you hate my guts or not. Try not to be so overly generalistic and judgemental on everyone who mentions they're belief in God and truth in the scriptures.
I didn't mean that at all, when I mentioned 'religious fanatics'.
It was more a reference to those who associate 'creationism' with '9/11 conspiracy' and the Bush statements that ... GOD ordained him to be 'pres' to fight the 'evil forces of satan'...
The guy is another Jim Jones (in my book), and god-forbid... someone actually made him president !!!
I am FAR from being 'anti-religious'...
but 'religion' is a different thread...
we are (I think) trying to keep to temporal physics & science on this thread.
Cheers
Guest,
Good job!!! Great post!
It may seem insignificant for now, but it's a sign that things are opening up. Once people start talking then other people will have the courage to speak and who knows, before you know, little bush will be in the hague for war crimes.
Good job!!! Great post!
It may seem insignificant for now, but it's a sign that things are opening up. Once people start talking then other people will have the courage to speak and who knows, before you know, little bush will be in the hague for war crimes.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 23 2006, 05:11 AM)
I cannot believe the importance that some are putting on the fact that actor Charlie Sheen is in the 9/11 CD camp.
This man's acting is very good, his comedy timing and delivery top notch. How in the world that makes his opinion better than , say, Bazant's or Sunder's escapes me. Has anyone asked Charleton Heston how he feels about this? Seems to me his opinion would be at least as informative.
Anyone wish to explain?
celebrities are known to be more intelligent and just plain better people than you or i.
simple, no?
that's what happens when you live in a matrix. all's i can say, is it's a good thing for bush et al. that it wasn't keanu reeves.
This man's acting is very good, his comedy timing and delivery top notch. How in the world that makes his opinion better than , say, Bazant's or Sunder's escapes me. Has anyone asked Charleton Heston how he feels about this? Seems to me his opinion would be at least as informative.
Anyone wish to explain?
celebrities are known to be more intelligent and just plain better people than you or i.
simple, no?
that's what happens when you live in a matrix. all's i can say, is it's a good thing for bush et al. that it wasn't keanu reeves.
yesitdid,
It's not just about a famous actor speaking the truth, but it's the ramifications of what it means. It's about a guy with the courage to speak the truth inspite of all the threats implied by the government.
Remember the Dixie Chicks? A lot of people, including actors have been living in fear, like the Macarthy days and have kept their mouths shut, so that the only thing you hear on the media is a bunch of childish propoganda that has DUMBED DOWN the people in this nation so much they can't even think straight.
Remember, Charlie did his homework. He's not like the Madonna's or Britney Spear airheads, but Charlie did a lot of investigation and used that grey matter in between his ears, much more than Bill O'Reilly is even capable of.
And so it's not just about a famous star having the guts to speak the truth, but it's also about a guy who had the guts to do some research and use some critical thinking.
It actually helps the moral of this nation when some of the people on the news show a little sign of intelligence for a change.
It's not just about a famous actor speaking the truth, but it's the ramifications of what it means. It's about a guy with the courage to speak the truth inspite of all the threats implied by the government.
Remember the Dixie Chicks? A lot of people, including actors have been living in fear, like the Macarthy days and have kept their mouths shut, so that the only thing you hear on the media is a bunch of childish propoganda that has DUMBED DOWN the people in this nation so much they can't even think straight.
Remember, Charlie did his homework. He's not like the Madonna's or Britney Spear airheads, but Charlie did a lot of investigation and used that grey matter in between his ears, much more than Bill O'Reilly is even capable of.
And so it's not just about a famous star having the guts to speak the truth, but it's also about a guy who had the guts to do some research and use some critical thinking.
It actually helps the moral of this nation when some of the people on the news show a little sign of intelligence for a change.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 23 2006, 05:35 AM)
yesitdid,
It's not just about a famous actor speaking the truth, but it's the ramifications of what it means. It's about a guy with the courage to speak the truth inspite of all the threats implied by the government.
Remember the Dixie Chicks? A lot of people, including actors have been living in fear, like the Macarthy days and have kept their mouths shut, so that the only thing you hear on the media is a bunch of childish propoganda that has DUMBED DOWN the people in this nation so much they can't even think straight.
Remember, Charlie did his homework. He's not like the Madonna's or Britney Spear airheads, but Charlie did a lot of investigation and used that grey matter in between his ears, much more than Bill O'Reilly is even capable of.
And so it's not just about a famous star having the guts to speak the truth, but it's also about a guy who had the guts to do some research and use some critical thinking.
It actually helps the moral of this nation when some of the people on the news show a little sign of intelligence for a change.
What a bunch of shinola.
The Dixie Chicks were victims of their own bad timing and their choice of musical genre. I daresay that C&W listeners are more representative of the parts of the country that are the most Republican. (recall that they came out and slammed Bush, not the events of 9/11) They could say the same thing now and no one would notice.
Charlie Sheen risks nothing more than being labeled a flake, oops too late for that given his public exploits in the past. Hasn't hurt him too bad in the past and won't in the future.His opinion on these matters is in no way more important nor informed than , for instance , Charleton Heston, who I daresay would take quite the opposite stance.
It's not just about a famous actor speaking the truth, but it's the ramifications of what it means. It's about a guy with the courage to speak the truth inspite of all the threats implied by the government.
Remember the Dixie Chicks? A lot of people, including actors have been living in fear, like the Macarthy days and have kept their mouths shut, so that the only thing you hear on the media is a bunch of childish propoganda that has DUMBED DOWN the people in this nation so much they can't even think straight.
Remember, Charlie did his homework. He's not like the Madonna's or Britney Spear airheads, but Charlie did a lot of investigation and used that grey matter in between his ears, much more than Bill O'Reilly is even capable of.
And so it's not just about a famous star having the guts to speak the truth, but it's also about a guy who had the guts to do some research and use some critical thinking.
It actually helps the moral of this nation when some of the people on the news show a little sign of intelligence for a change.
What a bunch of shinola.
The Dixie Chicks were victims of their own bad timing and their choice of musical genre. I daresay that C&W listeners are more representative of the parts of the country that are the most Republican. (recall that they came out and slammed Bush, not the events of 9/11) They could say the same thing now and no one would notice.
Charlie Sheen risks nothing more than being labeled a flake, oops too late for that given his public exploits in the past. Hasn't hurt him too bad in the past and won't in the future.His opinion on these matters is in no way more important nor informed than , for instance , Charleton Heston, who I daresay would take quite the opposite stance.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 23 2006, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 23 2006, 05:35 AM)
yesitdid,
It's not just about a famous actor speaking the truth, but it's the ramifications of what it means. It's about a guy with the courage to speak the truth inspite of all the threats implied by the government.
Remember the Dixie Chicks? A lot of people, including actors have been living in fear, like the Macarthy days and have kept their mouths shut, so that the only thing you hear on the media is a bunch of childish propoganda that has DUMBED DOWN the people in this nation so much they can't even think straight.
Remember, Charlie did his homework. He's not like the Madonna's or Britney Spear airheads, but Charlie did a lot of investigation and used that grey matter in between his ears, much more than Bill O'Reilly is even capable of.
And so it's not just about a famous star having the guts to speak the truth, but it's also about a guy who had the guts to do some research and use some critical thinking.
It actually helps the moral of this nation when some of the people on the news show a little sign of intelligence for a change.
What a bunch of shinola.
The Dixie Chicks were victims of their own bad timing and their choice of musical genre. I daresay that C&W listeners are more representative of the parts of the country that are the most Republican. (recall that they came out and slammed Bush, not the events of 9/11) They could say the same thing now and no one would notice.
