QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 23 2006, 09:47 PM)
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.
YID, here's your big chance to put a muzzle on me. Please link to the footage of the collapse of WTC 7. There is plenty. In terms of physics, please explain to us: the accelerated fall time, the symmetry of collapse, and the behavoir of the structure during collapse. Please link to any PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of damage or fire. Please link to any and all diagrams indicating the 24 steel-beam core columns and 57 steel perimeter columns. I feel we should not include the firemens accounts since you continually dismiss them when analyzing the WTC 1,2 events.
Break it down frame by frame. I will do the same.
Please explain to us all, using the fire damage hypothesis, the collapse of this structure in such a disinct manner.
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.
YID, here's your big chance to put a muzzle on me. Please link to the footage of the collapse of WTC 7. There is plenty. In terms of physics, please explain to us: the accelerated fall time, the symmetry of collapse, and the behavoir of the structure during collapse. Please link to any PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of damage or fire. Please link to any and all diagrams indicating the 24 steel-beam core columns and 57 steel perimeter columns. I feel we should not include the firemens accounts since you continually dismiss them when analyzing the WTC 1,2 events.
Break it down frame by frame. I will do the same.
Please explain to us all, using the fire damage hypothesis, the collapse of this structure in such a disinct manner.
YID, Here's a few numbers for you that might be hard to spin.
Operation Afgani Freedom: 18,000 troops + 2-4000 Special Forces
Republican National Convention New York City, NY: 70,000 police + 8-12,000 private security forces.
Who are those you defend really afraid of?
Operation Afgani Freedom: 18,000 troops + 2-4000 Special Forces
Republican National Convention New York City, NY: 70,000 police + 8-12,000 private security forces.
Who are those you defend really afraid of?
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 23 2006, 09:06 PM)
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
i actually don't care what group i get grouped with, too much, anyway. but, thanks. i really think in these strange and trying times, i can't even trust myself 100%. how do i know my thoughts are even my own!? i mean, at some level everything we consider to be proven or real is built on assumptions. the very first assumption being that what you sense is 'real'.
i do assume they are for now, but i try to tread carefully with regards to who's who and what their motivations are, how polite or how right or wrong they are. i'm putting information into a big soup, hoping that the sludge will sink, and the cream will rise.
here's the kind of stuff i like.
tower seven fell in 6.5 seconds.
there were squibs.
there was molten metal.
evidence was illegally destroyed.
the blastproof fifteen million dollar office of emergency management was in tower seven.
if you fold a 1998 (666X3) twenty dollar american bill into an airplane, there is a 'mad' magazine type picture of the two towers burning, and on the back the pentagon burning. letters can be seen on one side reading 'american', and on the other 'united', the two airlines used in the attack. if you do the same fold to the five, ten, fifty, and one hundred dollar bills, you see similiar illustrations, except they show the towers going throughj a progression, the five showing intact buildings, the one hundred showing just a smoke plume.
the media ignored tower seven.
the 911 commission ignored tower seven.
FEMA could not explain the demise of tower seven.
NIST cannot explain tower seven.
planned implosion explains tower seven simply and perfectly.
disinfo is like the onion of truth. you peel off a layer, thinking you have uncovered 'the truth', but you have really only peeled off another layer of obfuscation.
anyway, peace to all, and to all a good night.
p.s. i never said i wasn't crazy, or that i don't find straight jackets highly fashionable.
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
i actually don't care what group i get grouped with, too much, anyway. but, thanks. i really think in these strange and trying times, i can't even trust myself 100%. how do i know my thoughts are even my own!? i mean, at some level everything we consider to be proven or real is built on assumptions. the very first assumption being that what you sense is 'real'.
i do assume they are for now, but i try to tread carefully with regards to who's who and what their motivations are, how polite or how right or wrong they are. i'm putting information into a big soup, hoping that the sludge will sink, and the cream will rise.
here's the kind of stuff i like.
tower seven fell in 6.5 seconds.
there were squibs.
there was molten metal.
evidence was illegally destroyed.
the blastproof fifteen million dollar office of emergency management was in tower seven.
if you fold a 1998 (666X3) twenty dollar american bill into an airplane, there is a 'mad' magazine type picture of the two towers burning, and on the back the pentagon burning. letters can be seen on one side reading 'american', and on the other 'united', the two airlines used in the attack. if you do the same fold to the five, ten, fifty, and one hundred dollar bills, you see similiar illustrations, except they show the towers going throughj a progression, the five showing intact buildings, the one hundred showing just a smoke plume.
the media ignored tower seven.
the 911 commission ignored tower seven.
FEMA could not explain the demise of tower seven.
NIST cannot explain tower seven.
planned implosion explains tower seven simply and perfectly.
disinfo is like the onion of truth. you peel off a layer, thinking you have uncovered 'the truth', but you have really only peeled off another layer of obfuscation.
anyway, peace to all, and to all a good night.
p.s. i never said i wasn't crazy, or that i don't find straight jackets highly fashionable.
newton,
Great post and it sounds like you gotta great attitude. I think what happens at times is all the confusing and changing user names and such, like Guest_yesididit and on and on that it's easy to forget who you're talking to.
But now I know, Newton is the reasonably intelligent, honest and straight forward guy, not the anti-common sense fairy tale supporter.
And yes there are probably many interesting types of things going on such as the folding of the $20. bill. Yeah it gives the bush whackers ammunition they can use to call us tin foil hat people, but look at them, trying to sell the public on a magician in a cave suspending the laws of gravity and physics on 9/11 so that 3 buildings did the IMPOSSIBLE.
In either case, I have no idea why the $20. folds up into an appearance of the twin towers burning, but it does, and anybody who says it doesn't is blind.
Is it a strange coincidence? Maybe, I have no idea and I don't make a case to prove what did or did not happen on 9/11 based on a strange occurrence in the fold of a $20. bill, however it is interesting, only God knows why.
In either case, keep up the good work and continue to put the fairy tale believers in their place by showing them true facts, logic, and real scientific physics.
Good job
Great post and it sounds like you gotta great attitude. I think what happens at times is all the confusing and changing user names and such, like Guest_yesididit and on and on that it's easy to forget who you're talking to.
But now I know, Newton is the reasonably intelligent, honest and straight forward guy, not the anti-common sense fairy tale supporter.
And yes there are probably many interesting types of things going on such as the folding of the $20. bill. Yeah it gives the bush whackers ammunition they can use to call us tin foil hat people, but look at them, trying to sell the public on a magician in a cave suspending the laws of gravity and physics on 9/11 so that 3 buildings did the IMPOSSIBLE.
In either case, I have no idea why the $20. folds up into an appearance of the twin towers burning, but it does, and anybody who says it doesn't is blind.
Is it a strange coincidence? Maybe, I have no idea and I don't make a case to prove what did or did not happen on 9/11 based on a strange occurrence in the fold of a $20. bill, however it is interesting, only God knows why.
In either case, keep up the good work and continue to put the fairy tale believers in their place by showing them true facts, logic, and real scientific physics.
Good job
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 23 2006, 10:18 PM)
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!
Jaysus eech Krist do you have to work at putting words into other people's mouths or does it come naturally..
I have also read Jones' position as well (and Hoffman's) as well.
Happy??
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 23 2006, 10:44 PM)
YID, Here's a few numbers for you that might be hard to spin.
Operation Afgani Freedom: 18,000 troops + 2-4000 Special Forces
Republican National Convention New York City, NY: 70,000 police + 8-12,000 private security forces.
Who are those you defend really afraid of?
,,,,,, and this has what to do with the theory that 9/11 events included explosive demolitions??
Besides which I just stated a few posts ago, that I consider George W.Bush as one of the worst Presidents of the USA in history. Just what makes you say that I have in any way defended him or any of his coterie of neo-cons?
Frankly your numbers illustrate what I have said elsewhere, that Rumsfeld is an idiot, a politician in charge of the military who will not listen to experienced military planners. That is one reason (note that bold and underlining so that none of you who have trouble with reading comprehension will come back and say that I stated that it is the only reason) why the USA is in such trouble in Iraq
Operation Afgani Freedom: 18,000 troops + 2-4000 Special Forces
Republican National Convention New York City, NY: 70,000 police + 8-12,000 private security forces.
Who are those you defend really afraid of?
,,,,,, and this has what to do with the theory that 9/11 events included explosive demolitions??
Besides which I just stated a few posts ago, that I consider George W.Bush as one of the worst Presidents of the USA in history. Just what makes you say that I have in any way defended him or any of his coterie of neo-cons?
Frankly your numbers illustrate what I have said elsewhere, that Rumsfeld is an idiot, a politician in charge of the military who will not listen to experienced military planners. That is one reason (note that bold and underlining so that none of you who have trouble with reading comprehension will come back and say that I stated that it is the only reason) why the USA is in such trouble in Iraq
QUOTE
posted by newton
if you fold a 1998 (666X3) twenty dollar american bill into an airplane, there is a 'mad' magazine type picture of the two towers burning, and on the back the pentagon burning. letters can be seen on one side reading 'american', and on the other 'united', the two airlines used in the attack. if you do the same fold to the five, ten, fifty, and one hundred dollar bills, you see similiar illustrations, except they show the towers going throughj a progression, the five showing intact buildings, the one hundred showing just a smoke plume.
if you fold a 1998 (666X3) twenty dollar american bill into an airplane, there is a 'mad' magazine type picture of the two towers burning, and on the back the pentagon burning. letters can be seen on one side reading 'american', and on the other 'united', the two airlines used in the attack. if you do the same fold to the five, ten, fifty, and one hundred dollar bills, you see similiar illustrations, except they show the towers going throughj a progression, the five showing intact buildings, the one hundred showing just a smoke plume.
AAAhhahahah, stop you're killing me.
Perhaps you think that posting such idiocy will cause people such as me to keel over laughing so hard that we will suffer a fatal heart attack and thus you will reduce the number of persons opposed to your position re: the 9/11 events.
That, and simple , pure entertainment are the only reason I can think of that you might post that.
Hey, go to the 'wing dings' fonts on your Windows computer and enter 911.
oooooh, scarey boys a girls, you get an image of an aircraft and two buildiing towers................
CNN Quickvote poll:
Click here to vote:
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
Scroll down left side:
QUICKVOTE
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
Results so far:
EDIT
The vote is now at:
64% Yes 988 votes
36% No 565 votes
Click here for live results:
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
Click here to vote:
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
Scroll down left side:
QUICKVOTE
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
Results so far:
EDIT
The vote is now at:
64% Yes 988 votes
36% No 565 votes
Click here for live results:
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
Is it true that Boeing 767's carry Onboard Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS)?
NF
NF
And does anyone know how much diesel fuel was stored under WTC 1 & 2.
And how much diesel was on the roof of WTC 5?
The data I have seen suggest at least 10,000 kg in each case.....
NF
And how much diesel was on the roof of WTC 5?
The data I have seen suggest at least 10,000 kg in each case.....
NF
Thanks for suggesting both "911 Facts, not Fantasy" and "Debunking 911". Of particular use was the pictures of the Windsor Center building fire results: destroyed steel structure, intact concrete structure. It was also helpful to point out that for at least one of WTC 1 or 2, the fall was considerably slower than free-fall.
This last point does not matter much for WTC 1 & 2. On 911 Hypothesis in the topic marked "Update" there is quite a thorough analysis of the timing via a study of the energetics involved. The moderator, no friend of the standard 'A' hypothesis, i.e., that airplanes alone sufficed, agreed that the timing of the collapses gave support neither to the A hypothesis nor to the D hypothesis, that demolition charges were also employed.
Somewhere earlier that was a post by somebody stating, as I recall it, that (1) there was no fire as the fires had gone out and (2) there was 'molten metal'. Don't you find (1) and (2) together to be rather contradictory? What causes YOU to conclude that the fires had gone out -- pictures I have seen clearly show flames coming out of a window. You'll find these from the site listed above by following some link or other. What causes YOU to conclude that what you see in various clips is molten metal? I ask, since it might be something else which is approximately a blackbody radiator at a temperature of about 1000--3000K.
This last point does not matter much for WTC 1 & 2. On 911 Hypothesis in the topic marked "Update" there is quite a thorough analysis of the timing via a study of the energetics involved. The moderator, no friend of the standard 'A' hypothesis, i.e., that airplanes alone sufficed, agreed that the timing of the collapses gave support neither to the A hypothesis nor to the D hypothesis, that demolition charges were also employed.
Somewhere earlier that was a post by somebody stating, as I recall it, that (1) there was no fire as the fires had gone out and (2) there was 'molten metal'. Don't you find (1) and (2) together to be rather contradictory? What causes YOU to conclude that the fires had gone out -- pictures I have seen clearly show flames coming out of a window. You'll find these from the site listed above by following some link or other. What causes YOU to conclude that what you see in various clips is molten metal? I ask, since it might be something else which is approximately a blackbody radiator at a temperature of about 1000--3000K.
Guest
Good job showing the stuff on Sheen, including the latest polls. Maybe there's more people with intelligence than we were led to believe.
Good job showing the stuff on Sheen, including the latest polls. Maybe there's more people with intelligence than we were led to believe.
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 23 2006, 03:59 AM)
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..
Thanks, we needed an alternative appraisal of the many fine elements and just how necessary it is to have maybe a hundred or so to see something so fine at that distance. Some are actually pixelated out.
You must have missed the post with the scale item.
The above is an image showing a 14 thick interior box column near the corner and outside the steel reinforced concrete shear wall. Viewed from the side it is wider. It was taken with the same camera perhaps 1 second before the REBAR
The opposite side looks like this and the interior box columns can be seen silhouetted against the concrete shear wall behind it.
Somewhere earlier that was a post by somebody stating, as I recall it, that (1) there was no fire as the fires had gone out and (2) there was 'molten metal'. Don't you find (1) and (2) together to be rather contradictory? What causes YOU to conclude that the fires had gone out -- pictures I have seen clearly show flames coming out of a window. You'll find these from the site listed above by following some link or other. What causes YOU to conclude that what you see in various clips is molten metal? I ask, since it might be something else which is approximately a blackbody radiator at a temperature of about 1000--3000K.
Why don't you read the previous posts in this thread before asking these questions? Why do you not use the search facility to locate the answers to these questions, all of which have been covered before?
Why don't you do the research yourself? There are many sites giving detailed responses to your questions.
If after reading the previous posts, you have further points to raise or questions to ask, then I and I believe many others will feel more inclined to engage you.
What you are asking at the moment is for us all to replay those discussions yet again, but a quick look through recent posts will inform you that the discussion in this forum has long since moved to a higher level.
The way it looks at the moment, you are simply playing the straight man.
As regards your "de-bunking sites" there are some questions which you may like to ask them which will show the difference between their levels of analysis and the analysis on this thread.
Has Dr Greening's report been modified to reflect his new knowledge regarding the strain energy capacity of the building?
Do any of these sites make mention of the disassociated corner sections?
Do any of these sites match the detailed analysis and timeline for the fires, as given by Foxx?
What is Pyrocool and for what specific type of fire was it developed?
I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture.
Gordon.
Why don't you read the previous posts in this thread before asking these questions? Why do you not use the search facility to locate the answers to these questions, all of which have been covered before?
Why don't you do the research yourself? There are many sites giving detailed responses to your questions.
If after reading the previous posts, you have further points to raise or questions to ask, then I and I believe many others will feel more inclined to engage you.