Charlie Sheen risks nothing more than being labeled a flake, oops too late for that given his public exploits in the past. Hasn't hurt him too bad in the past and won't in the future.His opinion on these matters is in no way more important nor informed than , for instance , Charleton Heston, who I daresay would take quite the opposite stance.
Well, Yid...
I wouldn't be too sure about Charleton Heston... he did host that tin-hat conspiracy program on 'Forbidden Archaeology' (but that's a different thread)
It's not just about a famous actor speaking the truth, but it's the ramifications of what it means. It's about a guy with the courage to speak the truth inspite of all the threats implied by the government.
Remember the Dixie Chicks? A lot of people, including actors have been living in fear, like the Macarthy days and have kept their mouths shut, so that the only thing you hear on the media is a bunch of childish propoganda that has DUMBED DOWN the people in this nation so much they can't even think straight.
Remember, Charlie did his homework. He's not like the Madonna's or Britney Spear airheads, but Charlie did a lot of investigation and used that grey matter in between his ears, much more than Bill O'Reilly is even capable of.
And so it's not just about a famous star having the guts to speak the truth, but it's also about a guy who had the guts to do some research and use some critical thinking.
It actually helps the moral of this nation when some of the people on the news show a little sign of intelligence for a change.
What a bunch of shinola.
The Dixie Chicks were victims of their own bad timing and their choice of musical genre. I daresay that C&W listeners are more representative of the parts of the country that are the most Republican. (recall that they came out and slammed Bush, not the events of 9/11) They could say the same thing now and no one would notice.
Charlie Sheen risks nothing more than being labeled a flake, oops too late for that given his public exploits in the past. Hasn't hurt him too bad in the past and won't in the future.His opinion on these matters is in no way more important nor informed than , for instance , Charleton Heston, who I daresay would take quite the opposite stance.
Well, Yid...
I wouldn't be too sure about Charleton Heston... he did host that tin-hat conspiracy program on 'Forbidden Archaeology' (but that's a different thread)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2006, 04:38 AM)
This is a good post in the DU forum from Christophera:
Please Don't Water The Weeds In The Garden Of Truth.
Discussing unimportant, irrelevant information in the 9-11 truth search is like watering weeds in the garden of truth.
Another factor is that there are many seeds in the 9-11 garden of truth. Many weeds have been planted and the dark gardeners of secrecy beg for water for their crop of distraction, so their prodigy may grow and over shadow the truth.
To NOT know the difference between what is productive discussion and what is not, is a sin of omission in the garden of truth, and fantastic indulgence in the sensational.
There are 2 major areas of unimportant irrelevant information.
1. Issues that depend on accountability of government.
2. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence.
Issues that depend on accountable government are important, but not now, because we have not yet created an accountable government. Those issues need to be preserved but not discussed. We, are not yet a we, as in "we the people". We are an it. "It, the public". An apology is due to newbies that have become interested in 9-11 by the repeated lawless behaviors of government. If experienced and sincere truth gardeners heed this message and provide this perspective to the public along with the best information they can present with discussion, it'll be good.
Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence are "MISINFORMATION" and are a great distracter/divider of the 9-11 truth seeking movement. They can be systematically be intentionally debunked making the entire search for 9-11 truth marginalized, repeatedly.
Then the resident shill makes a humorus and true observation :
Then the resident shill makes a humorus and true observation :
You're a weed in your own garden
As it seems your standard is for everyone except you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...1&mesg_id=50621
I guess that is the sort of distortion you have to resort to when you have zero evidence for your argument of steel core columns.
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns not seen in this image?
And all of the others?
QUOTE
Please Don't Water The Weeds In The Garden Of Truth.
Discussing unimportant, irrelevant information in the 9-11 truth search is like watering weeds in the garden of truth.
Another factor is that there are many seeds in the 9-11 garden of truth. Many weeds have been planted and the dark gardeners of secrecy beg for water for their crop of distraction, so their prodigy may grow and over shadow the truth.
To NOT know the difference between what is productive discussion and what is not, is a sin of omission in the garden of truth, and fantastic indulgence in the sensational.
There are 2 major areas of unimportant irrelevant information.
1. Issues that depend on accountability of government.
2. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence.
Issues that depend on accountable government are important, but not now, because we have not yet created an accountable government. Those issues need to be preserved but not discussed. We, are not yet a we, as in "we the people". We are an it. "It, the public". An apology is due to newbies that have become interested in 9-11 by the repeated lawless behaviors of government. If experienced and sincere truth gardeners heed this message and provide this perspective to the public along with the best information they can present with discussion, it'll be good.
Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence are "MISINFORMATION" and are a great distracter/divider of the 9-11 truth seeking movement. They can be systematically be intentionally debunked making the entire search for 9-11 truth marginalized, repeatedly.
Then the resident shill makes a humorus and true observation :
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Please Don't Water The Weeds In The Garden Of Truth. Discussing unimportant, irrelevant information in the 9-11 truth search is like watering weeds in the garden of truth. Another factor is that there are many seeds in the 9-11 garden of truth. Many weeds have been planted and the dark gardeners of secrecy beg for water for their crop of distraction, so their prodigy may grow and over shadow the truth. To NOT know the difference between what is productive discussion and what is not, is a sin of omission in the garden of truth, and fantastic indulgence in the sensational. There are 2 major areas of unimportant irrelevant information. 1. Issues that depend on accountability of government. 2. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence. Issues that depend on accountable government are important, but not now, because we have not yet created an accountable government. Those issues need to be preserved but not discussed. We, are not yet a we, as in "we the people". We are an it. "It, the public". An apology is due to newbies that have become interested in 9-11 by the repeated lawless behaviors of government. If experienced and sincere truth gardeners heed this message and provide this perspective to the public along with the best information they can present with discussion, it'll be good. Issues that lack established feasibility/credibility within raw evidence are "MISINFORMATION" and are a great distracter/divider of the 9-11 truth seeking movement. They can be systematically be intentionally debunked making the entire search for 9-11 truth marginalized, repeatedly. |
Then the resident shill makes a humorus and true observation :
You're a weed in your own garden
As it seems your standard is for everyone except you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...1&mesg_id=50621
I guess that is the sort of distortion you have to resort to when you have zero evidence for your argument of steel core columns.
Why are none of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns not seen in this image?
And all of the others?
E-mail sent to SHOWBIZTONIGHTCNN.COM
A ray of light has finally been allowed, to fall on the opaque events of 9/11. Only pornography commands more attention, on the web. If you drop a brick off the roof of WTC 1, it takes around 9 sec. to hit the ground. It doesn't hit or have to destroy anything on the way down. The entire building, designed with redundant systems to resist collapsing, took 10-12 sec. Just one, of the many technical problems, bothering many people, about the course of events on that day.
This is the biggest story of our time and yet it's kept shackled in the attic. I think it has legs. Let it walk. AS soon as you do; Engineers, Scientist and Professors, afraid of being on the bleeding edge of disclosure, might reconsider in the light of the Fourth Estate's rebirth.
A ray of light has finally been allowed, to fall on the opaque events of 9/11. Only pornography commands more attention, on the web. If you drop a brick off the roof of WTC 1, it takes around 9 sec. to hit the ground. It doesn't hit or have to destroy anything on the way down. The entire building, designed with redundant systems to resist collapsing, took 10-12 sec. Just one, of the many technical problems, bothering many people, about the course of events on that day.