What you are asking at the moment is for us all to replay those discussions yet again, but a quick look through recent posts will inform you that the discussion in this forum has long since moved to a higher level.
The way it looks at the moment, you are simply playing the straight man.
As regards your "de-bunking sites" there are some questions which you may like to ask them which will show the difference between their levels of analysis and the analysis on this thread.
Has Dr Greening's report been modified to reflect his new knowledge regarding the strain energy capacity of the building?
Do any of these sites make mention of the disassociated corner sections?
Do any of these sites match the detailed analysis and timeline for the fires, as given by Foxx?
What is Pyrocool and for what specific type of fire was it developed?
I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture.
Gordon.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2006, 05:13 PM)
And does anyone know how much diesel fuel was stored under WTC 1 & 2.
And how much diesel was on the roof of WTC 5?
The data I have seen suggest at least 10,000 kg in each case.....
NF
Who measures diesel fuel in Kg?
Do you have references or are you just making speculations?
And how much diesel was on the roof of WTC 5?
The data I have seen suggest at least 10,000 kg in each case.....
NF
Who measures diesel fuel in Kg?
Do you have references or are you just making speculations?
Has this been linked here yet:
Comparison of Demolition of Landmark Towers, Fort Worth, Texas, 18th March 2006 and Collapse of WTC 7 on Sept 11th 2001
The similarities are undeniable, and yet, according to the guy heading the NIST report, they don't know why WTC7 fell. They don't know, and yet they completely reject a method that can easily reproduce the observations.
According to this site:
http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.htm
work began on the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Oct 05. So it took 5 months of preparation for this building to collapse fast and straight down, in exactly the style WTC7 managed from supposedly completely random forces.
Also, as is clear in the Landmark video, explosives are set off, in a planned sequence, at ALL levels of the building. WTC7 supposedly had no organised removal of its supports and yet collapsed in an identical fashion.
Assuming that the WTC7 collapse was actually possible without explosives, what would the actual probability of it occuring be? What is the probability that uncoordinated, assymetric damages from different sources would mimic the speed and symmetry of a 5 month operation involving the use of explosives placed throughout the entire building (and, in all likelyhood, quite a bit of the support taken out prior to the demolition)? What are the chances? 1 in a million?
And some people here don't find it the least bit suspicious that a perfect implosion occured from random forces on 9/11 when it normally requires months of work and the energy input of explosives to achieve, and that none of their trusted experts can propose an alternate solution?
It's even stranger that these same people can accuse others of being idiots for recognising how low the chances are of random forces mimicking 5 months of expert planning and building-wide explosive energy.
Comparison of Demolition of Landmark Towers, Fort Worth, Texas, 18th March 2006 and Collapse of WTC 7 on Sept 11th 2001
The similarities are undeniable, and yet, according to the guy heading the NIST report, they don't know why WTC7 fell. They don't know, and yet they completely reject a method that can easily reproduce the observations.
According to this site:
http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.htm
work began on the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Oct 05. So it took 5 months of preparation for this building to collapse fast and straight down, in exactly the style WTC7 managed from supposedly completely random forces.
Also, as is clear in the Landmark video, explosives are set off, in a planned sequence, at ALL levels of the building. WTC7 supposedly had no organised removal of its supports and yet collapsed in an identical fashion.
Assuming that the WTC7 collapse was actually possible without explosives, what would the actual probability of it occuring be? What is the probability that uncoordinated, assymetric damages from different sources would mimic the speed and symmetry of a 5 month operation involving the use of explosives placed throughout the entire building (and, in all likelyhood, quite a bit of the support taken out prior to the demolition)? What are the chances? 1 in a million?
And some people here don't find it the least bit suspicious that a perfect implosion occured from random forces on 9/11 when it normally requires months of work and the energy input of explosives to achieve, and that none of their trusted experts can propose an alternate solution?
It's even stranger that these same people can accuse others of being idiots for recognising how low the chances are of random forces mimicking 5 months of expert planning and building-wide explosive energy.
I note several things about the Landmark.
1 ) the cutter charges are seen as bright flashs. Although eyewitnesses say they say some flashs at the WTC towers(no report of any for WTC 7 ) they do not show on any video I have seen. So it stands to reason that the cutter charges used in the Landmark must have been much brighter than whatever caused the flashs at the WTC. Yet any charges used to cut columns in the WTC towers would, by necessity, have to actually be larger than those in the Landmark since the columns would be heavier (in the first place) and not previously weakened as is common in true controlled demolitions such as the Landmark.
2 ) The charges that go off at the Landmark cause no ejection of debris.
3) at no time in the collapse of the Landmark does anything fall off and outrace the collapse of the building itself. It accellerates much faster than the WTC towers.
4) the charges , as I said before, cause no ejection of debris. Thus they have no contribution to the extent of the dust cloud. Neither would the charges add much in the way of heat so that dust cloud certainly would not be 'pyroclastic' ala Hoffman. Yet somehow that dust cloud at the Landmark manages to race outward and billow up. There is also a similar amount of dust (taking into account the smaller overall size of the Landmark compared to the WTC towers), this despite the Landmark having had all interior walls removed(no drywall), all furnishings removed and all windows removed.
So much for 'mimicry'.
Go back to folding your money newt.
1 ) the cutter charges are seen as bright flashs. Although eyewitnesses say they say some flashs at the WTC towers(no report of any for WTC 7 ) they do not show on any video I have seen. So it stands to reason that the cutter charges used in the Landmark must have been much brighter than whatever caused the flashs at the WTC. Yet any charges used to cut columns in the WTC towers would, by necessity, have to actually be larger than those in the Landmark since the columns would be heavier (in the first place) and not previously weakened as is common in true controlled demolitions such as the Landmark.
2 ) The charges that go off at the Landmark cause no ejection of debris.
3) at no time in the collapse of the Landmark does anything fall off and outrace the collapse of the building itself. It accellerates much faster than the WTC towers.
4) the charges , as I said before, cause no ejection of debris. Thus they have no contribution to the extent of the dust cloud. Neither would the charges add much in the way of heat so that dust cloud certainly would not be 'pyroclastic' ala Hoffman. Yet somehow that dust cloud at the Landmark manages to race outward and billow up. There is also a similar amount of dust (taking into account the smaller overall size of the Landmark compared to the WTC towers), this despite the Landmark having had all interior walls removed(no drywall), all furnishings removed and all windows removed.
So much for 'mimicry'.
Go back to folding your money newt.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 24 2006, 02:58 AM)
work began on the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Oct 05. So it took 5 months of preparation for this building to collapse fast and straight down,
So it took 5 month preperation to bring down the Landmark Tower a building that had been abandoned and the workers could work openly. How long would it have taken people working secretly to prep each of the Twin Towers which were much larger builldings?
So it took 5 month preperation to bring down the Landmark Tower a building that had been abandoned and the workers could work openly. How long would it have taken people working secretly to prep each of the Twin Towers which were much larger builldings?
I would like to know the names of any
1) WTC survivors other than Rodriguez and his 2 co-workers who publicly support the "controlled demo" theory.
2) First responders who were at the WTC site who support controlled demo other that that EMT who saw planes exploding over Jersey and the volunteer fireman from Pennsylvania who only got to Ground Zero after the towers collapsed. That "auxiliary" fireman guy doesn't count.
1) WTC survivors other than Rodriguez and his 2 co-workers who publicly support the "controlled demo" theory.
2) First responders who were at the WTC site who support controlled demo other that that EMT who saw planes exploding over Jersey and the volunteer fireman from Pennsylvania who only got to Ground Zero after the towers collapsed. That "auxiliary" fireman guy doesn't count.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 24 2006, 02:42 AM)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2006, 05:13 PM)
And does anyone know how much diesel fuel was stored under WTC 1 & 2.
And how much diesel was on the roof of WTC 5?
The data I have seen suggest at least 10,000 kg in each case.....
NF
Who measures diesel fuel in Kg?
Do you have references or are you just making speculations?
In the case of the towers deisel fuel is not the only flamable liquid. The underground parking levels would have had many vehicles with various amounts of gassoline, engine oil, brake fluid, power steering fluid and transmission fluid.
As far as measuring in kg, although unusual it is done in some circumstances tough I suspect the poster should have said liters.
Newt - I don't suppose you could upload some image to prove your case? If you have some 1998 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 dollar bills and access to a scanner it should be a simple matter. Alternately you could provide links to images on the Net.
If you can prove this I'll apologize, but otherwise that has to be the dumbest CTs I've ever heard, it even beats the one about the plane that hit 2 WTC really being a blue screen effect.
I guess the Illuminati did it!!
ROTFLMHO!!!
YID, here's your big chance to put a muzzle on me. Please link to the footage of the collapse of WTC 7. There is plenty. In terms of physics, please explain to us: the accelerated fall time, the symmetry of collapse, and the behavoir of the structure during collapse. Please link to any PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of damage or fire. Please link to any and all diagrams indicating the 24 steel-beam core columns and 57 steel perimeter columns. I feel we should not include the firemens accounts since you continually dismiss them when analyzing the WTC 1,2 events.
Break it down frame by frame. I will do the same.
Please explain to us all, using the fire damage hypothesis, the collapse of this structure in such a disinct manner.
NIST WTC reports, the one concerning WTC 7 is called appendix L. Has much that you ask for. Seems to me a diligent researcher would already have that though, but in case you missed it here http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf it is.
As far as firemen's accounts I believe that all I dismiss is only characterizations of loud noises as being 'explosions'. I do not dismiss the report of a small fire on the 78th floor but that is the absolute lowest impact floor in that tower and would have taken little of the aircraft impact or fuel. I dismiss the idea that a small fire there means little fire a few floors up.
I see you might wish to dismiss the firemen's accounts of creaking and groaning noises from WTC 7, the description of the fires and of the damage done by falling tower debris.
And how much diesel was on the roof of WTC 5?
The data I have seen suggest at least 10,000 kg in each case.....
NF
Who measures diesel fuel in Kg?
Do you have references or are you just making speculations?
In the case of the towers deisel fuel is not the only flamable liquid. The underground parking levels would have had many vehicles with various amounts of gassoline, engine oil, brake fluid, power steering fluid and transmission fluid.
As far as measuring in kg, although unusual it is done in some circumstances tough I suspect the poster should have said liters.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 23 2006, 11:33 PM)
QUOTE
posted by newton
if you fold a 1998 (666X3) twenty dollar american bill into an airplane, there is a 'mad' magazine type picture of the two towers burning, and on the back the pentagon burning. letters can be seen on one side reading 'american', and on the other 'united', the two airlines used in the attack. if you do the same fold to the five, ten, fifty, and one hundred dollar bills, you see similiar illustrations, except they show the towers going throughj a progression, the five showing intact buildings, the one hundred showing just a smoke plume.
if you fold a 1998 (666X3) twenty dollar american bill into an airplane, there is a 'mad' magazine type picture of the two towers burning, and on the back the pentagon burning. letters can be seen on one side reading 'american', and on the other 'united', the two airlines used in the attack. if you do the same fold to the five, ten, fifty, and one hundred dollar bills, you see similiar illustrations, except they show the towers going throughj a progression, the five showing intact buildings, the one hundred showing just a smoke plume.
Newt - I don't suppose you could upload some image to prove your case? If you have some 1998 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 dollar bills and access to a scanner it should be a simple matter. Alternately you could provide links to images on the Net.
If you can prove this I'll apologize, but otherwise that has to be the dumbest CTs I've ever heard, it even beats the one about the plane that hit 2 WTC really being a blue screen effect.
I guess the Illuminati did it!!
ROTFLMHO!!!
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 23 2006, 10:33 PM)
YID, here's your big chance to put a muzzle on me. Please link to the footage of the collapse of WTC 7. There is plenty. In terms of physics, please explain to us: the accelerated fall time, the symmetry of collapse, and the behavoir of the structure during collapse. Please link to any PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of damage or fire. Please link to any and all diagrams indicating the 24 steel-beam core columns and 57 steel perimeter columns. I feel we should not include the firemens accounts since you continually dismiss them when analyzing the WTC 1,2 events.
Break it down frame by frame. I will do the same.
Please explain to us all, using the fire damage hypothesis, the collapse of this structure in such a disinct manner.
NIST WTC reports, the one concerning WTC 7 is called appendix L. Has much that you ask for. Seems to me a diligent researcher would already have that though, but in case you missed it here http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf it is.
As far as firemen's accounts I believe that all I dismiss is only characterizations of loud noises as being 'explosions'. I do not dismiss the report of a small fire on the 78th floor but that is the absolute lowest impact floor in that tower and would have taken little of the aircraft impact or fuel. I dismiss the idea that a small fire there means little fire a few floors up.
I see you might wish to dismiss the firemen's accounts of creaking and groaning noises from WTC 7, the description of the fires and of the damage done by falling tower debris.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 23 2006, 08:19 PM)
I would like to know the names of any
1) WTC survivors other than Rodriguez and his 2 co-workers who publicly support the "controlled demo" theory.
2) First responders who were at the WTC site who support controlled demo other that that EMT who saw planes exploding over Jersey and the volunteer fireman from Pennsylvania who only got to Ground Zero after the towers collapsed. That "auxiliary" fireman guy doesn't count.
Are you related to Christophera by any chance?
Should a poll ( scientific of course) be taken of all the WTC employees to find out the reason for the twin towers collapse?
1) WTC survivors other than Rodriguez and his 2 co-workers who publicly support the "controlled demo" theory.
2) First responders who were at the WTC site who support controlled demo other that that EMT who saw planes exploding over Jersey and the volunteer fireman from Pennsylvania who only got to Ground Zero after the towers collapsed. That "auxiliary" fireman guy doesn't count.
Are you related to Christophera by any chance?
Should a poll ( scientific of course) be taken of all the WTC employees to find out the reason for the twin towers collapse?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 24 2006, 04:41 AM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 23 2006, 08:19 PM)
I would like to know the names of any
1) WTC survivors other than Rodriguez and his 2 co-workers who publicly support the "controlled demo" theory.
2) First responders who were at the WTC site who support controlled demo other that that EMT who saw planes exploding over Jersey and the volunteer fireman from Pennsylvania who only got to Ground Zero after the towers collapsed. That "auxiliary" fireman guy doesn't count.
Are you related to Christophera by any chance?
Should a poll ( scientific of course) be taken of all the WTC employees to find out the reason for the twin towers collapse?
Why not? Apparently some think that a poll of people who watched Charlie Sheen on CNN is relevant and the people that len wants the opinions of would, it seems, have much more relevant experiences than the comedic Mr.Sheen.
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..
Thanks, we needed an alternative appraisal of the many fine elements and just how necessary it is to have maybe a hundred or so to see something so fine at that distance. Some are actually pixelated out.
You must have missed the post with the scale item.
The above is an image showing a 14 thick interior box column near the corner and outside the steel reinforced concrete shear wall. Viewed from the side it is wider. It was taken with the same camera perhaps 1 second before the REBAR
The opposite side looks like this and the interior box columns can be seen silhouetted against the concrete shear wall behind it.
I sort of thought when that selectivity, intentionally erroneous, stating that the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is a 3 foot wide column was posted, then yessie did his math and showed another way of seeing 3" inches at 7500; he pretends that he did'nt know that there were 3 foot wide INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS a second earlier in the photo series and that I say another photo, rebar is 3 foot columns. Hmm, ... they work together to create confusion.
Of course when you do disinformation, you don't want to use real information, you play with nonsense and keep it social and hope ignorance of the information will make it go away.
Here is a photo of the South Towers fires (south side)...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig941.jpg
If I recall correctly the window openings were about 22 inches between the columns.
From the south side we see one fire at floor # 78 - see it right there between columns 426 and 428. Wow, it is really raging (as anyone can see) - it's about 2 feet wide ! )... I guess this was one of the 'spotty fires' that the fireman spoke of.
Now YID, reverting back to sophistry - claims... "Yeah, but the real 'raging infernos' were on the floors above... which the fireman couldn't see".
Care to point them out in the photo YID ? Let's see...
There's one that just flared up at 9:30 way up there on the 81st floor (between columns 432 to 436). Yep that's one whopping inferno that one... it's all of about 10 feet wide !!!
Or look, there's another 'inferno' on the 79th floor between columns 418 to 420...(maybe 5 feet wide) !!!
And look, there's another one in the southwest corner up on the 82nd floor (between columns 401 to 405)... another whopping 6 to 8 foot wide 'inferno'.
Darn lucky those firemen didn't get cooked alive with those raging infernos burning away above them. If you take the time to read NIST's amazing account of these steel buckling infernos in the document...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
... you will see just how absurd these fairy tales of raging infernos really are.
If I had more time at this moment, I would work right around the south tower on each face showing how ridiculous this 'emperors new clothes' story is, but I'll expose it all when I have finished my analysis.
For now... do yourself a favor, YID... and read the whole story and follow the timelines of these fires (how they flared up... and then died off within minutes), before singing the mantra that there were amazing hiding fires ravaging the steel in the building. How anyone can read this document... and then come to a conclusion that raging infernos brought down the south tower, is just beyond credulity.
You REALLY have to stretch your imagination to believe that the 'emperor is wearing clothes'... or that Amazing Hiding Fires (which are not hiding at all, but are right in the open for all to see) - brought those buildings down.
1) WTC survivors other than Rodriguez and his 2 co-workers who publicly support the "controlled demo" theory.
2) First responders who were at the WTC site who support controlled demo other that that EMT who saw planes exploding over Jersey and the volunteer fireman from Pennsylvania who only got to Ground Zero after the towers collapsed. That "auxiliary" fireman guy doesn't count.
Are you related to Christophera by any chance?
Should a poll ( scientific of course) be taken of all the WTC employees to find out the reason for the twin towers collapse?
Why not? Apparently some think that a poll of people who watched Charlie Sheen on CNN is relevant and the people that len wants the opinions of would, it seems, have much more relevant experiences than the comedic Mr.Sheen.
yesitdid, instead of having to rely on snide comebacks, I will calmly illustrate the tactics you just employed. From the "25 Rules of disinformation":
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Be advised, I will simply repeat point 5 every time you fling out an insult. If you can't debate like a sensible adult, then your arguements do not deserve that level of respect.
The problem with your arguments is, you pin everything on relatively minor differences when the main similarities are striking and inexplicable. Namely:
1. Both towers fell with a similar rate of acceleration. And I'm not even bringing WTC1&2 into it, which are fundamentally different types of collapse to Landmark/WTC7 (top down as opposed to bottum up). Explain how Landmark and WTC7 dropped at the same rate?
2. Both towers fell straight down. WTC7 actually fell straighter. Landmark achieved this straight fall through symmetrical, building-wide removal of supports. The damage to WTC7 was neither symmetrical or building-wide. And yet it disappeared into nothing in exactly the same fashion.
Your arguements about flashes and the dust cloud are easily explainable as features that could vary depending on the style of demolition. But what does not vary between demolitions is the need to remove supports throughout the building in a carefully planned and symmetrical way in order to achieve a fast collapse straight downwards.
lenbrazil - that is a circular arguement. You wonder how they could have possibly rigged the building. But the more difficult you make it for a demolition team to be able to get it right, the smaller the chance that localised, random, totally uncoordinated stresses could achieve the same effect.
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Be advised, I will simply repeat point 5 every time you fling out an insult. If you can't debate like a sensible adult, then your arguements do not deserve that level of respect.
The problem with your arguments is, you pin everything on relatively minor differences when the main similarities are striking and inexplicable. Namely:
1. Both towers fell with a similar rate of acceleration. And I'm not even bringing WTC1&2 into it, which are fundamentally different types of collapse to Landmark/WTC7 (top down as opposed to bottum up). Explain how Landmark and WTC7 dropped at the same rate?
2. Both towers fell straight down. WTC7 actually fell straighter. Landmark achieved this straight fall through symmetrical, building-wide removal of supports. The damage to WTC7 was neither symmetrical or building-wide. And yet it disappeared into nothing in exactly the same fashion.
Your arguements about flashes and the dust cloud are easily explainable as features that could vary depending on the style of demolition. But what does not vary between demolitions is the need to remove supports throughout the building in a carefully planned and symmetrical way in order to achieve a fast collapse straight downwards.
lenbrazil - that is a circular arguement. You wonder how they could have possibly rigged the building. But the more difficult you make it for a demolition team to be able to get it right, the smaller the chance that localised, random, totally uncoordinated stresses could achieve the same effect.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 24 2006, 01:46 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 23 2006, 03:59 AM)
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..
Thanks, we needed an alternative appraisal of the many fine elements and just how necessary it is to have maybe a hundred or so to see something so fine at that distance. Some are actually pixelated out.
You must have missed the post with the scale item.
The above is an image showing a 14 thick interior box column near the corner and outside the steel reinforced concrete shear wall. Viewed from the side it is wider. It was taken with the same camera perhaps 1 second before the REBAR
The opposite side looks like this and the interior box columns can be seen silhouetted against the concrete shear wall behind it.
I sort of thought when that selectivity, intentionally erroneous, stating that the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS is a 3 foot wide column was posted, then yessie did his math and showed another way of seeing 3" inches at 7500; he pretends that he did'nt know that there were 3 foot wide INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS a second earlier in the photo series and that I say another photo, rebar is 3 foot columns. Hmm, ... they work together to create confusion.
Of course when you do disinformation, you don't want to use real information, you play with nonsense and keep it social and hope ignorance of the information will make it go away.
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
As far as firemen's accounts I believe that all I dismiss is only characterizations of loud noises as being 'explosions'. I do not dismiss the report of a small fire on the 78th floor but that is the absolute lowest impact floor in that tower and would have taken little of the aircraft impact or fuel. I dismiss the idea that a small fire there means little fire a few floors up.
As far as firemen's accounts I believe that all I dismiss is only characterizations of loud noises as being 'explosions'. I do not dismiss the report of a small fire on the 78th floor but that is the absolute lowest impact floor in that tower and would have taken little of the aircraft impact or fuel. I dismiss the idea that a small fire there means little fire a few floors up.
Here is a photo of the South Towers fires (south side)...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig941.jpg
If I recall correctly the window openings were about 22 inches between the columns.
From the south side we see one fire at floor # 78 - see it right there between columns 426 and 428. Wow, it is really raging (as anyone can see) - it's about 2 feet wide ! )... I guess this was one of the 'spotty fires' that the fireman spoke of.
Now YID, reverting back to sophistry - claims... "Yeah, but the real 'raging infernos' were on the floors above... which the fireman couldn't see".
Care to point them out in the photo YID ? Let's see...
There's one that just flared up at 9:30 way up there on the 81st floor (between columns 432 to 436). Yep that's one whopping inferno that one... it's all of about 10 feet wide !!!
Or look, there's another 'inferno' on the 79th floor between columns 418 to 420...(maybe 5 feet wide) !!!
And look, there's another one in the southwest corner up on the 82nd floor (between columns 401 to 405)... another whopping 6 to 8 foot wide 'inferno'.
Darn lucky those firemen didn't get cooked alive with those raging infernos burning away above them. If you take the time to read NIST's amazing account of these steel buckling infernos in the document...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
... you will see just how absurd these fairy tales of raging infernos really are.
If I had more time at this moment, I would work right around the south tower on each face showing how ridiculous this 'emperors new clothes' story is, but I'll expose it all when I have finished my analysis.
For now... do yourself a favor, YID... and read the whole story and follow the timelines of these fires (how they flared up... and then died off within minutes), before singing the mantra that there were amazing hiding fires ravaging the steel in the building. How anyone can read this document... and then come to a conclusion that raging infernos brought down the south tower, is just beyond credulity.
You REALLY have to stretch your imagination to believe that the 'emperor is wearing clothes'... or that Amazing Hiding Fires (which are not hiding at all, but are right in the open for all to see) - brought those buildings down.
lenbrazil,
Here's a link to many of the eye witnesses that explosions were used, but in all honesty are you really interested in the truth?
Come on now think about it logically, what's that gonna do to your world when you face up to the cold hard facts that your government has been less than honest with you about what really happened?
If you really have the courage to go forward, just click here.
link to dozens and dozens of eye witnesses to explosions on 9/11
And by the way, here's the link to the Steven E. Jones report, that puts all the fairy tale believing, wanna be scientists to shame and disgrace.
click her for Steven Jones report
Remember this information is only for grown-ups.
Here's a link to many of the eye witnesses that explosions were used, but in all honesty are you really interested in the truth?
Come on now think about it logically, what's that gonna do to your world when you face up to the cold hard facts that your government has been less than honest with you about what really happened?
If you really have the courage to go forward, just click here.
link to dozens and dozens of eye witnesses to explosions on 9/11
And by the way, here's the link to the Steven E. Jones report, that puts all the fairy tale believing, wanna be scientists to shame and disgrace.
click her for Steven Jones report
Remember this information is only for grown-ups.
delete
Here is a photo of the South Towers fires (south side)...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig941.jpg
If I recall correctly the window openings were about 22 inches between the columns.
From the south side we see one fire at floor # 78 - see it right there between columns 426 and 428. Wow, it is really raging (as anyone can see) - it's about 2 feet wide ! )... I guess this was one of the 'spotty fires' that the fireman spoke of.
Now YID, reverting back to sophistry - claims... "Yeah, but the real 'raging infernos' were on the floors above... which the fireman couldn't see".
Care to point them out in the photo YID ? Let's see...
There's one that just flared up at 9:30 way up there on the 81st floor (between columns 432 to 436). Yep that's one whopping inferno that one... it's all of about 10 feet wide !!!
Or look, there's another 'inferno' on the 79th floor between columns 418 to 420...(maybe 5 feet wide) !!!
And look, there's another one in the southwest corner up on the 82nd floor (between columns 401 to 405)... another whopping 6 to 8 foot wide 'inferno'.
Darn lucky those firemen didn't get cooked alive with those raging infernos burning away above them. If you take the time to read NIST's amazing account of these steel buckling infernos in the document...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
... you will see just how absurd these fairy tales of raging infernos really are.
If I had more time at this moment, I would work right around the south tower on each face showing how ridiculous this 'emperors new clothes' story is, but I'll expose it all when I have finished my analysis.
For now... do yourself a favor, YID... and read the whole story and follow the timelines of these fires (how they flared up... and then died off within minutes), before singing the mantra that there were amazing hiding fires ravaging the steel in the building. How anyone can read this document... and then come to a conclusion that raging infernos brought down the south tower, is just beyond credulity.
You REALLY have to stretch your imagination to believe that the 'emperor is wearing clothes'... or that Amazing Hiding Fires (which are not hiding at all, but are right in the open for all to see) - brought those buildings down.
Apparently the rally of fire spam nonsense is a favorite chaff, filler, change of subject ploy.
Americans murdered and phoney truth seekers focus on the absurd ad nauseum.
default supporters of the AIR CORE, because they cannot provide support for the core they assert existed.
Wheras the information they want to go away is robust,
The evidence bears no support for the lie you promote fox but it does for a tubular, steel reinforced concrete core.
http://concretecore.741.com/
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 24 2006, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
As far as firemen's accounts I believe that all I dismiss is only characterizations of loud noises as being 'explosions'. I do not dismiss the report of a small fire on the 78th floor but that is the absolute lowest impact floor in that tower and would have taken little of the aircraft impact or fuel. I dismiss the idea that a small fire there means little fire a few floors up.
As far as firemen's accounts I believe that all I dismiss is only characterizations of loud noises as being 'explosions'. I do not dismiss the report of a small fire on the 78th floor but that is the absolute lowest impact floor in that tower and would have taken little of the aircraft impact or fuel. I dismiss the idea that a small fire there means little fire a few floors up.
Here is a photo of the South Towers fires (south side)...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Fig941.jpg
If I recall correctly the window openings were about 22 inches between the columns.
From the south side we see one fire at floor # 78 - see it right there between columns 426 and 428. Wow, it is really raging (as anyone can see) - it's about 2 feet wide ! )... I guess this was one of the 'spotty fires' that the fireman spoke of.
Now YID, reverting back to sophistry - claims... "Yeah, but the real 'raging infernos' were on the floors above... which the fireman couldn't see".
Care to point them out in the photo YID ? Let's see...
There's one that just flared up at 9:30 way up there on the 81st floor (between columns 432 to 436). Yep that's one whopping inferno that one... it's all of about 10 feet wide !!!
Or look, there's another 'inferno' on the 79th floor between columns 418 to 420...(maybe 5 feet wide) !!!
And look, there's another one in the southwest corner up on the 82nd floor (between columns 401 to 405)... another whopping 6 to 8 foot wide 'inferno'.
Darn lucky those firemen didn't get cooked alive with those raging infernos burning away above them. If you take the time to read NIST's amazing account of these steel buckling infernos in the document...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
... you will see just how absurd these fairy tales of raging infernos really are.
If I had more time at this moment, I would work right around the south tower on each face showing how ridiculous this 'emperors new clothes' story is, but I'll expose it all when I have finished my analysis.
For now... do yourself a favor, YID... and read the whole story and follow the timelines of these fires (how they flared up... and then died off within minutes), before singing the mantra that there were amazing hiding fires ravaging the steel in the building. How anyone can read this document... and then come to a conclusion that raging infernos brought down the south tower, is just beyond credulity.
You REALLY have to stretch your imagination to believe that the 'emperor is wearing clothes'... or that Amazing Hiding Fires (which are not hiding at all, but are right in the open for all to see) - brought those buildings down.
Apparently the rally of fire spam nonsense is a favorite chaff, filler, change of subject ploy.
Americans murdered and phoney truth seekers focus on the absurd ad nauseum.
default supporters of the AIR CORE, because they cannot provide support for the core they assert existed.
Wheras the information they want to go away is robust,
The evidence bears no support for the lie you promote fox but it does for a tubular, steel reinforced concrete core.
http://concretecore.741.com/
QUOTE (stallion4+Dec 17 2005, 12:45 AM)
YID, why do you ignore the statements from these people?
Damn I'm sorry I had to do that. It definitely hurt me worse than you guys. Spamming makes me want to go take a shower, but it had to be done. I apologize to all involved. Pretty interesting stuff, though.
- From THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Edward Cachia FDNY WTC2 explosions before collapse: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Link to quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...chia_Edward.txt
From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com:
Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"
Link to quote:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10...rin_deshore.pdf
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
- Eye-witness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York
Link to quote:
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...trical_supplys/
PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA:
Q. WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE? A. It was a frigging noise at first. At first I thought it was a professional demolition, where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear Pop Pop Pop Pop. That’s exactly what I thought it was when I heard that frigging noise. That’s when I saw the building coming down.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
Stephen Gregory , Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) flashes, explosions p 14
...I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
Member of the FDNY:
"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."