This is the biggest story of our time and yet it's kept shackled in the attic. I think it has legs. Let it walk. AS soon as you do; Engineers, Scientist and Professors, afraid of being on the bleeding edge of disclosure, might reconsider in the light of the Fourth Estate's rebirth.
yesitdid,
You're partly correct that times have changed and people can speak out a little more than a few years back, but don't you think that might have a little to do with the fact that your fearless leader has been slipping so much in the poles, that more people are feeling less afraid to be a little more honest?
And yes, it's very common for people to put little bush in his place for all the abominations of the Iraq war, however speaking the truth, with intelligence regarding 9/11 is a serious no-no on the main stream media. Remember Steve Jones? You don't see much of him on Fox News.
Even you gotta admit that the only thing acceptable regarding information on 9/11 are meaningless repetitious BS fairy tales put out by the government, that only airheads believe in such as that a man in a cave suspended the laws of physics and made the impossible happen, IE; 3 buildings collapse from fires. 2 of which only burned for about an hour.
So the thing that takes a little guts is speaking with intelligence regarding 9/11, as that is something the government has been frowning upon for the past 4 1/2 years.
I'm sure you'd prefer the Britney Spears types that just go along with the governmental fairy tale and do nothing more than repeat the same old BS story time and time again, but there are some people with an intellect out there who appreciate a little critical thinking now and then.
So lets give it a big hooray for a famous actor using some brains and critical thinking, which by the way puts to shame all the idiots who've been promoting the governmental fairy tale.
You're partly correct that times have changed and people can speak out a little more than a few years back, but don't you think that might have a little to do with the fact that your fearless leader has been slipping so much in the poles, that more people are feeling less afraid to be a little more honest?
And yes, it's very common for people to put little bush in his place for all the abominations of the Iraq war, however speaking the truth, with intelligence regarding 9/11 is a serious no-no on the main stream media. Remember Steve Jones? You don't see much of him on Fox News.
Even you gotta admit that the only thing acceptable regarding information on 9/11 are meaningless repetitious BS fairy tales put out by the government, that only airheads believe in such as that a man in a cave suspended the laws of physics and made the impossible happen, IE; 3 buildings collapse from fires. 2 of which only burned for about an hour.
So the thing that takes a little guts is speaking with intelligence regarding 9/11, as that is something the government has been frowning upon for the past 4 1/2 years.
I'm sure you'd prefer the Britney Spears types that just go along with the governmental fairy tale and do nothing more than repeat the same old BS story time and time again, but there are some people with an intellect out there who appreciate a little critical thinking now and then.
So lets give it a big hooray for a famous actor using some brains and critical thinking, which by the way puts to shame all the idiots who've been promoting the governmental fairy tale.
zoktoberfest
Good for you sir, it's good to see some signs of intelligence out there. Keep up the good work and continue in your quest of critical thinking, and remember the airheads can't go on forever
Good for you sir, it's good to see some signs of intelligence out there. Keep up the good work and continue in your quest of critical thinking, and remember the airheads can't go on forever
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a department of defense scientist. People who intuitively know that the attack was self imposed but miss the actual mechanism that triggered it. I am getting off topic a little but I have worked in this field all my life. I have two Harvard degrees and multiple death threats for my outspoken nature of the topic.
The attacks were orchistrated through mind control technologies.
I will not reveal all the secrets of the Soviet Union or the U.S. but research it yourself.
Since 1976, a system I worked on for the CIA called TAMI (thought amplification and mind interface) uses the hemisphere of satellites to create MKULTRA programmed assasins. We used these directed energy weapons against Saddam in 1992. View USA Today for his quote. Yes, this was a self directed attack on the U.S. by out of control elements to justify war, expansionism, and lock down of freedoms. It is all following the timeline as planned. Nobody will act or believe it because the science of psychological warfare is so advanced. So all we can do is watch it happen over the next 20 years.
The attacks were orchistrated through mind control technologies.
I will not reveal all the secrets of the Soviet Union or the U.S. but research it yourself.
Since 1976, a system I worked on for the CIA called TAMI (thought amplification and mind interface) uses the hemisphere of satellites to create MKULTRA programmed assasins. We used these directed energy weapons against Saddam in 1992. View USA Today for his quote. Yes, this was a self directed attack on the U.S. by out of control elements to justify war, expansionism, and lock down of freedoms. It is all following the timeline as planned. Nobody will act or believe it because the science of psychological warfare is so advanced. So all we can do is watch it happen over the next 20 years.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 23 2006, 05:08 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 23 2006, 01:22 AM)
I am new to PhysOrgForums (and I thought I had registered). Regarding the 911 Myths site, I was particularly struck by the analysis of Asif Usmani of the University of Edinburgh. This analysis, if correct, explains the collapse of the South Tower, simply by the uncontrolled fire.
That is a good site, check out these other two.
9/11 Facts not Fantasy.
Debunking 911
911 myths
and it looks like I will have to add the pictures of the damage WTC 7 did to surrounding buildings since once again the CT are pushing another falsehood, the lie that WTC 7 "collapsed into its foorprint"
seems these guys get every fact wrong.
That is a good site, check out these other two.
9/11 Facts not Fantasy.
Debunking 911
911 myths
and it looks like I will have to add the pictures of the damage WTC 7 did to surrounding buildings since once again the CT are pushing another falsehood, the lie that WTC 7 "collapsed into its foorprint"
seems these guys get every fact wrong.
Unfortunately for those spin-sites, no matter how much bullshit they scrape together they still can't explain away the suspension of natural laws necessary for 'gravity-driven' collapses of those three buildings to have taken place.
QUOTE (Radar Freak+Mar 23 2006, 08:23 AM)
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a department of defense scientist. People who intuitively know that the attack was self imposed but miss the actual mechanism that triggered it. I am getting off topic a little but I have worked in this field all my life. I have two Harvard degrees and multiple death threats for my outspoken nature of the topic.
The attacks were orchistrated through mind control technologies.
I will not reveal all the secrets of the Soviet Union or the U.S. but research it yourself.
Since 1976, a system I worked on for the CIA called TAMI (thought amplification and mind interface) uses the hemisphere of satellites to create MKULTRA programmed assasins. We used these directed energy weapons against Saddam in 1992. View USA Today for his quote. Yes, this was a self directed attack on the U.S. by out of control elements to justify war, expansionism, and lock down of freedoms. It is all following the timeline as planned. Nobody will act or believe it because the science of psychological warfare is so advanced. So all we can do is watch it happen over the next 20 years.
thanks for the view from the inside. you sound just like a good conspiracy theorist.
no one can tell the difference, eh?
well, thanks for dropping in, and 'we' welcome some fresh approaches to the increasingly massive concrete core and the one man shill brigade.
mind control. that's a pretty broad field. do people become total automatons when they are targeted by the control beam? how many people can be controlled at once? does the directed energy weapon trigger a preprogrammed response, or can it directly control a person's actions? do they remember?
honest questions from the march hare. i'm late.
The attacks were orchistrated through mind control technologies.
I will not reveal all the secrets of the Soviet Union or the U.S. but research it yourself.