Video: http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov
Firefighter:
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK FDNY
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
FIREFIGHTER FRANK SWEENEY
I hear what sounded like firecrackers and a low rumble. I look up, and the south tower – I could see the top part of the siding overlapping the bottom side of the siding.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
MSNBC Reporter, Ann Thompson:
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.....explosions.wmv
Street Reporter:
"45 minutes into the taping we were doing, there was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv
Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv
Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower:
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
Video: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos...n_firehouse.mpg
Terror in the City, September 12 , 2001, Notes from Robert Ivy, FAIA Editor-in-chief
...we felt a rumble like faraway thunder and turned. The impossible was happening. The south tower of the World Trade Center shook, and in what resembled an elemental act, fell to earth in a mighty shout. The entire dissolution, the changeover from solid elements to ash, took only seconds, and it was gone...
Link to article:
http://www.archrecord.com/news/fromTheFiel.../0109terror.asp
An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks
from Neil deGrasse Tyson
The following is the text from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center. He is Director of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History, which is located in New York City. Neil also serves as The Planetary Society's Vice President...
From: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sent: 10AM, Wednesday, 12 September 2001
Subject: The Horror, The Horror
...4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion...
...6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first...
Link to Neil deGrasse Tyson's email:
http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advi...t11account.html
Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, Eyewitnesses tell of horror, BBC News
"...I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to BBC News Online.
"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.
Link to article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm
9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions
"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Source: "Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly," in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm
9/11 hero, William Rodriguez, who was the last person out of the north tower, explains that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower basement BEFORE the plane hit the tower:
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above... Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center.
"I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word.
"I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers."
Link to quotes:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28031.htm
September 12, 2001, New York City, People.com
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.
We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building....
Link to article:
http://prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm
NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson:
[Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv
"Apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time two planes hit the building that there... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time..."
- War Corespondent, Jack Kelley
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....jack.kelley.rm
MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez:
"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion...I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center, besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had an explosive device in it."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....explosives.wmv
“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
- CBS News anchor, Dan Rather, September 11, 2001.
Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
Excerpt from a radio interview with ground zero rescue worker, Indira Singh. She explains that she and others were told to move away from WTC 7 by members of the FDNY, because they were going to have to bring the building down on 9-11:
Radio host Bonnie Falkner: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?
Indira Singh: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
Bonnie Falkner: Did they actually use the word "brought" down and who was it that was telling you this?
Indira Singh: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."
The entire interview can be listened to at the link below. The excerpts from above can be found approximately 10 minutes into the interview.
Guns & Butter Radio interview w/ Indira Singh hosted by Bonnie Falkner - April 27th 2005:
http://tinyurl.com/7dww8
Excerpt from an article written by award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the world famous photo of firemen raising the flag at ground zero. He explains that ground zero was evacuated approximately 30 minutes before WTC 7 was demolished on 9-11:
"Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. I had only a few frames left, and an entire day's worth of pictures to develop, so I prepared to head back to New Jersey.
Before leaving, I took one last look at Ground Zero. Three firefighters were attaching an American flag to a slanted pole while standing on top of a pile of rubble about fifteen feet high. I was about thirty yards away, and I zoomed in and fired off a few frames with my digital camera. The flag-raising itself was spontaneous and unceremonious. It took only a few minutes, and I don't think the firemen had any idea they were being watched. One firefighter hoisted the flag up as the other two looked on. I shot a burst of frames as it went up, then ran to where they were. But before I could shoot any more they disappeared into the crowd leaving the area."
Link to article:
http://archives.cjr.org/year/02/2/franklin.asp
"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened"
- Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and co author of Why buildings Fall Down
Video: http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
"In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
[snip]
CONCLUSIONS
I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives and chemical-cutters. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.” It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.
A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed – and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.
[snip]
- Excerpt from BYU Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones' academic paper submitted for peer-review entitled, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Link to Prof. Jones' entire paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow
September 20, 2001
english.people.com.cn
Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged.
According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.
Link to article:
http://english.people.com.cn/english/20010...0920_80655.html
Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says
Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse
"It would be difficult for
something from the plane to trigger an event like that
"It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points
- Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and a major authority on the effects of explosions on buildings (Romero retracted his statements only days after making them, saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the buildings to fail.").
Original Link to quote
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm
Archived link of Romero's statements:
http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html
New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20284
Romero receives promotion soon after he recants his "bombs brought down the WTC" statements - January 11, 2002:
http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/11jan05.html
Romero appointed Co-Chair to the Presidential Advisory Commission:
http://www.yic.gov/paceea/adcom/bios.html
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
Damn I'm sorry I had to do that. It definitely hurt me worse than you guys. Spamming makes me want to go take a shower, but it had to be done. I apologize to all involved. Pretty interesting stuff, though.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 24 2006, 05:04 AM)
yesitdid, instead of having to rely on snide comebacks, I will calmly illustrate the tactics you just employed. From the "25 Rules of disinformation":
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Be advised, I will simply repeat point 5 every time you fling out an insult. If you can't debate like a sensible adult, then your arguements do not deserve that level of respect.
The problem with your arguments is, you pin everything on relatively minor differences when the main similarities are striking and inexplicable. Namely:
1. Both towers fell with a similar rate of acceleration. And I'm not even bringing WTC1&2 into it, which are fundamentally different types of collapse to Landmark/WTC7 (top down as opposed to bottum up). Explain how Landmark and WTC7 dropped at the same rate?
2. Both towers fell straight down. WTC7 actually fell straighter. Landmark achieved this straight fall through symmetrical, building-wide removal of supports. The damage to WTC7 was neither symmetrical or building-wide. And yet it disappeared into nothing in exactly the same fashion.
Your arguements about flashes and the dust cloud are easily explainable as features that could vary depending on the style of demolition. But what does not vary between demolitions is the need to remove supports throughout the building in a carefully planned and symmetrical way in order to achieve a fast collapse straight downwards.
lenbrazil - that is a circular arguement. You wonder how they could have possibly rigged the building. But the more difficult you make it for a demolition team to be able to get it right, the smaller the chance that localised, random, totally uncoordinated stresses could achieve the same effect.
Newtonnjd, good posts so far. If you go back through this thread you will understand a little better what is really going on. I don't mean to be cryptic, but just look for obvious tactics. Obviously, YID has been wearing his as* for a hat for quite a while now. I think we are in the spin cycle mode now.
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Be advised, I will simply repeat point 5 every time you fling out an insult. If you can't debate like a sensible adult, then your arguements do not deserve that level of respect.
The problem with your arguments is, you pin everything on relatively minor differences when the main similarities are striking and inexplicable. Namely:
1. Both towers fell with a similar rate of acceleration. And I'm not even bringing WTC1&2 into it, which are fundamentally different types of collapse to Landmark/WTC7 (top down as opposed to bottum up). Explain how Landmark and WTC7 dropped at the same rate?
2. Both towers fell straight down. WTC7 actually fell straighter. Landmark achieved this straight fall through symmetrical, building-wide removal of supports. The damage to WTC7 was neither symmetrical or building-wide. And yet it disappeared into nothing in exactly the same fashion.
Your arguements about flashes and the dust cloud are easily explainable as features that could vary depending on the style of demolition. But what does not vary between demolitions is the need to remove supports throughout the building in a carefully planned and symmetrical way in order to achieve a fast collapse straight downwards.
lenbrazil - that is a circular arguement. You wonder how they could have possibly rigged the building. But the more difficult you make it for a demolition team to be able to get it right, the smaller the chance that localised, random, totally uncoordinated stresses could achieve the same effect.
Newtonnjd, good posts so far. If you go back through this thread you will understand a little better what is really going on. I don't mean to be cryptic, but just look for obvious tactics. Obviously, YID has been wearing his as* for a hat for quite a while now. I think we are in the spin cycle mode now.
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
No 18% 1526 votes
Yes 82% 6947 votes
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
No 18% 1526 votes
Yes 82% 6947 votes
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
Team8+ is deeply shocked, that Michael Zebuhr, a graduate student in Bioengineering at Clemson University and most active student member of 911Scholars (http://tinyurl.com/jktp7 ) was killed on the weekend.
The official account says, that he was shot on the streets, for
no clear reason, during an attempted "robbery".
This older article below does not say, if the robberies in this area do usually end with some killings.
Maybe Michael Zebuhr is the first 9/11 truth hero who died for a noble cause.
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=121215
March 23, 3006
"...Zebuhr, his mother, sister and a friend were returning to their car when the robbery and shooting occurred. They had been dining out in the Calhoun Square shopping complex just across the street. Zebuhr's sister lives just a mile and a half from the popular uptown complex of restaurants and stores....
...The Uptown area is part of the south Minneapolis fifth precinct which has seen 100 armed robberies since the first of the year..."
Michael, a student in Judy Wood's class, was very active in promoting the truth about 911.
Prof. Judy Wood (Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University), a full member of the st911scholars explained:
"...I have an "extra" area on the class web page labeled, "current events (not required reading)." If the student clicks on that link, they go to another page where I have a list of 9/11 links. Mike wandered into this area on his own, and drank it up. A few weeks ago, he came to me, thanking me over and over again for making this available for students to figure things out on their own. Then Mike joined st911 (totally on his own)...
...Since then, Mike had organized a 9/11 student group on campus, had collected various 9/11 videos, and was in the process of arranging to have them shown on campus. Mike talked about 9/11 with everyone and anyone he met and had handouts to give them.
He was no fly on the wall...."
Mike was removed from Prof. Wood's class roll late on
Monday night, Immediately after he died.
When Wood got the system update
notification, she forwarded it Mike
(not realizing he would never get it)
asking what's up.
Judy Wood learned Thursday morning what happened!!
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/14163686.htm
Fund created for shooting victim
Thu, Mar. 23, 2006
A memorial fund was established Wednesday for the family of a college student slain during a weekend robbery in the Uptown area of Minneapolis.
Michael Zebuhr, 25, a Clemson University doctoral student, was walking with his mother and sister and another woman Saturday night on Girard Avenue South when robbers accosted the group, took the mother's purse and then shot
Zebuhr in the head...
...Also Wednesday, police were trying to determine whether three people arrested late Tuesday had anything to do with the murder.
At about 11 p.m. Tuesday, officers saw a car run through a red light on Pillsbury Avenue South. During a pursuit, officers saw three guns being thrown from the car. The weapons were later retrieved. The chase ended when the car crashed into another vehicle.
Police spokesman Ron Reier said Wednesday evening that investigators had not connected those arrested to the Uptown slaying....
Update:
Arrest made in graduate student murder (CNN headline)
Source: Prof. Judy Wood, image was inserted on TV...
911 Callers Traumatized By Uptown Murder
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_082213938.html
Mar 23, 2006 8:38 pm US/Central
"...Roommates Kang and Houlton were in their Girard Avenue apartment last Saturday when they heard gunfire on the street.
"I saw someone running away, though it was one person and so I can't say whether that was the perpetrator," Houlton said. "The minute we heard the gunshot, we ran onto the street and so did everybody else."
When the roommates and other neighbors saw how severely Zebuhr was injured, they sprang into action.
"There was a definite crowd of people," Houlton said. "It wasn't as though they were abandoned."
Many used their cell phones to call for help. 911 records show one caller said, "Brother shot in head ... not breathing."
Another said the caller saw two men in their early 20s, one wearing a Raiders jacket and the other wearing a red baseball cap. The two men then got into a white two-door car.
"It was dark enough, it was completely understandable to me with the darkness compounded with the trauma, makes it, it would make it hard to make an identification," Houlton said...
Three people being investigated in Uptown murder
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=121354
The official account says, that he was shot on the streets, for
no clear reason, during an attempted "robbery".
This older article below does not say, if the robberies in this area do usually end with some killings.
Maybe Michael Zebuhr is the first 9/11 truth hero who died for a noble cause.
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=121215
March 23, 3006
"...Zebuhr, his mother, sister and a friend were returning to their car when the robbery and shooting occurred. They had been dining out in the Calhoun Square shopping complex just across the street. Zebuhr's sister lives just a mile and a half from the popular uptown complex of restaurants and stores....
...The Uptown area is part of the south Minneapolis fifth precinct which has seen 100 armed robberies since the first of the year..."
Michael, a student in Judy Wood's class, was very active in promoting the truth about 911.
Prof. Judy Wood (Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University), a full member of the st911scholars explained:
"...I have an "extra" area on the class web page labeled, "current events (not required reading)." If the student clicks on that link, they go to another page where I have a list of 9/11 links. Mike wandered into this area on his own, and drank it up. A few weeks ago, he came to me, thanking me over and over again for making this available for students to figure things out on their own. Then Mike joined st911 (totally on his own)...
...Since then, Mike had organized a 9/11 student group on campus, had collected various 9/11 videos, and was in the process of arranging to have them shown on campus. Mike talked about 9/11 with everyone and anyone he met and had handouts to give them.
He was no fly on the wall...."
Mike was removed from Prof. Wood's class roll late on
Monday night, Immediately after he died.
When Wood got the system update
notification, she forwarded it Mike
(not realizing he would never get it)
asking what's up.
Judy Wood learned Thursday morning what happened!!
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/14163686.htm
Fund created for shooting victim
Thu, Mar. 23, 2006
A memorial fund was established Wednesday for the family of a college student slain during a weekend robbery in the Uptown area of Minneapolis.
Michael Zebuhr, 25, a Clemson University doctoral student, was walking with his mother and sister and another woman Saturday night on Girard Avenue South when robbers accosted the group, took the mother's purse and then shot
Zebuhr in the head...
...Also Wednesday, police were trying to determine whether three people arrested late Tuesday had anything to do with the murder.
At about 11 p.m. Tuesday, officers saw a car run through a red light on Pillsbury Avenue South. During a pursuit, officers saw three guns being thrown from the car. The weapons were later retrieved. The chase ended when the car crashed into another vehicle.
Police spokesman Ron Reier said Wednesday evening that investigators had not connected those arrested to the Uptown slaying....
Update:
Arrest made in graduate student murder (CNN headline)
Source: Prof. Judy Wood, image was inserted on TV...
911 Callers Traumatized By Uptown Murder
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_082213938.html
Mar 23, 2006 8:38 pm US/Central
"...Roommates Kang and Houlton were in their Girard Avenue apartment last Saturday when they heard gunfire on the street.
"I saw someone running away, though it was one person and so I can't say whether that was the perpetrator," Houlton said. "The minute we heard the gunshot, we ran onto the street and so did everybody else."
When the roommates and other neighbors saw how severely Zebuhr was injured, they sprang into action.
"There was a definite crowd of people," Houlton said. "It wasn't as though they were abandoned."
Many used their cell phones to call for help. 911 records show one caller said, "Brother shot in head ... not breathing."
Another said the caller saw two men in their early 20s, one wearing a Raiders jacket and the other wearing a red baseball cap. The two men then got into a white two-door car.
"It was dark enough, it was completely understandable to me with the darkness compounded with the trauma, makes it, it would make it hard to make an identification," Houlton said...
Three people being investigated in Uptown murder
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=121354
I would have thought that posters on a physics site would be familiar with the formula Density = Mass/volume............ So gallons, litres, liters, grams, kilograms..... You use your units I'll use mine!
Anyway, here is the evidence (Sorry Table is a bit scrambled):
November 26, 2001
Honorable Erin Crotty
Commissioner
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-1011
Honorable Antonia C. Novello, M. D., M.P.H.
Commissioner
New York Department of Health
Empire State Plaza/Corning Tower
Albany, NY 12237
Honorable William Muszynski
Acting Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Greetings:
I write to provide information that may help your agencies investigate and extinguish the fires burning at the World Trade Center. I trust that this information will be self-explanatory, but please do not hesitate to contact me if my firm can extend the courtesy of assisting you.
Toxics Targeting is a company that compiles government information for 17 toxic site categories in New York City. I am sending you a report by e-mail that maps and profiles various toxic sites reported for the World Trade Center (WTC). It contains information about the collapse of the WTC towers and related on-site environmental hazards that could be of benefit to you and your colleagues.
Please note that more than 100,000 gallons of storage capacity for fuel oil and diesel fuel was reported for various portions of the WTC before its collapse. The release of those materials could be fueling the on-site fires along with approximately 20,000 gallons of jet fuel reportedly released during the crash of the airliners that struck the towers.
In addition, you will note that a variety of spills involving transformer oil and dielectric fluid have been reported by Con Ed since 9/11/01. These materials may be contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls that can burn to form highly toxic and persistent dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
The incomplete combustion of PCBs could be a source of the dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans that have been monitored in ambient air and dust near the WTC. If PCBs are determined to be burning at the WTC, the uncontrolled release of dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans could pose a grave threat to the health of those working on or near the site as well as those living nearby. With that concern in mind, I urge you to investigate this potential environmental hazard as a top priority.
Hon. E. Crotty, Hon. A. C. Novello, Hon. W. Muszynski
Finally, please note that a three to five mile long, "oil-filled feeder pipeline" reportedly links a substation at the WTC with the Farragut substation. If this pipeline ruptured or malfunctioned during the collapse of the WTC, thousands of gallons of dielectric fluid could have been released at the WTC site. I urge you to investigate that possibility as part of your efforts to put out the fires at the site and safeguard the public health from toxic chemical hazards.
Thank you for your public service.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter Hang
President
Toxics Targeting Environmental Summary Report for WTC
Spill Amount Material Date Location Responsible Party Reference
10,000 gallons #2 Fuel Oil 9/22/01 Washington/Liberty Sts. None reported Spill # 0106533
reported 9/22/01
None reported Natural Gas 9/13/01 Vesey/W. Broadway Con Ed Spill # 0106241
Amount in curies Am-241 9/11/01 1 WTC PZ American Airlines Spill # 0106314
10,735 gallons Jet fuel 9/11/01 2 WTC United Airlines Flight 175 Spill #0106233
76,400 pounds Jet fuel 9/11/01 1 WTC PZ American Airlines Flight 11 Spill #0106223
2,000 gallons Dielectric fluid 9/11/01 7 WTC Con Ed Spill #0106208
30 gallons Dielectric fluid 9/11/01 7 WTC Con Ed Spill # 0106207
None Reported Transformer Oil 9/11/01 7 WTC Con Ed Spill #0106204
Total: 22,765 Gallons; 76,400 pounds
Petroleum Bulk Storage Capacity Material Location Responsible Party Reference
6,000 Gallons/Underground Diesel 7 WTC Salomon Smith Barney ID #2-601553
6,000 Gallons/Underground Diesel 7 WTC Salomon Smith Barney ID #2-601553
11,690 Gallons/Underground 1, 2 or 4 fuel oil 7 WTC None Reported ID #2-602283
2,500 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC None Reported 2-602234
2,500 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC None Reported 2-602234
10,000 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
5,000 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
See Next Page
Toxics Targeting Environmental Summary Report for WTC, page two
Petroleum Bulk Storage Capacity Material Location Responsible Party Reference
275 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
275 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
275 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
1080 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
10,000 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 5 WTC PANY/NJ 2-604231
10,000 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 5 WTC PANY/NJ 2-604231
10,000 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
275 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
275 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
275 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
100 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
Total 76,520 Gallons
NF
Anyway, here is the evidence (Sorry Table is a bit scrambled):
November 26, 2001
Honorable Erin Crotty
Commissioner
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-1011
Honorable Antonia C. Novello, M. D., M.P.H.
Commissioner
New York Department of Health
Empire State Plaza/Corning Tower
Albany, NY 12237
Honorable William Muszynski
Acting Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Greetings:
I write to provide information that may help your agencies investigate and extinguish the fires burning at the World Trade Center. I trust that this information will be self-explanatory, but please do not hesitate to contact me if my firm can extend the courtesy of assisting you.
Toxics Targeting is a company that compiles government information for 17 toxic site categories in New York City. I am sending you a report by e-mail that maps and profiles various toxic sites reported for the World Trade Center (WTC). It contains information about the collapse of the WTC towers and related on-site environmental hazards that could be of benefit to you and your colleagues.
Please note that more than 100,000 gallons of storage capacity for fuel oil and diesel fuel was reported for various portions of the WTC before its collapse. The release of those materials could be fueling the on-site fires along with approximately 20,000 gallons of jet fuel reportedly released during the crash of the airliners that struck the towers.
In addition, you will note that a variety of spills involving transformer oil and dielectric fluid have been reported by Con Ed since 9/11/01. These materials may be contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls that can burn to form highly toxic and persistent dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
The incomplete combustion of PCBs could be a source of the dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans that have been monitored in ambient air and dust near the WTC. If PCBs are determined to be burning at the WTC, the uncontrolled release of dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans could pose a grave threat to the health of those working on or near the site as well as those living nearby. With that concern in mind, I urge you to investigate this potential environmental hazard as a top priority.
Hon. E. Crotty, Hon. A. C. Novello, Hon. W. Muszynski
Finally, please note that a three to five mile long, "oil-filled feeder pipeline" reportedly links a substation at the WTC with the Farragut substation. If this pipeline ruptured or malfunctioned during the collapse of the WTC, thousands of gallons of dielectric fluid could have been released at the WTC site. I urge you to investigate that possibility as part of your efforts to put out the fires at the site and safeguard the public health from toxic chemical hazards.
Thank you for your public service.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter Hang
President
Toxics Targeting Environmental Summary Report for WTC
Spill Amount Material Date Location Responsible Party Reference
10,000 gallons #2 Fuel Oil 9/22/01 Washington/Liberty Sts. None reported Spill # 0106533
reported 9/22/01
None reported Natural Gas 9/13/01 Vesey/W. Broadway Con Ed Spill # 0106241
Amount in curies Am-241 9/11/01 1 WTC PZ American Airlines Spill # 0106314
10,735 gallons Jet fuel 9/11/01 2 WTC United Airlines Flight 175 Spill #0106233
76,400 pounds Jet fuel 9/11/01 1 WTC PZ American Airlines Flight 11 Spill #0106223
2,000 gallons Dielectric fluid 9/11/01 7 WTC Con Ed Spill #0106208
30 gallons Dielectric fluid 9/11/01 7 WTC Con Ed Spill # 0106207
None Reported Transformer Oil 9/11/01 7 WTC Con Ed Spill #0106204
Total: 22,765 Gallons; 76,400 pounds
Petroleum Bulk Storage Capacity Material Location Responsible Party Reference
6,000 Gallons/Underground Diesel 7 WTC Salomon Smith Barney ID #2-601553
6,000 Gallons/Underground Diesel 7 WTC Salomon Smith Barney ID #2-601553
11,690 Gallons/Underground 1, 2 or 4 fuel oil 7 WTC None Reported ID #2-602283
2,500 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC None Reported 2-602234
2,500 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC None Reported 2-602234
10,000 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
5,000 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
See Next Page
Toxics Targeting Environmental Summary Report for WTC, page two
Petroleum Bulk Storage Capacity Material Location Responsible Party Reference
275 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
275 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
275 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
1080 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 1 WTC PANY/NJ 2-293563
10,000 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 5 WTC PANY/NJ 2-604231
10,000 Gallons/Aboveground 1,2 or 4 fuel oil 5 WTC PANY/NJ 2-604231
10,000 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
275 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
275 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
275 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
100 Gallons/Aboveground Diesel 2 WTC Bell Atlantic 2-344737
Total 76,520 Gallons
NF
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 24 2006, 09:42 AM)
QUOTE (stallion4+Dec 17 2005, 12:45 AM)
YID, why do you ignore the statements from these people?
Damn I'm sorry I had to do that. It definitely hurt me worse than you guys. Spamming makes me want to go take a shower, but it had to be done. I apologize to all involved. Pretty interesting stuff, though.
Uuum, Yeah I've see all that before. I'm aware that as the events were unfolding on f 9/11 many said they THOUGH they heard bombs or explosions. Notice that most of those quotes were past tense or said at the time the buildings were burning / falling. 1) explosion like noises aren't necessarily explosions and 2) explosions are necessarily bombs. Explosions were heard in the Windsor Tower Fire too.
So, try again and find me comments from 1st responders indicating they currently think controlled demo was used or at least thought so more than a few days after 9/11.
As for Profs Shi and Romero's remarks they were based on very minimal data, seeing the video tapes. Romero doesn't have a background in structural engineering. Re-evaluating ones position after getting more data is a perfectly normal, you CTs should give it a try. Shi made his remarks a couple of days after 9/11 and has not been heard from since. In the same article several other Chinese engineers said the though fire and impact damage brought the towers down.
Indira Singh's comments are interesting but she probably misunderstood, she has a thick accent. The idea that the NYFD brought down 7 WTC doesn't fit the NWO did it scenario, why would they warn people before bringing down 7 (and risk being uncovered) but not before bringing down 1 & 2?
David Heller as I already pointed out ISN'T an architect as he freely admits, he is not licensed. The school he went to is not accredited and doesn't teach structural mechanics
Dr. Jones paper is a joke, yeah it passed peer review TWICE LOL once for a special addition of an obscure Marxist economics journal (edited by a CT) and a second time for a book edited by David Ray Griffin. I'd like to seem what would happen if submitted it to science, physics or engineering journals.
Does anyone understand what NEU-FONZE is attempting to imply by this cryptic post? Looks like some blurb he picked up at one of the Schneiby sites.
Perhaps he is implying that there was 76,520 Gallons of fuel burning in the compressed rubble pile after the collapse and that that was the source of energy which caused rivers of molten metal beneath ground zero for months after the initial attacks?
The addition of fuel from the planes is an interesting spin - as if the jet-fuel (which was consumed within the first few minutes of the impact) somehow reconstitued itself and was therefore available for burning at a later time... Same thing with the fuel oil which was reclaimed from the Con-Ed tanks, during the clean-up.
Amazing logic! --- Just no end to the suspension of the laws of physics during the event.
Also, he seems to have left out the fact that one needs an Amazing Underground Bellows theory in order to have fuel oils create enough heat to melt steel.
But perhaps I have misunderstood the point of his post - it wasn't explained well - just an alleged list of fuels somehow associated with GZ, that the reader is somehow supposed to jump to conclusions regarding.
Typical sophistry... just a waste of space.
Newt - I don't suppose you could upload some image to prove your case? If you have some 1998 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 dollar bills and access to a scanner it should be a simple matter. Alternately you could provide links to images on the Net.
If you can prove this I'll apologize, but otherwise that has to be the dumbest CTs I've ever heard, it even beats the one about the plane that hit 2 WTC really being a blue screen effect.
I guess the Illuminati did it!!
ROTFLMHO!!!
follow the money
and the ones that started it all......9+11=20....
i'm waiting for that apology with eager anticipation.
Update:
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
Yes 83% 12915 votes
No 17% 2714 votes
Total: 15629 votes
Direct link to CNN Quickvote poll results:
http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html
What is a scientific poll ?
Norom
- From THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
[...]
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
Damn I'm sorry I had to do that. It definitely hurt me worse than you guys. Spamming makes me want to go take a shower, but it had to be done. I apologize to all involved. Pretty interesting stuff, though.
Uuum, Yeah I've see all that before. I'm aware that as the events were unfolding on f 9/11 many said they THOUGH they heard bombs or explosions. Notice that most of those quotes were past tense or said at the time the buildings were burning / falling. 1) explosion like noises aren't necessarily explosions and 2) explosions are necessarily bombs. Explosions were heard in the Windsor Tower Fire too.
So, try again and find me comments from 1st responders indicating they currently think controlled demo was used or at least thought so more than a few days after 9/11.
As for Profs Shi and Romero's remarks they were based on very minimal data, seeing the video tapes. Romero doesn't have a background in structural engineering. Re-evaluating ones position after getting more data is a perfectly normal, you CTs should give it a try. Shi made his remarks a couple of days after 9/11 and has not been heard from since. In the same article several other Chinese engineers said the though fire and impact damage brought the towers down.
Indira Singh's comments are interesting but she probably misunderstood, she has a thick accent. The idea that the NYFD brought down 7 WTC doesn't fit the NWO did it scenario, why would they warn people before bringing down 7 (and risk being uncovered) but not before bringing down 1 & 2?
David Heller as I already pointed out ISN'T an architect as he freely admits, he is not licensed. The school he went to is not accredited and doesn't teach structural mechanics
Dr. Jones paper is a joke, yeah it passed peer review TWICE LOL once for a special addition of an obscure Marxist economics journal (edited by a CT) and a second time for a book edited by David Ray Griffin. I'd like to seem what would happen if submitted it to science, physics or engineering journals.
QUOTE
nonsense posted by NUE-FONZE
Anyway, here is the evidence (Sorry Table is a bit scrambled): ----------------
Total 76,520 Gallons
Anyway, here is the evidence (Sorry Table is a bit scrambled): ----------------
Total 76,520 Gallons
Does anyone understand what NEU-FONZE is attempting to imply by this cryptic post? Looks like some blurb he picked up at one of the Schneiby sites.
Perhaps he is implying that there was 76,520 Gallons of fuel burning in the compressed rubble pile after the collapse and that that was the source of energy which caused rivers of molten metal beneath ground zero for months after the initial attacks?
The addition of fuel from the planes is an interesting spin - as if the jet-fuel (which was consumed within the first few minutes of the impact) somehow reconstitued itself and was therefore available for burning at a later time... Same thing with the fuel oil which was reclaimed from the Con-Ed tanks, during the clean-up.
Amazing logic! --- Just no end to the suspension of the laws of physics during the event.
Also, he seems to have left out the fact that one needs an Amazing Underground Bellows theory in order to have fuel oils create enough heat to melt steel.
But perhaps I have misunderstood the point of his post - it wasn't explained well - just an alleged list of fuels somehow associated with GZ, that the reader is somehow supposed to jump to conclusions regarding.
Typical sophistry... just a waste of space.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 24 2006, 12:07 PM)
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
No 18% 1526 votes
Yes 82% 6947 votes
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
This of course proves nothing. Internet polls are of course totally unscientific and 9/11 truth sites have a "get out the vote" effort underway. the 1526 votes could have been 50 people voting about 30 times each. The question is vauge too. I would probably vote yes because I don't think the gov't is being totally truthful. Not only do we not have anyway of verifying how closely the poll results represent the views of the general populace we don't know what percentage of the people who voted yes think controlled demo was used.