Since 1976, a system I worked on for the CIA called TAMI (thought amplification and mind interface) uses the hemisphere of satellites to create MKULTRA programmed assasins. We used these directed energy weapons against Saddam in 1992. View USA Today for his quote. Yes, this was a self directed attack on the U.S. by out of control elements to justify war, expansionism, and lock down of freedoms. It is all following the timeline as planned. Nobody will act or believe it because the science of psychological warfare is so advanced. So all we can do is watch it happen over the next 20 years.
thanks for the view from the inside. you sound just like a good conspiracy theorist.
no one can tell the difference, eh?
well, thanks for dropping in, and 'we' welcome some fresh approaches to the increasingly massive concrete core and the one man shill brigade.
mind control. that's a pretty broad field. do people become total automatons when they are targeted by the control beam? how many people can be controlled at once? does the directed energy weapon trigger a preprogrammed response, or can it directly control a person's actions? do they remember?
honest questions from the march hare. i'm late.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 23 2006, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 23 2006, 12:42 AM)
Have you looked at 911 Myths? This site clarifies many matters.
gee. i disagree. i think that site is full of unmitigated spin and disinfo. you really should read this whole thread(as hard as i can imagine that might be, with all the mudslinging and repetition of nonsense) if you want to understand what really happened.
the towers were demolished. period.
i notice they don't touch the fall time or the symmetry of tower seven's demise. they 'debunk'(rebunk, i like to call it) the silverstein quote, but IGNORE what actually happened to the tower. ie. falling in 6.5 seconds, in it's footprint. NIST hasn't touched it, either. nor has FEMA. that's because the truth of tower seven is indisputable. if you ignore something, you needn't dispute it.
however, 'they' are the only ones ignoring it. 'we' are not.
Hey Newt, I've read your posts for a while now, and have been learning alot, I'm down. But I have slung some mud and I hope I didn't direct any your way, if so I apologize.
Hey Newt, I've read your posts for a while now, and have been learning alot, I'm down. But I have slung some mud and I hope I didn't direct any your way, if so I apologize.
i didn't notice any. no worries, anyway. i'm not totally defensless in the flame wars, it turns out, LOL!
let's feel sorry for the shills, instead. they have to go to hell and lick satan's scrotum for eternity.
Radar Freak ** representativepress **
You see what happens to the brain when people try to sell make believe theories about men in caves suspending the laws of physics. After a while it turns their little minds to mush.
Your better of trying to stick with the real world, where the laws of gravity don't change, and the laws of physics remain constant.
But I can see how it has turned some people into a a bunch of paranoid Schizophrenics’. I mean what kind of life's must they have thinking that fires can bring down steel frame high rise structures.
All those poor people working in office buildings in New York, Chicago, LA and other major cities with high rises. Every time a little fire breaks out or the see some smoke it must make them freak out and think the building will collapse within the hour.
Boy oh boy, you'd think all the insurance companies are gonna have to raise their premiums since they believe a few small fires can totally make high rise's completely collapse within an hour.
No wonder these guys are going off the deep-end.
And the same Schizophrenics’ also think that only little bush can save them from these disasters, when the guy can't even save himself from a pretzel
The good thing about being grounded in the truth is you don't have spend your life worrying about little men in caves having the ability to suspend the laws of physics, and you don't have to live in fear that the laws of gravity will change and take people by surprise and kill you.
When your grounded in the truth you can set your mind at ease and understand the problem isn't with the laws of physics, but there is a problem with a bunch of lying politicians, which has been going on since the beginning of this nation.
When your grounded in the truth you can understand that crooks and liars live in this nation, along with decent people who don't like to lie, steal and murder, and that's why we have prisons, but you don't have to live in fear that the sky is falling and the only one who can save you is a group of politicians who sold this country out a long time ago.
Radar Freak ** representativepress ** newton
How could newton be confused with a shill? Read newtons post's several times if you don’t understand them the first time.
gee. i disagree. i think that site is full of unmitigated spin and disinfo. you really should read this whole thread(as hard as i can imagine that might be, with all the mudslinging and repetition of nonsense) if you want to understand what really happened.
the towers were demolished. period.
i notice they don't touch the fall time or the symmetry of tower seven's demise. they 'debunk'(rebunk, i like to call it) the silverstein quote, but IGNORE what actually happened to the tower. ie. falling in 6.5 seconds, in it's footprint. NIST hasn't touched it, either. nor has FEMA. that's because the truth of tower seven is indisputable. if you ignore something, you needn't dispute it.
however, 'they' are the only ones ignoring it. 'we' are not.
Hey Newt, I've read your posts for a while now, and have been learning alot, I'm down. But I have slung some mud and I hope I didn't direct any your way, if so I apologize.
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 23 2006, 09:31 AM)
Unfortunately for those spin-sites, no matter how much bullshit they scrape together they still can't explain away the suspension of natural laws necessary for 'gravity-driven' collapses of those three buildings to have taken place.
JamesX, what is the problem? Must I post the words from the site here because you can't click on the links?
Stage one in establishing this claim is to calculate the actual time it took for the towers to fall, but dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse make this difficult.
Coming up with a final figure involves a degree of estimation, which is probably why the times you’ll find online range from 8.4 to 15 seconds..
The rate of free fall in a vacuum, at least, is easier to define. The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground.
Now we have a basis for comparison. If the towers really did fall completely in 8.4 seconds, then that would actually be faster than gravity, requiring some major additional force to push from above (or pull from below). We’ve seen it suggested that explosives created a “powerful vacuum”, for instance, but that’s not apparent from the collapse videos and images. Like this one, for instance.
Collapse
Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building? (And there may be rubble below that, and the building may be intact higher higher still). This suggests we should be looking at a collapse time greater than our 9.22 second freefall figure, not less.
How much greater? If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.
We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.
And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 13 seconds.
Recognising the disagreement over collapse times, some people say it really doesn’t matter. 15 or 16 seconds aren’t that much more than our 9.22 second freefall-in-a-vacuum rate. Before deciding whether you agree, keep in mind that the freefall calculation involves acceleration, and so a relatively small increase in time is enough to allow a major increase in the distance fallen; if the WTC were twice its height, for instance, the freefall time would only rise from 9.22 to 13.05 seconds.
Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate. Perhaps the question we really need to ask is how the towers fell so slowly.
"free fall speeds"
JamesX, what is the problem? Must I post the words from the site here because you can't click on the links?
Stage one in establishing this claim is to calculate the actual time it took for the towers to fall, but dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse make this difficult.
Coming up with a final figure involves a degree of estimation, which is probably why the times you’ll find online range from 8.4 to 15 seconds..
The rate of free fall in a vacuum, at least, is easier to define. The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground.
Now we have a basis for comparison. If the towers really did fall completely in 8.4 seconds, then that would actually be faster than gravity, requiring some major additional force to push from above (or pull from below). We’ve seen it suggested that explosives created a “powerful vacuum”, for instance, but that’s not apparent from the collapse videos and images. Like this one, for instance.
Collapse
Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building? (And there may be rubble below that, and the building may be intact higher higher still). This suggests we should be looking at a collapse time greater than our 9.22 second freefall figure, not less.
How much greater? If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.
We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.
And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 13 seconds.
Recognising the disagreement over collapse times, some people say it really doesn’t matter. 15 or 16 seconds aren’t that much more than our 9.22 second freefall-in-a-vacuum rate. Before deciding whether you agree, keep in mind that the freefall calculation involves acceleration, and so a relatively small increase in time is enough to allow a major increase in the distance fallen; if the WTC were twice its height, for instance, the freefall time would only rise from 9.22 to 13.05 seconds.
Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate. Perhaps the question we really need to ask is how the towers fell so slowly.
"free fall speeds"
And by the way JamesX, who do you think you are fooling by ignoring the point I made?: 
"looks like I will have to add the pictures of the damage WTC 7 did to surrounding buildings since once again the CT are pushing another falsehood, the lie that WTC 7 "collapsed into its foorprint""
"looks like I will have to add the pictures of the damage WTC 7 did to surrounding buildings since once again the CT are pushing another falsehood, the lie that WTC 7 "collapsed into its foorprint""
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 23 2006, 10:15 AM)
Hey Newt, I've read your posts for a while now, and have been learning alot, I'm down. But I have slung some mud and I hope I didn't direct any your way, if so I apologize.
i didn't notice any. no worries, anyway. i'm not totally defensless in the flame wars, it turns out, LOL!
let's feel sorry for the shills, instead. they have to go to hell and lick satan's scrotum for eternity.