Have any of you seen a SCIENTIFIC poll taken to ascertain what percentage of the American populace thinks controlled demo brought down the towers? There was one comissioned by 911truth.org in NYC (the Zogby poll) but that was what is known in the industry as a "push poll" it was worded in such a way as to incuce a particular answer. Also it asked people if they though the Bush administration intenionally failed to prevent 9/11 NOT if they though explosives were used to bring the towers down
No 18% 1526 votes
Yes 82% 6947 votes
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
This of course proves nothing. Internet polls are of course totally unscientific and 9/11 truth sites have a "get out the vote" effort underway. the 1526 votes could have been 50 people voting about 30 times each. The question is vauge too. I would probably vote yes because I don't think the gov't is being totally truthful. Not only do we not have anyway of verifying how closely the poll results represent the views of the general populace we don't know what percentage of the people who voted yes think controlled demo was used.
Have any of you seen a SCIENTIFIC poll taken to ascertain what percentage of the American populace thinks controlled demo brought down the towers? There was one comissioned by 911truth.org in NYC (the Zogby poll) but that was what is known in the industry as a "push poll" it was worded in such a way as to incuce a particular answer. Also it asked people if they though the Bush administration intenionally failed to prevent 9/11 NOT if they though explosives were used to bring the towers down
It must be slow days over at the ApolloHoax 'debunking' forum. I see 'lenbrazil' has returned with his worn-out cliches, sophistry, and rhetorics. More spam and more waste of bandwith.
lenbrazil,
You're nothing more than an obvious joke yourself and a worthless contributor of more lies and deception, pretending to be interested in testimonies from eyewitnesses on one hand, but after hearing them denying their very existence.
It's a complete waste of time trying to reason with ILKS, like yourself, who are nothing more than OBVIOUS puppets on a string who are sent in here to parrot the corrupt fairy tales spewed out by the criminal regime that runs this government.
You have to be completely brain dead to dismiss the fact that hundreds of billions have been made by various military defense contractors and other greedy dogs, who are profiting enormously from these wars, which resulted from the first crime they did on 9/11.
So when the mindless robots say, "Why would the government do 9/11" I have to stop myself from throwing up just to be able to respond to their ignorance.
It's called $Billions and $Billions of dollars. It's not just the oil, although that's a great icing on the cake and a strong motivation, but it's all the hundreds of $Billions made from the sale of various weapons and military apparatus.
Eisenhower said, "Beware of the military industrial complex" and he said it for a reason. Just as he was leaving office it seems he felt he should warn the people with something he felt was EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
But who knows, maybe it's all the ADD drugs, or Prozac, or the continuous decline of the educational system, or the deception or the corrupt churches, that are bilking the public out billions, while twisting and perverting the truth in the scriptures, or maybe it's all of the above, but all too many individuals in this nation have deteriorated into a bunch of mindless zombies that have little or no ability to think past the repetitious one liners spewed out by the government.
And these one liners, IE; Bin Laden did it, or the 19 hijackers did it, or it's unpatriotic to question what happened on 9/11, or anyone who thinks the buildings appeared to have been brought down by control demolition is a wild conspiracy nut, have infested themselves in the minds of these already sick individuals to the point where they can't think and reason and utilize any honest form of logic in hypothesizing what happened.
And it's so bad that all too many people feel comfortable about starting a nuclear war with countries all over the world. These people have lost it so much, they forgot the fact that other countries just might retaliate and throw some nukes back at us, and that my dear friend will ruin your whole day.
click here for the mindset of all too many Americans
But then again, maybe this is just a terrible nasty phase this nation is going through. Much like the Nazi regime, they had many years of hell, deception, propaganda, murder and war, and then finally things came to an end and things got much better.
So who knows maybe after these days things will get better, there are positive signs, such as with Charlie Sheen, having the courage to speak some truth about the things WE ALL KNOW, but are too afraid to say, and even movies like "V - Vendetta" that use much symbolics to show us all that we are living in a nation with a very repressive regime, and there are other signs, even in the scriptures that imply life in general kind of oscillates, and even though things get very bad, God has His way of restoring things and making things new again.
You see, it's not about waiting until you die to go to some fantasy land heaven that false preachers sell tickets to, but the kingdom of heaven is within you, and it's really about finding peace on earth, and this is something I'm convinced will happen for many people some day soon I hope.
But I'll tell you this, as long as deception is at the forefront and allowed to reign as the mainstream, then we're in deep trouble, but when and if the truth really comes out and begins to shine, things will be much better.
Think about it. When and if the truth about 9/11 finally gets out and it exposes the criminal regime and also all the aiders and abettors, such as the media and scammy scientific institutions, churches, etc. it's gonna be pretty shocking at first and very painful for the deceivers who helped promote these wars, but for the few people who have had the courage to stand for the truth, it will be very pleasant for us, because in truth and reality, all we really want is for justice to be done, and truth to reign, at least regarding this situation.
And if your not sure what I'm talking about, think about the day when Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hamnity and others, along with corrupt government officials have to eat crow and admit their crimes against humanity. That'll be a glorious day.
You're nothing more than an obvious joke yourself and a worthless contributor of more lies and deception, pretending to be interested in testimonies from eyewitnesses on one hand, but after hearing them denying their very existence.
It's a complete waste of time trying to reason with ILKS, like yourself, who are nothing more than OBVIOUS puppets on a string who are sent in here to parrot the corrupt fairy tales spewed out by the criminal regime that runs this government.
You have to be completely brain dead to dismiss the fact that hundreds of billions have been made by various military defense contractors and other greedy dogs, who are profiting enormously from these wars, which resulted from the first crime they did on 9/11.
So when the mindless robots say, "Why would the government do 9/11" I have to stop myself from throwing up just to be able to respond to their ignorance.
It's called $Billions and $Billions of dollars. It's not just the oil, although that's a great icing on the cake and a strong motivation, but it's all the hundreds of $Billions made from the sale of various weapons and military apparatus.
Eisenhower said, "Beware of the military industrial complex" and he said it for a reason. Just as he was leaving office it seems he felt he should warn the people with something he felt was EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
But who knows, maybe it's all the ADD drugs, or Prozac, or the continuous decline of the educational system, or the deception or the corrupt churches, that are bilking the public out billions, while twisting and perverting the truth in the scriptures, or maybe it's all of the above, but all too many individuals in this nation have deteriorated into a bunch of mindless zombies that have little or no ability to think past the repetitious one liners spewed out by the government.
And these one liners, IE; Bin Laden did it, or the 19 hijackers did it, or it's unpatriotic to question what happened on 9/11, or anyone who thinks the buildings appeared to have been brought down by control demolition is a wild conspiracy nut, have infested themselves in the minds of these already sick individuals to the point where they can't think and reason and utilize any honest form of logic in hypothesizing what happened.
And it's so bad that all too many people feel comfortable about starting a nuclear war with countries all over the world. These people have lost it so much, they forgot the fact that other countries just might retaliate and throw some nukes back at us, and that my dear friend will ruin your whole day.
click here for the mindset of all too many Americans
But then again, maybe this is just a terrible nasty phase this nation is going through. Much like the Nazi regime, they had many years of hell, deception, propaganda, murder and war, and then finally things came to an end and things got much better.
So who knows maybe after these days things will get better, there are positive signs, such as with Charlie Sheen, having the courage to speak some truth about the things WE ALL KNOW, but are too afraid to say, and even movies like "V - Vendetta" that use much symbolics to show us all that we are living in a nation with a very repressive regime, and there are other signs, even in the scriptures that imply life in general kind of oscillates, and even though things get very bad, God has His way of restoring things and making things new again.
You see, it's not about waiting until you die to go to some fantasy land heaven that false preachers sell tickets to, but the kingdom of heaven is within you, and it's really about finding peace on earth, and this is something I'm convinced will happen for many people some day soon I hope.
But I'll tell you this, as long as deception is at the forefront and allowed to reign as the mainstream, then we're in deep trouble, but when and if the truth really comes out and begins to shine, things will be much better.
Think about it. When and if the truth about 9/11 finally gets out and it exposes the criminal regime and also all the aiders and abettors, such as the media and scammy scientific institutions, churches, etc. it's gonna be pretty shocking at first and very painful for the deceivers who helped promote these wars, but for the few people who have had the courage to stand for the truth, it will be very pleasant for us, because in truth and reality, all we really want is for justice to be done, and truth to reign, at least regarding this situation.
And if your not sure what I'm talking about, think about the day when Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hamnity and others, along with corrupt government officials have to eat crow and admit their crimes against humanity. That'll be a glorious day.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 24 2006, 04:32 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 23 2006, 11:33 PM)
QUOTE
posted by newton
if you fold a 1998 (666X3) twenty dollar american bill into an airplane, there is a 'mad' magazine type picture of the two towers burning, and on the back the pentagon burning. letters can be seen on one side reading 'american', and on the other 'united', the two airlines used in the attack. if you do the same fold to the five, ten, fifty, and one hundred dollar bills, you see similiar illustrations, except they show the towers going throughj a progression, the five showing intact buildings, the one hundred showing just a smoke plume.
if you fold a 1998 (666X3) twenty dollar american bill into an airplane, there is a 'mad' magazine type picture of the two towers burning, and on the back the pentagon burning. letters can be seen on one side reading 'american', and on the other 'united', the two airlines used in the attack. if you do the same fold to the five, ten, fifty, and one hundred dollar bills, you see similiar illustrations, except they show the towers going throughj a progression, the five showing intact buildings, the one hundred showing just a smoke plume.
Newt - I don't suppose you could upload some image to prove your case? If you have some 1998 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 dollar bills and access to a scanner it should be a simple matter. Alternately you could provide links to images on the Net.
If you can prove this I'll apologize, but otherwise that has to be the dumbest CTs I've ever heard, it even beats the one about the plane that hit 2 WTC really being a blue screen effect.
I guess the Illuminati did it!!
ROTFLMHO!!!
follow the money
and the ones that started it all......9+11=20....
i'm waiting for that apology with eager anticipation.
Newton, if you don't want ridicule then don't set me up with such material as folding-paper-money-showing-the-towers-falling and trying to say that this means anything at all.
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower )
Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower
)Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
Foxx and steve52,
Can’t you guys do any better than ad-hominem attacks? Have any substantive replies to my points?
The fact remains that very few of the people who were in or near the WTC when it collapsed subscribe to your theories. You have a grand total of 3 people who were in the Towers that day who say they think explosives were used. The only one who said anything at the time was Rodriguez and he said nothing about hearing an explosion before the impact. They only started saying this after they got involved in lawsuit asking for what would probably be millions or more in damages. They are contradicted by other co-workers. The only first responder I know of who was there when the towers came down who backs your theories also says she saw planes exploding over NJ.
For the umpteenth time people saying they heard explosions proves nothing, people saying they “THOUGHT” (as in at the time of the event, not the time of speaking) bombs were going off proves little or nothing, quotes of people from that morning saying they though bombs were going off also proves little and saying they heard explosions proves less. People are suggestible, they knew the towers had been attacked by terrorists, they heard explosions; they assumed bombs were going off. Explosions and explosion like noises are not unexpected in large building fires esp when the have been structurally damaged. If any of those people still thought bombs had gone off more than a day or two after 9/11 they have not said so publicly.
You also don’t have any qualified experts who back your theories. The closest you have are two engineers who based their comments simply on having seen the videotapes on the day (in the case of Romero) or possibly a few days later (Shi). One changed his mind after getting more data and other has not been heard from since. There is also Dr. Jones but he is really out of his area of specialty which is nuclear physics and Dr. Grimmer whose specialty if solar energy.
The fact that your theories get little no backing from the people who should most support them if they were true (experts and witnesses) should really tell you something.
None of the anti CTist here is saying “Bush wouldn’t do such a thing” or had no reason to, so you can give up attacking that strawman
Can’t you guys do any better than ad-hominem attacks? Have any substantive replies to my points?
The fact remains that very few of the people who were in or near the WTC when it collapsed subscribe to your theories. You have a grand total of 3 people who were in the Towers that day who say they think explosives were used. The only one who said anything at the time was Rodriguez and he said nothing about hearing an explosion before the impact. They only started saying this after they got involved in lawsuit asking for what would probably be millions or more in damages. They are contradicted by other co-workers. The only first responder I know of who was there when the towers came down who backs your theories also says she saw planes exploding over NJ.
For the umpteenth time people saying they heard explosions proves nothing, people saying they “THOUGHT” (as in at the time of the event, not the time of speaking) bombs were going off proves little or nothing, quotes of people from that morning saying they though bombs were going off also proves little and saying they heard explosions proves less. People are suggestible, they knew the towers had been attacked by terrorists, they heard explosions; they assumed bombs were going off. Explosions and explosion like noises are not unexpected in large building fires esp when the have been structurally damaged. If any of those people still thought bombs had gone off more than a day or two after 9/11 they have not said so publicly.
You also don’t have any qualified experts who back your theories. The closest you have are two engineers who based their comments simply on having seen the videotapes on the day (in the case of Romero) or possibly a few days later (Shi). One changed his mind after getting more data and other has not been heard from since. There is also Dr. Jones but he is really out of his area of specialty which is nuclear physics and Dr. Grimmer whose specialty if solar energy.
The fact that your theories get little no backing from the people who should most support them if they were true (experts and witnesses) should really tell you something.
None of the anti CTist here is saying “Bush wouldn’t do such a thing” or had no reason to, so you can give up attacking that strawman
Update:
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
Yes 83% 12915 votes
No 17% 2714 votes
Total: 15629 votes
Direct link to CNN Quickvote poll results:
http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks? No 18% 1526 votes Yes 82% 6947 votes http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/ This of course proves nothing. Internet polls are of course totally unscientific and 9/11 truth sites have a "get out the vote" effort underway. the 1526 votes could have been 50 people voting about 30 times each. The question is vauge too. I would probably vote yes because I don't think the gov't is being totally truthful. Not only do we not have anyway of verifying how closely the poll results represent the views of the general populace we don't know what percentage of the people who voted yes think controlled demo was used. Have any of you seen a SCIENTIFIC poll taken to ascertain what percentage of the American populace thinks controlled demo brought down the towers? There was one comissioned by 911truth.org in NYC (the Zogby poll) but that was what is known in the industry as a "push poll" it was worded in such a way as to incuce a particular answer. Also it asked people if they though the Bush administration intenionally failed to prevent 9/11 NOT if they though explosives were used to bring the towers down |
What is a scientific poll ?
Norom
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 24 2006, 09:42 AM)
QUOTE (stallion4+Dec 17 2005, 12:45 AM)
YID, why do you ignore the statements from these people?[LIST]From THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought .
....................etc., etc., etc.
Damn I'm sorry I had to do that. It definitely hurt me worse than you guys. Spamming makes me want to go take a shower, but it had to be done. I apologize to all involved. Pretty interesting stuff, though.
Complain about spam all you want. All you had to do would be to use the damn search function of this forum to find out why I dismiss some testimony , especially as characterized by the CD adherent crowd.
Here's one of my replies that concerns at least some and probably all of the quotes.
Given that I have answered the question before and you still ask it then that simply makes you the spammer doesn't it?
What is a scientific poll ?
Norom
http://www.aapor.org/default.asp?ID=27&pag...wsletter_detail
Hmmm, a CNN web poll, it would seem, does not fit any of the parameters set out for a scientific poll.
If this is true, can you imagine the uproar if an announcement went out on Fox News for its viewers to get out and vote in that CNN poll!
The cries of derision , "foul, foul foul" (or similar) ,would be deafening. But of course it is all well and good for a so called 911 truth sites to do the same thing.
Well according to mentally depraved ILKS such as lenbrazil, a true scientific poll can only be conducted with the approval of the white house.
In fact according to the ILKS, the source of all truth and knowledge can only come from the administration, as anything outside or contrary to the current administration is completely false, anti-american, communist, terrorism and should be dealt with accordingly.
And if you don't agree with the president or the scientific ILKS that are merely puppets on a string, then you should be labeled as an enemy of the state.
If you don't believe in the magician in the cave, who suspended all the laws of physics, gravity and reality fairy tale then you are a terrorist supporter and should be black balled and cut off from any source of funding.
And if you have the gall to post reasonable, logical, true scientific and proven mathematically correct hypotheses on what probably happened on 9/11, then you can rest assured neo/conservatives wolf attack dogs will be sent after you and bombard your posts with irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved posts in a feeble attempt to DE-RAIL meaningful discussions about the observable facts regarding what really happened.
and to spread deception and confusion
Even though those wolves are about as obvious as it gets, and they only succeed at proving how ignorant and dishonest they really are, you can rest assured those wolves will be sent, if for nothing else, but to disrupt legitimate discussions.
And this is why I sometimes have to sound a little harsh to these disingenuous ILKS, as I sometimes have grab them by their little throats and expose their stupidity, ignorance and demented little minds.
Sometimes I have to remind people of the facts of the case, as all so many people seem to forget that little bush waited for about a half hour after being told that the United States was being attacked, similar to that of Pearl Harbor.
So obviously we shouldn't really take any of these clowns seriously nor PRETEND to think any of their questions are legitimate, as they've proven to us all time and time again that they have absolutely no interest in the truth or the facts or in logic and reasoning whatsoever.
They do however might make for some entertainment from time to time.
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought .
....................etc., etc., etc.
Damn I'm sorry I had to do that. It definitely hurt me worse than you guys. Spamming makes me want to go take a shower, but it had to be done. I apologize to all involved. Pretty interesting stuff, though.
Complain about spam all you want. All you had to do would be to use the damn search function of this forum to find out why I dismiss some testimony , especially as characterized by the CD adherent crowd.
Here's one of my replies that concerns at least some and probably all of the quotes.
Given that I have answered the question before and you still ask it then that simply makes you the spammer doesn't it?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 24 2006, 06:16 PM)
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks? No 18% 1526 votes Yes 82% 6947 votes http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/ This of course proves nothing. Internet polls are of course totally unscientific and 9/11 truth sites have a "get out the vote" effort underway. the 1526 votes could have been 50 people voting about 30 times each. The question is vauge too. I would probably vote yes because I don't think the gov't is being totally truthful. Not only do we not have anyway of verifying how closely the poll results represent the views of the general populace we don't know what percentage of the people who voted yes think controlled demo was used. Have any of you seen a SCIENTIFIC poll taken to ascertain what percentage of the American populace thinks controlled demo brought down the towers? There was one comissioned by 911truth.org in NYC (the Zogby poll) but that was what is known in the industry as a "push poll" it was worded in such a way as to incuce a particular answer. Also it asked people if they though the Bush administration intenionally failed to prevent 9/11 NOT if they though explosives were used to bring the towers down |
What is a scientific poll ?
Norom
http://www.aapor.org/default.asp?ID=27&pag...wsletter_detail
Hmmm, a CNN web poll, it would seem, does not fit any of the parameters set out for a scientific poll.
QUOTE
Internet polls are of course totally unscientific and 9/11 truth sites have a "get out the vote" effort underway.
If this is true, can you imagine the uproar if an announcement went out on Fox News for its viewers to get out and vote in that CNN poll!
The cries of derision , "foul, foul foul" (or similar) ,would be deafening. But of course it is all well and good for a so called 911 truth sites to do the same thing.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 24 2006, 06:00 PM)
Newton, if you don't want ridicule then don't set me up with such material as folding-paper-money-showing-the-towers-falling and trying to say that this means anything at all.
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower )
Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
There are two similar but different usernames posting here now. You appear to be lumping me together with "newton", when my username is "newtonnjd". Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would have responded to me sensibly if you'd realised this, and let you have another go at it.
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower
)Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
There are two similar but different usernames posting here now. You appear to be lumping me together with "newton", when my username is "newtonnjd". Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would have responded to me sensibly if you'd realised this, and let you have another go at it.
But what is a scientific poll then ?
QUOTE
What is a scientific poll ?
Norom
Norom
Well according to mentally depraved ILKS such as lenbrazil, a true scientific poll can only be conducted with the approval of the white house.
In fact according to the ILKS, the source of all truth and knowledge can only come from the administration, as anything outside or contrary to the current administration is completely false, anti-american, communist, terrorism and should be dealt with accordingly.
And if you don't agree with the president or the scientific ILKS that are merely puppets on a string, then you should be labeled as an enemy of the state.
If you don't believe in the magician in the cave, who suspended all the laws of physics, gravity and reality fairy tale then you are a terrorist supporter and should be black balled and cut off from any source of funding.
And if you have the gall to post reasonable, logical, true scientific and proven mathematically correct hypotheses on what probably happened on 9/11, then you can rest assured neo/conservatives wolf attack dogs will be sent after you and bombard your posts with irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved posts in a feeble attempt to DE-RAIL meaningful discussions about the observable facts regarding what really happened.
and to spread deception and confusionEven though those wolves are about as obvious as it gets, and they only succeed at proving how ignorant and dishonest they really are, you can rest assured those wolves will be sent, if for nothing else, but to disrupt legitimate discussions.
And this is why I sometimes have to sound a little harsh to these disingenuous ILKS, as I sometimes have grab them by their little throats and expose their stupidity, ignorance and demented little minds.
Sometimes I have to remind people of the facts of the case, as all so many people seem to forget that little bush waited for about a half hour after being told that the United States was being attacked, similar to that of Pearl Harbor.
So obviously we shouldn't really take any of these clowns seriously nor PRETEND to think any of their questions are legitimate, as they've proven to us all time and time again that they have absolutely no interest in the truth or the facts or in logic and reasoning whatsoever.
They do however might make for some entertainment from time to time.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 24 2006, 06:00 PM)
Newton, if you don't want ridicule then don't set me up with such material as folding-paper-money-showing-the-towers-falling and trying to say that this means anything at all.
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower )
Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
lenbrazil, i'm still waiting for your apology.
yesitdid, i don't fooking care what you think of me and the FACT of the money. those are not photoshopped. it works with the billions of paper airplanes spread all over the planet.
you really don't like those pictures. i notice whenever i post them, there is a flood of spam to push them to the back of the thread.
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower
)Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
lenbrazil, i'm still waiting for your apology.
yesitdid, i don't fooking care what you think of me and the FACT of the money. those are not photoshopped. it works with the billions of paper airplanes spread all over the planet.
you really don't like those pictures. i notice whenever i post them, there is a flood of spam to push them to the back of the thread.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 24 2006, 06:42 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 24 2006, 06:00 PM)
Newton, if you don't want ridicule then don't set me up with such material as folding-paper-money-showing-the-towers-falling and trying to say that this means anything at all.
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower )
Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
There are two similar but different usernames posting here now. You appear to be lumping me together with "newton", when my username is "newtonnjd". Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would have responded to me sensibly if you'd realised this, and let you have another go at it.
Sorry newtonnjd, however I believe that I was being taken to task about attacking the folding money trick. If one does not want such being attacked then one should implore those posting such hilarity to think before diluting whatever credibility the group has with such posts.
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower
)Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
There are two similar but different usernames posting here now. You appear to be lumping me together with "newton", when my username is "newtonnjd". Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would have responded to me sensibly if you'd realised this, and let you have another go at it.
Sorry newtonnjd, however I believe that I was being taken to task about attacking the folding money trick. If one does not want such being attacked then one should implore those posting such hilarity to think before diluting whatever credibility the group has with such posts.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 24 2006, 07:07 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 24 2006, 06:42 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 24 2006, 06:00 PM)
Newton, if you don't want ridicule then don't set me up with such material as folding-paper-money-showing-the-towers-falling and trying to say that this means anything at all.
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower )
Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
There are two similar but different usernames posting here now. You appear to be lumping me together with "newton", when my username is "newtonnjd". Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would have responded to me sensibly if you'd realised this, and let you have another go at it.
Sorry newtonnjd, however I believe that I was being taken to task about attacking the folding money trick. If one does not want such being attacked then one should implore those posting such hilarity to think before diluting whatever credibility the group has with such posts.
I do not know what "group" the other newton is part of, but all I can do is speak for myself. I will say that personally I do not see the folded notes as significant, if that will help you to address my previous posts?
And just what is your point???
The problem some of you are having with the folded bills is that it is a REAL PROVABLE thing. Even if it doesn't address the scientific physics involved with the control demolition of the WTC buildings it should be pretty obvious that Newton was simply showing us some of the interesting coincidences that are in plain view.
I didn't hear Newton making a big issue of the folded bills, but he was rather displaying them so we could see for ourselves that it really does work. You really can fold up the bills and they really do look very similar to some of the visions we all saw on 9/11. It's no big deal, but these are real things that really are visible.
But the real issue most of you are having is not with the $20. bill or other bills, it's the mental problems within you that are causing so much frustration.
Like a woman in her impurity, most of you ILKS are going through some serious mental difficulties, as you just beginning to discover that the WTC buildings were in fact imploded with control demolition. It's physically impossible for the towers to have collapsed in the manner they did, unless explosives were strategically planted in them before hand.
And now that it has become obvious to legitimate people that explosives were in fact planted well before 9/11, it then becomes clearly obvious that 9/11 was government sponsored, because the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, FEMA and other national security agencies monitored those buildings very tightly.
It also upsets some of you ILKY minded people that little bush's brother, Marvin P. Bush headed up the company that provided security for the WTC complex, which makes his involvement even more obvious.
So even though the truth is so painfully obvious, your little minds and little worlds just can't accept the pain of truth and reality, which causes you to fight so hard to reject something you deep inside you already know to be true.
Who knows, some of you may be plants, working for various parties that support the criminal regime, whereas others may just be ill informed idiots with deranged perceptions of reality and a warped sense of right and wrong.
Some of you may take a liking to all the death and destruction of all those innocent little Muslim children that are getting their faces blown off, such as all too many christian leaders that preach hate, and murder and deception in the name of Jesus.
But regarding the folded $20. bill and other strange coincidences, well there's really no reason that should bother anybody, after all it gives us a little break from all the insanity spewing out of the posts from the mentally depraved magician in a cave, fairy tale supporters posts
I do not know what "group" the other newton is part of, but all I can do is speak for myself. I will say that personally I do not see the folded notes as significant, if that will help you to address my previous posts?
hey, man. we're just like the twin towers. we look nearly identical, but have different cores.
cheers, other newton.
let's hope we don't experience fall times like the recently deceased michael zebuhr.
I hope so
Hey Arthur, wassup .
Well according to mentally depraved ILKS such as lenbrazil, a true scientific poll can only be conducted with the approval of the white house.
In fact according to the ILKS, the source of all truth and knowledge can only come from the administration, as anything outside or contrary to the current administration is completely false, anti-american, communist, terrorism and should be dealt with accordingly.
And if you don't agree with the president or the scientific ILKS that are merely puppets on a string, then you should be labeled as an enemy of the state.
If you don't believe in the magician in the cave, who suspended all the laws of physics, gravity and reality fairy tale then you are a terrorist supporter and should be black balled and cut off from any source of funding.
And if you have the gall to post reasonable, logical, true scientific and proven mathematically correct hypotheses on what probably happened on 9/11, then you can rest assured neo/conservatives wolf attack dogs will be sent after you and bombard your posts with irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved posts in a feeble attempt to DE-RAIL meaningful discussions about the observable facts regarding what really happened.
and to spread deception and confusion
Even though those wolves are about as obvious as it gets, and they only succeed at proving how ignorant and dishonest they really are, you can rest assured those wolves will be sent, if for nothing else, but to disrupt legitimate discussions.
And this is why I sometimes have to sound a little harsh to these disingenuous ILKS, as I sometimes have grab them by their little throats and expose their stupidity, ignorance and demented little minds.
Sometimes I have to remind people of the facts of the case, as all so many people seem to forget that little bush waited for about a half hour after being told that the United States was being attacked, similar to that of Pearl Harbor.
So obviously we shouldn't really take any of these clowns seriously nor PRETEND to think any of their questions are legitimate, as they've proven to us all time and time again that they have absolutely no interest in the truth or the facts or in logic and reasoning whatsoever.
They do however might make for some entertainment from time to time.
Read the link!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll re-post the link for those who missed it a page back.
My Webpagehttp://www.aapor.org/default.asp?ID=27&pag...wsletter_detail
Its not a long article and uses no really big words, honest.
I've been gone for about a month now and I thought you would have grown up a little by now, at least enough to know that women have that special time, normally ever month, that's sometimes referred to as "The time of their impurity".
This image might give some of the more mature audiences out there what it really means...
And that doesn't mean anything against women, as that's just the way they were made, they have biological clocks, so to speak and from the time their about 13, until they're in their 40's they have this little thing called a rhythmic clock.
Now with that out of the way, do you need me to explain what the birds and the bees really mean?
But try to remember, we can get into deep, heated debates about the corrupt government, 9/11 and the war in Iraq, however we should try to keep this forum clean, so I sugges you ask your mom and dad about the birds and bees.
I hope so
Hey Arthur, wassup .
let us bow our heads and pray for blessings, brother.
Here we are again, dismissing, diverting, and denieing. Lenbrazil, YID, NEU-CHACHE. You guys came here to make Physics and Engineering arguments, right????? Address the links above. Please explain to us all how the two collapses can be so similar.
I already posted some dis-similarities a few pages back.
So far no comment on that at all.
I'll add another.
The demolition of theLandmark was deliberatly designed to have the building fall to one side rather than straight down. To do this the charges on the lower floors had to be placed and timed specifically to have that happen.
As for the similarities, tall straight structures will demonstrate some gross similarities in their collapses due to their similar geometry.
But then you did not actually want an explanation did you? You , IMHO, actually want me to say that the only way to have them look even the slightest bit alike is to employ controlled demolition in both cases. Am I correct? yes or no
It really has to be the funniest thing to come from the CD adherent side of the issue. I mean the hologram plane and explosives planted during construction are just plain paranoid delusionary but the folding money thing and the comic book actually did have me laughing out loud.
If my attacking that is a straw man and that bothers you then think about what you post before posting it. If you truly believe that this is indeed significant then you can imagine what that does to my estimation of you. (just when I thought it could not go much lower
)Thanks for the comic relief, coming on the heels of postings about Charlie Sheen it is most appropriate IMHO.
There are two similar but different usernames posting here now. You appear to be lumping me together with "newton", when my username is "newtonnjd". Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would have responded to me sensibly if you'd realised this, and let you have another go at it.
Sorry newtonnjd, however I believe that I was being taken to task about attacking the folding money trick. If one does not want such being attacked then one should implore those posting such hilarity to think before diluting whatever credibility the group has with such posts.