Radar Freak ** representativepress **
You see what happens to the brain when people try to sell make believe theories about men in caves suspending the laws of physics. After a while it turns their little minds to mush.
Your better of trying to stick with the real world, where the laws of gravity don't change, and the laws of physics remain constant.
But I can see how it has turned some people into a a bunch of paranoid Schizophrenics’. I mean what kind of life's must they have thinking that fires can bring down steel frame high rise structures.
All those poor people working in office buildings in New York, Chicago, LA and other major cities with high rises. Every time a little fire breaks out or the see some smoke it must make them freak out and think the building will collapse within the hour.
Boy oh boy, you'd think all the insurance companies are gonna have to raise their premiums since they believe a few small fires can totally make high rise's completely collapse within an hour.
No wonder these guys are going off the deep-end.
And the same Schizophrenics’ also think that only little bush can save them from these disasters, when the guy can't even save himself from a pretzel
The good thing about being grounded in the truth is you don't have spend your life worrying about little men in caves having the ability to suspend the laws of physics, and you don't have to live in fear that the laws of gravity will change and take people by surprise and kill you.
When your grounded in the truth you can set your mind at ease and understand the problem isn't with the laws of physics, but there is a problem with a bunch of lying politicians, which has been going on since the beginning of this nation.
When your grounded in the truth you can understand that crooks and liars live in this nation, along with decent people who don't like to lie, steal and murder, and that's why we have prisons, but you don't have to live in fear that the sky is falling and the only one who can save you is a group of politicians who sold this country out a long time ago.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 23 2006, 06:56 AM)
yesitdid,
You're partly correct that times have changed and people can speak out a little more than a few years back, but don't you think that might have a little to do with the fact that your fearless leader has been slipping so much in the poles, that more people are feeling less afraid to be a little more honest?
And yes, it's very common for people to put little bush in his place for all the abominations of the Iraq war, however speaking the truth, with intelligence regarding 9/11 is a serious no-no on the main stream media. Remember Steve Jones? You don't see much of him on Fox News.
Even you gotta admit that the only thing acceptable regarding information on 9/11 are meaningless repetitious BS fairy tales put out by the government, that only airheads believe in such as that a man in a cave suspended the laws of physics and made the impossible happen, IE; 3 buildings collapse from fires. 2 of which only burned for about an hour.
So the thing that takes a little guts is speaking with intelligence regarding 9/11, as that is something the government has been frowning upon for the past 4 1/2 years.
I'm sure you'd prefer the Britney Spears types that just go along with the governmental fairy tale and do nothing more than repeat the same old BS story time and time again, but there are some people with an intellect out there who appreciate a little critical thinking now and then.
So lets give it a big hooray for a famous actor using some brains and critical thinking, which by the way puts to shame all the idiots who've been promoting the governmental fairy tale.
That's Polls, not poles unless Bush's numbers in Poland have been slipping.
The D.C.'s spoke out against war. They never even mentioned 9/11. They did so at a time when the population of the USA was largely behind the President in going to war.
When and if the so called 9/11 truth movement can actually come up with something concrete then there will be mention of it on mainstream news.
No, you don't see Jones on Fox and probably won't. Fox is very right wing. Right wing to the extreme and bordering on the nutjob right wing. That is ONE small segment of the mainstream news.
No, I don't , "gotta admit that the only thing acceptable regarding information on 9/11 are meaningless repetitious BS fairy tales put out by the government, that only airheads believe in such as that a man in a cave suspended the laws of physics and made the impossible happen". I thought that I had made it clear that I do not consider NIST or FEMA reports about 9/11 to be BS, or fairy tales and I have explained many times that a guy living in the mountains of Afgahnistan need not direct operations in the manner by which the Pentagon or Russian military HQ do.
I cannot stand Britney Spears.
Actors and musician, famous or not, simply lack the credibility to offer opinions on such things as the collapse of buildings. At least for me they do, if you choose to put stock in what Sheen says and claim it backs up what Jones says then that's your perogative I suppose.
You're partly correct that times have changed and people can speak out a little more than a few years back, but don't you think that might have a little to do with the fact that your fearless leader has been slipping so much in the poles, that more people are feeling less afraid to be a little more honest?
And yes, it's very common for people to put little bush in his place for all the abominations of the Iraq war, however speaking the truth, with intelligence regarding 9/11 is a serious no-no on the main stream media. Remember Steve Jones? You don't see much of him on Fox News.
Even you gotta admit that the only thing acceptable regarding information on 9/11 are meaningless repetitious BS fairy tales put out by the government, that only airheads believe in such as that a man in a cave suspended the laws of physics and made the impossible happen, IE; 3 buildings collapse from fires. 2 of which only burned for about an hour.
So the thing that takes a little guts is speaking with intelligence regarding 9/11, as that is something the government has been frowning upon for the past 4 1/2 years.
I'm sure you'd prefer the Britney Spears types that just go along with the governmental fairy tale and do nothing more than repeat the same old BS story time and time again, but there are some people with an intellect out there who appreciate a little critical thinking now and then.
So lets give it a big hooray for a famous actor using some brains and critical thinking, which by the way puts to shame all the idiots who've been promoting the governmental fairy tale.
That's Polls, not poles unless Bush's numbers in Poland have been slipping.
The D.C.'s spoke out against war. They never even mentioned 9/11. They did so at a time when the population of the USA was largely behind the President in going to war.
When and if the so called 9/11 truth movement can actually come up with something concrete then there will be mention of it on mainstream news.
No, you don't see Jones on Fox and probably won't. Fox is very right wing. Right wing to the extreme and bordering on the nutjob right wing. That is ONE small segment of the mainstream news.
No, I don't , "gotta admit that the only thing acceptable regarding information on 9/11 are meaningless repetitious BS fairy tales put out by the government, that only airheads believe in such as that a man in a cave suspended the laws of physics and made the impossible happen". I thought that I had made it clear that I do not consider NIST or FEMA reports about 9/11 to be BS, or fairy tales and I have explained many times that a guy living in the mountains of Afgahnistan need not direct operations in the manner by which the Pentagon or Russian military HQ do.
I cannot stand Britney Spears.
Actors and musician, famous or not, simply lack the credibility to offer opinions on such things as the collapse of buildings. At least for me they do, if you choose to put stock in what Sheen says and claim it backs up what Jones says then that's your perogative I suppose.
RepresentativeSchneibyPress ---
Your malarkey regarding free-fall / close to free-fall times has been gone over extensively on this thread. A few seconds doesn't change an explosive demo into a normal gravity driven collapse.
As I have pointed out numerous times before... arguing seconds is pointless (and a waste of your own time).
EVEN IF the buildings took 20 seconds to fall, that means they were collapsing at an average speed of 5 floors per second (60 feet per second)...1/5th of a second per floor to completely disintegrate the strutural integrity of an entire story consisting of 47 massive interior columns and 240 perimeter columns - which were as robust as the day they were installed, and completely uncompromised by structural damage and or fire (in the lower portion below the impact fire zone). Impossible... outside of additional energy imput, and according to the laws of physics... (resistance).
All of the speed-of-fall arguements presented by the 'debunking' sites you mention completely fail to address resistance and pretend that the buildings face vitually no resistance apart from air resistance.
I suggest you start at the beginning of this thread and read and understand all of it, before trying to restart the 'fall-times' argument again - which has already been soundly refuted.
Don't waste your time trying to sling that malarkey again... here. Try Roves forum, where you may have better luck.
Your malarkey regarding free-fall / close to free-fall times has been gone over extensively on this thread. A few seconds doesn't change an explosive demo into a normal gravity driven collapse.
As I have pointed out numerous times before... arguing seconds is pointless (and a waste of your own time).
EVEN IF the buildings took 20 seconds to fall, that means they were collapsing at an average speed of 5 floors per second (60 feet per second)...1/5th of a second per floor to completely disintegrate the strutural integrity of an entire story consisting of 47 massive interior columns and 240 perimeter columns - which were as robust as the day they were installed, and completely uncompromised by structural damage and or fire (in the lower portion below the impact fire zone). Impossible... outside of additional energy imput, and according to the laws of physics... (resistance).
All of the speed-of-fall arguements presented by the 'debunking' sites you mention completely fail to address resistance and pretend that the buildings face vitually no resistance apart from air resistance.
I suggest you start at the beginning of this thread and read and understand all of it, before trying to restart the 'fall-times' argument again - which has already been soundly refuted.
Don't waste your time trying to sling that malarkey again... here. Try Roves forum, where you may have better luck.
QUOTE (representativepress+Mar 23 2006, 10:30 AM)
And by the way JamesX, who do you think you are fooling by ignoring the point I made?:
"looks like I will have to add the pictures of the damage WTC 7 did to surrounding buildings since once again the CT are pushing another falsehood, the lie that WTC 7 "collapsed into its foorprint""
Pure semantics...reprehensiblepress
For all intents and purposes WTC 7 DID fall virtually into it's own footprint.
The minor damage to adjacent properties was insignificant and hardly worth consideration at all. Given the close proximities, (even considering 'demolition'}, it is almost miraculous how controlled that demo came off, and how little damage was done to adjacent properties.
But go ahead and post your pictures of the 'massive damage' done to adjacent buildings. We DO enjoy comedy on this thread.
"looks like I will have to add the pictures of the damage WTC 7 did to surrounding buildings since once again the CT are pushing another falsehood, the lie that WTC 7 "collapsed into its foorprint""
Pure semantics...reprehensiblepress
For all intents and purposes WTC 7 DID fall virtually into it's own footprint.
The minor damage to adjacent properties was insignificant and hardly worth consideration at all. Given the close proximities, (even considering 'demolition'}, it is almost miraculous how controlled that demo came off, and how little damage was done to adjacent properties.
But go ahead and post your pictures of the 'massive damage' done to adjacent buildings. We DO enjoy comedy on this thread.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 23 2006, 05:10 AM)
Radar Freak ** representativepress ** newton
How could newton be confused with a shill? Read newtons post's several times if you don’t understand them the first time.
that's the second time on this thread i've been put in the wrong 'car', LOL!
anyway, i'd like to point out that it was shortly after this post........
and then, shortly afterwards this.....
and then, shortly afterwards this.....
well. it's official.
the "anti-CT" platoon has identified the US patent office as a source of "kook disinfo".
that's a wrap folks.
they have also identified the reality that information can not only travel backwards in time, but can 'imprint' on the consciousness of artists.
this thread is getting very educational.
here's an idea, all you honourable protectors of truth who defend the government's right to hide everything from joe public. let this thread die, then. go away. leave it alone.
(here's a list, the honour roll, as it were, just to be clear:
common sense and his big band of sock puppets
reality check(no offence, mate)
arthur
coastal
yes it did)
it's like you're hanging out in an insane asylum, trying to explain to complete wigouts how crazy they are. okay, leave us alone to talk amongst ourselves. i dare you.
this was a wonder, because 'they' actually 'took the dare', bless their black hearts.
and there was this 'asymmetrical assault from an insanely oblique angle' that is also total tinfoil hat land, and yet, you can reach into your pocket(if you have american money in there), and verify the veracity of it............
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.
[sarcasm]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.[/sarcasm]
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 don't feel paranoid, at all. more like resolved to face reality, whatever it looks like, from whatever angle.
i think it's amusing that the implications of theoretical physics pretty much show that 90% of reality is completely unmeasurable, and exists only in number theory.
the gospel of thomas and the keys of enoch could fit quite well in an eleven dimensional reality.
you just never know. i at least, admit that.
anyway, i'd like to point out that it was shortly after this post........
QUOTE
US PATENT --4,717,343 --METHOD OF CHANGING A PERSON'S BEHAVIOR
US PATENT 5,270,800 --SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE GENERATOR
US PATENT 5,123,899 --METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ALTERING CONSCIOUSNESS
US PATENT 4,877,027--HEARING SYSTEM
US PATENT 6,011,991--COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD INCLUDING BRAIN WAVE ANALYSIS AND/OR USE OF BRAIN ACTIVITY
US PATENT 3,951,134 - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR REMOTELY MONITORING AND ALTERING BRAIN WAVES
US PATENT 5,159,703 - SILENT SUBLIMINAL PRESENTATION SYSTEM
US PATENT 5,507,291- METHOD AND AN ASSOCIATED APPARATUS FOR REMOTELY DETERMINING INFORMATION AS TO A PERSON'S EMOTIONAL STATE
i wonder what's in the 'patent pending' box?
US PATENT 5,539,705 - ULTRASONIC SPEECH TRANSLATOR AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
US PATENT 5,629,678 - PERSONAL TRACKING AND RECOVERY SYSTEM
US PATENT 5,760,692 - INTRA-ORAL TRACKING DEVICE
US PATENT 5,905,461 - GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITE TRACKING DEVICE
US PATENT 5,935,054 - MAGNETIC EXCITATION OF SENSORY RESONANCES
US PATENT 5,952,600 -ENGINE DISABLING WEAPON
US PATENT 6,006,188 - SPEECH SIGNAL PROCESSING FOR DETERMINING PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS USING A KNOWLEDGE BASE
US PATENT 6,014,080 - BODY WORN ACTIVE AND PASSIVE TRACKING DEVICE
US PATENT 6,017,302 - SUBLIMINAL ACOUSTIC MANIPULATION OF NERVOUS SYSTEMS
US PATENT 6,051,594 - METHODS AND FORMULATIONS FOR MODULATING THE HUMAN SEXUAL RESPONSE
US PATENT 6,052,336 - APPARATUS AND METHOD OF BROADCASTING AUDIBLE SOUND USING ULTRASONIC SOUND AS A CARRIER
US PATENT 5,270,800 --SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE GENERATOR
US PATENT 5,123,899 --METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ALTERING CONSCIOUSNESS
US PATENT 4,877,027--HEARING SYSTEM
US PATENT 6,011,991--COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD INCLUDING BRAIN WAVE ANALYSIS AND/OR USE OF BRAIN ACTIVITY
US PATENT 3,951,134 - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR REMOTELY MONITORING AND ALTERING BRAIN WAVES
US PATENT 5,159,703 - SILENT SUBLIMINAL PRESENTATION SYSTEM
US PATENT 5,507,291- METHOD AND AN ASSOCIATED APPARATUS FOR REMOTELY DETERMINING INFORMATION AS TO A PERSON'S EMOTIONAL STATE
i wonder what's in the 'patent pending' box?
US PATENT 5,539,705 - ULTRASONIC SPEECH TRANSLATOR AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
US PATENT 5,629,678 - PERSONAL TRACKING AND RECOVERY SYSTEM
US PATENT 5,760,692 - INTRA-ORAL TRACKING DEVICE
US PATENT 5,905,461 - GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITE TRACKING DEVICE
US PATENT 5,935,054 - MAGNETIC EXCITATION OF SENSORY RESONANCES
US PATENT 5,952,600 -ENGINE DISABLING WEAPON
US PATENT 6,006,188 - SPEECH SIGNAL PROCESSING FOR DETERMINING PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS USING A KNOWLEDGE BASE
US PATENT 6,014,080 - BODY WORN ACTIVE AND PASSIVE TRACKING DEVICE
US PATENT 6,017,302 - SUBLIMINAL ACOUSTIC MANIPULATION OF NERVOUS SYSTEMS
US PATENT 6,051,594 - METHODS AND FORMULATIONS FOR MODULATING THE HUMAN SEXUAL RESPONSE
US PATENT 6,052,336 - APPARATUS AND METHOD OF BROADCASTING AUDIBLE SOUND USING ULTRASONIC SOUND AS A CARRIER
and then, shortly afterwards this.....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| US PATENT --4,717,343 --METHOD OF CHANGING A PERSON'S BEHAVIOR US PATENT 5,270,800 --SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE GENERATOR US PATENT 5,123,899 --METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ALTERING CONSCIOUSNESS US PATENT 4,877,027--HEARING SYSTEM US PATENT 6,011,991--COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD INCLUDING BRAIN WAVE ANALYSIS AND/OR USE OF BRAIN ACTIVITY US PATENT 3,951,134 - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR REMOTELY MONITORING AND ALTERING BRAIN WAVES US PATENT 5,159,703 - SILENT SUBLIMINAL PRESENTATION SYSTEM US PATENT 5,507,291- METHOD AND AN ASSOCIATED APPARATUS FOR REMOTELY DETERMINING INFORMATION AS TO A PERSON'S EMOTIONAL STATE i wonder what's in the 'patent pending' box? US PATENT 5,539,705 - ULTRASONIC SPEECH TRANSLATOR AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM US PATENT 5,629,678 - PERSONAL TRACKING AND RECOVERY SYSTEM US PATENT 5,760,692 - INTRA-ORAL TRACKING DEVICE US PATENT 5,905,461 - GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITE TRACKING DEVICE US PATENT 5,935,054 - MAGNETIC EXCITATION OF SENSORY RESONANCES US PATENT 5,952,600 -ENGINE DISABLING WEAPON US PATENT 6,006,188 - SPEECH SIGNAL PROCESSING FOR DETERMINING PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS USING A KNOWLEDGE BASE US PATENT 6,014,080 - BODY WORN ACTIVE AND PASSIVE TRACKING DEVICE US PATENT 6,017,302 - SUBLIMINAL ACOUSTIC MANIPULATION OF NERVOUS SYSTEMS US PATENT 6,051,594 - METHODS AND FORMULATIONS FOR MODULATING THE HUMAN SEXUAL RESPONSE US PATENT 6,052,336 - APPARATUS AND METHOD OF BROADCASTING AUDIBLE SOUND USING ULTRASONIC SOUND AS A CARRIER |
and then, shortly afterwards this.....
well. it's official.
the "anti-CT" platoon has identified the US patent office as a source of "kook disinfo".
that's a wrap folks.
they have also identified the reality that information can not only travel backwards in time, but can 'imprint' on the consciousness of artists.
this thread is getting very educational.
here's an idea, all you honourable protectors of truth who defend the government's right to hide everything from joe public. let this thread die, then. go away. leave it alone.
(here's a list, the honour roll, as it were, just to be clear:
common sense and his big band of sock puppets
reality check(no offence, mate)
arthur
coastal
yes it did)
it's like you're hanging out in an insane asylum, trying to explain to complete wigouts how crazy they are. okay, leave us alone to talk amongst ourselves. i dare you.
this was a wonder, because 'they' actually 'took the dare', bless their black hearts.
and there was this 'asymmetrical assault from an insanely oblique angle' that is also total tinfoil hat land, and yet, you can reach into your pocket(if you have american money in there), and verify the veracity of it............
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
| QUOTE (newton+Mar 15 2006, 03:34 AM)
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.
[sarcasm]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.[/sarcasm]
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 don't feel paranoid, at all. more like resolved to face reality, whatever it looks like, from whatever angle.
i think it's amusing that the implications of theoretical physics pretty much show that 90% of reality is completely unmeasurable, and exists only in number theory.
the gospel of thomas and the keys of enoch could fit quite well in an eleven dimensional reality.
you just never know. i at least, admit that.
QUOTE (representativepress+Mar 23 2006, 10:26 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 23 2006, 09:31 AM)
Unfortunately for those spin-sites, no matter how much bullshit they scrape together they still can't explain away the suspension of natural laws necessary for 'gravity-driven' collapses of those three buildings to have taken place.
JamesX, what is the problem? Must I post the words from the site here because you can't click on the links?
Stage one in establishing this claim is to calculate the actual time it took for the towers to fall, but dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse make this difficult.
Coming up with a final figure involves a degree of estimation, which is probably why the times you’ll find online range from 8.4 to 15 seconds..
The rate of free fall in a vacuum, at least, is easier to define. The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground.
Now we have a basis for comparison. If the towers really did fall completely in 8.4 seconds, then that would actually be faster than gravity, requiring some major additional force to push from above (or pull from below). We’ve seen it suggested that explosives created a “powerful vacuum”, for instance, but that’s not apparent from the collapse videos and images. Like this one, for instance.
Collapse
Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building? (And there may be rubble below that, and the building may be intact higher higher still). This suggests we should be looking at a collapse time greater than our 9.22 second freefall figure, not less.
How much greater? If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.
We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.
And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 13 seconds.
Recognising the disagreement over collapse times, some people say it really doesn’t matter. 15 or 16 seconds aren’t that much more than our 9.22 second freefall-in-a-vacuum rate. Before deciding whether you agree, keep in mind that the freefall calculation involves acceleration, and so a relatively small increase in time is enough to allow a major increase in the distance fallen; if the WTC were twice its height, for instance, the freefall time would only rise from 9.22 to 13.05 seconds.
Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate. Perhaps the question we really need to ask is how the towers fell so slowly.
"free fall speeds"
BS caculations as usual. Just because these guys throw down impressive looking formulas and equations, it is just more spun sh*t. Believe your eyes, watch the footage again and again if you have to. None of these formulas the liars tout match the video evidence. It is too easy to prove these traitors wrong. Their desparartion to convince you alone implies guilt. I still can't beleive YID id still posting here after having his as* handed to him by Gordon a few pages back trying to pull the same crap. WATCH THE FOOTAGE, BELIEVE YOUR EYES. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ask yourself why certain posters are trying to convince you it is a pineapple.
NIST & FEMA Report
Yes, I understand. Because they say it true story you conclude that it must be true. Brilliant analysis you got going there. At least you put a lot of thought into it and decided that FEMA is an honest, trustworthy organization.
I guess all those thousands of poor people stuck in the Arena weren't really there and that it was all the media's fault, because FEMA is such a trustworthy organization they would never leave all those people stranded like that.
I know, maybe the whole problem is with the media, yeah that's it. Everything in Iraq is wonderful and nice and loving and friendly and that everything we see about the horror is only manufactured stories put out by the media. Yeah, that's it. In fact our great fearless leader even blamed the media for all that bad news about Iraq, and we know that Bush never, ever lies, so it must be the media.
And it's great how your so intelligent as not find any truth in any actor or professor like Steven Jones who disagrees with the stories told by little bush, as you have already concluded that the very fact they disagree with bush proves they are wrong.
Great deductive reasoning you got going there, sounds like you're fair and balanced. But be careful not to judge all the media, because you wouldn't want to insult Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, after all they too are part of the media.
Mighty impressive techniques of analysis you got going there. Instead of listening to what the guy had to say or reviewing his scientific findings or the methodology he used to reach his conclusions, just ask the people who are against him, yeah, that's it! Just ask his enemies what they think and that should be sufficient to properly decide whether the guy's statements are based on facts or not.
Mighty impressive!
JamesX, what is the problem? Must I post the words from the site here because you can't click on the links?
Stage one in establishing this claim is to calculate the actual time it took for the towers to fall, but dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse make this difficult.
Coming up with a final figure involves a degree of estimation, which is probably why the times you’ll find online range from 8.4 to 15 seconds..
The rate of free fall in a vacuum, at least, is easier to define. The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground.
Now we have a basis for comparison. If the towers really did fall completely in 8.4 seconds, then that would actually be faster than gravity, requiring some major additional force to push from above (or pull from below). We’ve seen it suggested that explosives created a “powerful vacuum”, for instance, but that’s not apparent from the collapse videos and images. Like this one, for instance.
Collapse
Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building? (And there may be rubble below that, and the building may be intact higher higher still). This suggests we should be looking at a collapse time greater than our 9.22 second freefall figure, not less.
How much greater? If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.
We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.
And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 13 seconds.
Recognising the disagreement over collapse times, some people say it really doesn’t matter. 15 or 16 seconds aren’t that much more than our 9.22 second freefall-in-a-vacuum rate. Before deciding whether you agree, keep in mind that the freefall calculation involves acceleration, and so a relatively small increase in time is enough to allow a major increase in the distance fallen; if the WTC were twice its height, for instance, the freefall time would only rise from 9.22 to 13.05 seconds.
Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate. Perhaps the question we really need to ask is how the towers fell so slowly.
"free fall speeds"
BS caculations as usual. Just because these guys throw down impressive looking formulas and equations, it is just more spun sh*t. Believe your eyes, watch the footage again and again if you have to. None of these formulas the liars tout match the video evidence. It is too easy to prove these traitors wrong. Their desparartion to convince you alone implies guilt. I still can't beleive YID id still posting here after having his as* handed to him by Gordon a few pages back trying to pull the same crap. WATCH THE FOOTAGE, BELIEVE YOUR EYES. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ask yourself why certain posters are trying to convince you it is a pineapple.
THIS is massive damage and it still stood.
It just gets better and better, comic books and folding dollar bills, mind control and explosives installed during construction and now 'formulas and equations" are just a 'spin'.
Lord , please grant the people in charge of the education systems in our great countries the wisdom to devise a better science and math curriculum so as to lessen the number of people who are as dumb as $hit in these areas.
Lord , please grant the people in charge of the education systems in our great countries the wisdom to devise a better science and math curriculum so as to lessen the number of people who are as dumb as $hit in these areas.
Nice YID, runnin' your mouth again and addressing everything but the facts. Bring something conclusive or go watch TV.
[QUOTE]Don't waste your time trying to sling that malarkey again... here. Try Roves forum, where you may have better luck. biggrin.gif
If you have any compassion, DO NOT send him to my forum. I WILL BREAK YOUR TOY! Let him get pummeled here for a while.
If you have any compassion, DO NOT send him to my forum. I WILL BREAK YOUR TOY! Let him get pummeled here for a while.
QUOTE
Guest_yesdidit
I thought that I had made it clear that I do not consider NIST or FEMA reports about 9/11 to be BS
I thought that I had made it clear that I do not consider NIST or FEMA reports about 9/11 to be BS
NIST & FEMA Report
Yes, I understand. Because they say it true story you conclude that it must be true. Brilliant analysis you got going there. At least you put a lot of thought into it and decided that FEMA is an honest, trustworthy organization.
I guess all those thousands of poor people stuck in the Arena weren't really there and that it was all the media's fault, because FEMA is such a trustworthy organization they would never leave all those people stranded like that.
I know, maybe the whole problem is with the media, yeah that's it. Everything in Iraq is wonderful and nice and loving and friendly and that everything we see about the horror is only manufactured stories put out by the media. Yeah, that's it. In fact our great fearless leader even blamed the media for all that bad news about Iraq, and we know that Bush never, ever lies, so it must be the media.
And it's great how your so intelligent as not find any truth in any actor or professor like Steven Jones who disagrees with the stories told by little bush, as you have already concluded that the very fact they disagree with bush proves they are wrong.
Great deductive reasoning you got going there, sounds like you're fair and balanced. But be careful not to judge all the media, because you wouldn't want to insult Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, after all they too are part of the media.
Newton
Regarding my little cute graphic with the men in straight jacket that included Newton, well the fact of the matter is I didn't mean any harm.
Never the less, I confess I'm only human and make mistakes and didn't really take a good look at Newton's posts, and unfortunately grouped him into the wrong car.
That was terrible of me to unfairly group him into a group of individuals who seem to support the fairy tale theory.
Therefore Newton, I apologize and hereby retract the post that improperly grouped your name in with the wrong people.
Please forgive me
P.S. I re-edited and corrected that mistake
Regarding my little cute graphic with the men in straight jacket that included Newton, well the fact of the matter is I didn't mean any harm.
Never the less, I confess I'm only human and make mistakes and didn't really take a good look at Newton's posts, and unfortunately grouped him into the wrong car.
That was terrible of me to unfairly group him into a group of individuals who seem to support the fairy tale theory.
Therefore Newton, I apologize and hereby retract the post that improperly grouped your name in with the wrong people.
Please forgive me
P.S. I re-edited and corrected that mistake
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 23 2006, 07:13 PM)
Nice YID, runnin' your mouth again and addressing everything but the facts. Bring something conclusive or go watch TV.
LOL
Seems to me that I did not bring up the topic of Charlie Sheen and I was responding as well to having words put in my mouth,(which statements such as 'you have to admit...' are an attempt to do) that I do not agree with.
Police your own people if you do not want digressions!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
Seems to me that I did not bring up the topic of Charlie Sheen and I was responding as well to having words put in my mouth,(which statements such as 'you have to admit...' are an attempt to do) that I do not agree with.
Police your own people if you do not want digressions!!!!!!!!!!!!
steve52, your characterization of me is so very far off base I simply cannot recognize myself in that description.
I hate Fox News, cannot stand the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. I believe that GWB will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents of the USA. I 'choose' not to believe Jones because I have read papers by several others whose qualifications are more relevant.
Am I supposed to believe you when you cannot even manage to keep straight who is on which side of this debate on this thread.
You are proving how much of a buffoon you are. Quit while you are only a little behind.
I hate Fox News, cannot stand the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. I believe that GWB will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents of the USA. I 'choose' not to believe Jones because I have read papers by several others whose qualifications are more relevant.
Am I supposed to believe you when you cannot even manage to keep straight who is on which side of this debate on this thread.
You are proving how much of a buffoon you are. Quit while you are only a little behind.
yesitdid, is this below a fair description of your position?
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm
QUOTE
Guest_yesitdid
I 'choose' not to believe Jones because I have read papers by several others whose qualifications are more relevant.
I 'choose' not to believe Jones because I have read papers by several others whose qualifications are more relevant.
Mighty impressive techniques of analysis you got going there. Instead of listening to what the guy had to say or reviewing his scientific findings or the methodology he used to reach his conclusions, just ask the people who are against him, yeah, that's it! Just ask his enemies what they think and that should be sufficient to properly decide whether the guy's statements are based on facts or not.
Mighty impressive!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.