I do not know what "group" the other newton is part of, but all I can do is speak for myself. I will say that personally I do not see the folded notes as significant, if that will help you to address my previous posts?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 24 2006, 09:34 AM)
follow the money
and the ones that started it all......9+11=20....
yesitdid , have another laugh.
you might want to do some big quotes and whatnot, now. just to make sure these images get buried, again. just 'cause, you know, they're too funny.
i'm still waiting for that apology, lenbrazil.
and the ones that started it all......9+11=20....
yesitdid , have another laugh.
you might want to do some big quotes and whatnot, now. just to make sure these images get buried, again. just 'cause, you know, they're too funny.
i'm still waiting for that apology, lenbrazil.
QUOTE
newtonnjd
I do not know what "group" the other newton is part of, but all I can do is speak for myself. I will say that personally I do not see the folded notes as significant, if that will help you to address my previous posts?
I do not know what "group" the other newton is part of, but all I can do is speak for myself. I will say that personally I do not see the folded notes as significant, if that will help you to address my previous posts?
And just what is your point???
The problem some of you are having with the folded bills is that it is a REAL PROVABLE thing. Even if it doesn't address the scientific physics involved with the control demolition of the WTC buildings it should be pretty obvious that Newton was simply showing us some of the interesting coincidences that are in plain view.
I didn't hear Newton making a big issue of the folded bills, but he was rather displaying them so we could see for ourselves that it really does work. You really can fold up the bills and they really do look very similar to some of the visions we all saw on 9/11. It's no big deal, but these are real things that really are visible.
But the real issue most of you are having is not with the $20. bill or other bills, it's the mental problems within you that are causing so much frustration.
Like a woman in her impurity, most of you ILKS are going through some serious mental difficulties, as you just beginning to discover that the WTC buildings were in fact imploded with control demolition. It's physically impossible for the towers to have collapsed in the manner they did, unless explosives were strategically planted in them before hand.
And now that it has become obvious to legitimate people that explosives were in fact planted well before 9/11, it then becomes clearly obvious that 9/11 was government sponsored, because the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, FEMA and other national security agencies monitored those buildings very tightly.
It also upsets some of you ILKY minded people that little bush's brother, Marvin P. Bush headed up the company that provided security for the WTC complex, which makes his involvement even more obvious.
So even though the truth is so painfully obvious, your little minds and little worlds just can't accept the pain of truth and reality, which causes you to fight so hard to reject something you deep inside you already know to be true.
Who knows, some of you may be plants, working for various parties that support the criminal regime, whereas others may just be ill informed idiots with deranged perceptions of reality and a warped sense of right and wrong.
Some of you may take a liking to all the death and destruction of all those innocent little Muslim children that are getting their faces blown off, such as all too many christian leaders that preach hate, and murder and deception in the name of Jesus.
But regarding the folded $20. bill and other strange coincidences, well there's really no reason that should bother anybody, after all it gives us a little break from all the insanity spewing out of the posts from the mentally depraved magician in a cave, fairy tale supporters posts
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 24 2006, 07:18 PM)
I do not know what "group" the other newton is part of, but all I can do is speak for myself. I will say that personally I do not see the folded notes as significant, if that will help you to address my previous posts?
hey, man. we're just like the twin towers. we look nearly identical, but have different cores.
cheers, other newton.
let's hope we don't experience fall times like the recently deceased michael zebuhr.
Our minds are just like the twin towers, some of us already accepted the truth, but others who have been rejecting it will have a nervous break down when the truth is manifest and their little worlds will collapse similar to what happened on 9/11
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 24 2006, 12:11 PM)
Team8+ is deeply shocked, that Michael Zebuhr, a graduate student in Bioengineering at Clemson University and most active student member of 911Scholars (http://tinyurl.com/jktp7 ) was killed on the weekend.
The official account says, that he was shot on the streets, for
no clear reason, during an attempted "robbery".
This older article below does not say, if the robberies in this area do usually end with some killings.
Maybe Michael Zebuhr is the first 9/11 truth hero who died for a noble cause.
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=121215
March 23, 3006
"...Zebuhr, his mother, sister and a friend were returning to their car when the robbery and shooting occurred. They had been dining out in the Calhoun Square shopping complex just across the street. Zebuhr's sister lives just a mile and a half from the popular uptown complex of restaurants and stores....
...The Uptown area is part of the south Minneapolis fifth precinct which has seen 100 armed robberies since the first of the year..."
Michael, a student in Judy Wood's class, was very active in promoting the truth about 911.
Prof. Judy Wood (Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University), a full member of the st911scholars explained:
"...I have an "extra" area on the class web page labeled, "current events (not required reading)." If the student clicks on that link, they go to another page where I have a list of 9/11 links. Mike wandered into this area on his own, and drank it up. A few weeks ago, he came to me, thanking me over and over again for making this available for students to figure things out on their own. Then Mike joined st911 (totally on his own)...
...Since then, Mike had organized a 9/11 student group on campus, had collected various 9/11 videos, and was in the process of arranging to have them shown on campus. Mike talked about 9/11 with everyone and anyone he met and had handouts to give them.
He was no fly on the wall...."
Mike was removed from Prof. Wood's class roll late on
Monday night, Immediately after he died.
When Wood got the system update
notification, she forwarded it Mike
(not realizing he would never get it)
asking what's up.
Judy Wood learned Thursday morning what happened!!
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/14163686.htm
Fund created for shooting victim
Thu, Mar. 23, 2006
A memorial fund was established Wednesday for the family of a college student slain during a weekend robbery in the Uptown area of Minneapolis.
Michael Zebuhr, 25, a Clemson University doctoral student, was walking with his mother and sister and another woman Saturday night on Girard Avenue South when robbers accosted the group, took the mother's purse and then shot
Zebuhr in the head...
...Also Wednesday, police were trying to determine whether three people arrested late Tuesday had anything to do with the murder.
At about 11 p.m. Tuesday, officers saw a car run through a red light on Pillsbury Avenue South. During a pursuit, officers saw three guns being thrown from the car. The weapons were later retrieved. The chase ended when the car crashed into another vehicle.
Police spokesman Ron Reier said Wednesday evening that investigators had not connected those arrested to the Uptown slaying....
Update:
Arrest made in graduate student murder (CNN headline)
Source: Prof. Judy Wood, image was inserted on TV...
911 Callers Traumatized By Uptown Murder
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_082213938.html
Mar 23, 2006 8:38 pm US/Central
"...Roommates Kang and Houlton were in their Girard Avenue apartment last Saturday when they heard gunfire on the street.
"I saw someone running away, though it was one person and so I can't say whether that was the perpetrator," Houlton said. "The minute we heard the gunshot, we ran onto the street and so did everybody else."
When the roommates and other neighbors saw how severely Zebuhr was injured, they sprang into action.
"There was a definite crowd of people," Houlton said. "It wasn't as though they were abandoned."
Many used their cell phones to call for help. 911 records show one caller said, "Brother shot in head ... not breathing."
Another said the caller saw two men in their early 20s, one wearing a Raiders jacket and the other wearing a red baseball cap. The two men then got into a white two-door car.
"It was dark enough, it was completely understandable to me with the darkness compounded with the trauma, makes it, it would make it hard to make an identification," Houlton said...
Three people being investigated in Uptown murder
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=121354
*bump*
The official account says, that he was shot on the streets, for
no clear reason, during an attempted "robbery".
This older article below does not say, if the robberies in this area do usually end with some killings.
Maybe Michael Zebuhr is the first 9/11 truth hero who died for a noble cause.
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=121215
March 23, 3006
"...Zebuhr, his mother, sister and a friend were returning to their car when the robbery and shooting occurred. They had been dining out in the Calhoun Square shopping complex just across the street. Zebuhr's sister lives just a mile and a half from the popular uptown complex of restaurants and stores....
...The Uptown area is part of the south Minneapolis fifth precinct which has seen 100 armed robberies since the first of the year..."
Michael, a student in Judy Wood's class, was very active in promoting the truth about 911.
Prof. Judy Wood (Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University), a full member of the st911scholars explained:
"...I have an "extra" area on the class web page labeled, "current events (not required reading)." If the student clicks on that link, they go to another page where I have a list of 9/11 links. Mike wandered into this area on his own, and drank it up. A few weeks ago, he came to me, thanking me over and over again for making this available for students to figure things out on their own. Then Mike joined st911 (totally on his own)...
...Since then, Mike had organized a 9/11 student group on campus, had collected various 9/11 videos, and was in the process of arranging to have them shown on campus. Mike talked about 9/11 with everyone and anyone he met and had handouts to give them.
He was no fly on the wall...."
Mike was removed from Prof. Wood's class roll late on
Monday night, Immediately after he died.
When Wood got the system update
notification, she forwarded it Mike
(not realizing he would never get it)
asking what's up.
Judy Wood learned Thursday morning what happened!!
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/14163686.htm
Fund created for shooting victim
Thu, Mar. 23, 2006
A memorial fund was established Wednesday for the family of a college student slain during a weekend robbery in the Uptown area of Minneapolis.
Michael Zebuhr, 25, a Clemson University doctoral student, was walking with his mother and sister and another woman Saturday night on Girard Avenue South when robbers accosted the group, took the mother's purse and then shot
Zebuhr in the head...
...Also Wednesday, police were trying to determine whether three people arrested late Tuesday had anything to do with the murder.
At about 11 p.m. Tuesday, officers saw a car run through a red light on Pillsbury Avenue South. During a pursuit, officers saw three guns being thrown from the car. The weapons were later retrieved. The chase ended when the car crashed into another vehicle.
Police spokesman Ron Reier said Wednesday evening that investigators had not connected those arrested to the Uptown slaying....
Update:
Arrest made in graduate student murder (CNN headline)
Source: Prof. Judy Wood, image was inserted on TV...
911 Callers Traumatized By Uptown Murder
http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_082213938.html
Mar 23, 2006 8:38 pm US/Central
"...Roommates Kang and Houlton were in their Girard Avenue apartment last Saturday when they heard gunfire on the street.
"I saw someone running away, though it was one person and so I can't say whether that was the perpetrator," Houlton said. "The minute we heard the gunshot, we ran onto the street and so did everybody else."
When the roommates and other neighbors saw how severely Zebuhr was injured, they sprang into action.
"There was a definite crowd of people," Houlton said. "It wasn't as though they were abandoned."
Many used their cell phones to call for help. 911 records show one caller said, "Brother shot in head ... not breathing."
Another said the caller saw two men in their early 20s, one wearing a Raiders jacket and the other wearing a red baseball cap. The two men then got into a white two-door car.
"It was dark enough, it was completely understandable to me with the darkness compounded with the trauma, makes it, it would make it hard to make an identification," Houlton said...
Three people being investigated in Uptown murder
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=121354
*bump*
QUOTE (newton+Mar 24 2006, 07:39 PM)
i'm still waiting for that apology, lenbrazil.
You might be waiting awhile newton.
When lenbrazil was last here he gave me a classic example of "innumeracy" that I never got a response on. I was asking about the mass of the towers and compared the towers to other well-known buildings to suggest the mass was less than the 500,000 tons that is most often cited. lenbrazil gave me this gem to try to refute me:
This is the type of poor reasoning with numbers that gives science and engineering educators so many headaches. It should have been immediately obvious to lenbrazil that there is a problem if would take more than 9 Sears Towers to equal the floor space of one WTC tower. lenbrazil was so giddy about the "research" he did to come up with these numbers he failed to notice that the floor spaces are given in square meters with the exception of the WTC floor space which is given in square feet.
Among the consequences of innumeracy given by wikipedia are the following that might apply here:
- Inaccurate reporting of news stories and insufficient skepticism in assessing these stories
- Belief in pseudoscience
The good news is that innumeracy can be treated if the subject is of reasonable intelligence and has the desire to learn.
You might be waiting awhile newton.
When lenbrazil was last here he gave me a classic example of "innumeracy" that I never got a response on. I was asking about the mass of the towers and compared the towers to other well-known buildings to suggest the mass was less than the 500,000 tons that is most often cited. lenbrazil gave me this gem to try to refute me:
QUOTE
Size of course does not mean the same thing as height. Size is height x width x depth and the floors of the WTC were larger than those of the other buildings. Size for a building can be calculated a few ways such as total floor space and the WTC had almost double the floor space of the 2nd place Empire State Building. Perhaps a better way would be cubic space but I couldn’t find any statistics for that. If some one wants to roughly estimate that they can divide the floor space by the number of floors (to get the average space per floor) and multiply by the height. Stats are from Wikipedia and Emporius heights are to the top of the roof. At 510 million kilos the WTC weighed less per square or cubic meter/foot than the other buildings so lacking any contradictory data there is no reason to doubt the figure.
Building --- height floors/feet --- floor space (sq. feet) --- weight (millions of kilos)
Woolworth Building --- 60/792 --- ? --- 223
John Hancock Tower --- 100/1127 --- 260,126 --- 384
Sears Tower --- 110/1450 --- 418,064 --- 440
Taipei 101 --- 101/1470 --- 412,500 --- 700
Petronas Twin Towers --- 88/1345 --- 395,000 --- 350
WTC --- 110/1368 --- 3,800,000 --- 510
Building --- height floors/feet --- floor space (sq. feet) --- weight (millions of kilos)
Woolworth Building --- 60/792 --- ? --- 223
John Hancock Tower --- 100/1127 --- 260,126 --- 384
Sears Tower --- 110/1450 --- 418,064 --- 440
Taipei 101 --- 101/1470 --- 412,500 --- 700
Petronas Twin Towers --- 88/1345 --- 395,000 --- 350
WTC --- 110/1368 --- 3,800,000 --- 510
This is the type of poor reasoning with numbers that gives science and engineering educators so many headaches. It should have been immediately obvious to lenbrazil that there is a problem if would take more than 9 Sears Towers to equal the floor space of one WTC tower. lenbrazil was so giddy about the "research" he did to come up with these numbers he failed to notice that the floor spaces are given in square meters with the exception of the WTC floor space which is given in square feet.
Among the consequences of innumeracy given by wikipedia are the following that might apply here:
- Inaccurate reporting of news stories and insufficient skepticism in assessing these stories
- Belief in pseudoscience
The good news is that innumeracy can be treated if the subject is of reasonable intelligence and has the desire to learn.
QUOTE (Steve1957+)
Like a woman in her impurity, most of you ILKS are going through some serious mental difficulties
Women are impure?
Can you prove it by folding up some money?
Arthur
Women are impure?
Can you prove it by folding up some money?
Arthur
QUOTE
Women are impure?
Can you prove it by folding up some money?
Can you prove it by folding up some money?
I hope so
Hey Arthur, wassup .
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 24 2006, 07:04 PM)
QUOTE
What is a scientific poll ?
Norom
Norom
Well according to mentally depraved ILKS such as lenbrazil, a true scientific poll can only be conducted with the approval of the white house.
In fact according to the ILKS, the source of all truth and knowledge can only come from the administration, as anything outside or contrary to the current administration is completely false, anti-american, communist, terrorism and should be dealt with accordingly.
And if you don't agree with the president or the scientific ILKS that are merely puppets on a string, then you should be labeled as an enemy of the state.
If you don't believe in the magician in the cave, who suspended all the laws of physics, gravity and reality fairy tale then you are a terrorist supporter and should be black balled and cut off from any source of funding.
And if you have the gall to post reasonable, logical, true scientific and proven mathematically correct hypotheses on what probably happened on 9/11, then you can rest assured neo/conservatives wolf attack dogs will be sent after you and bombard your posts with irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved posts in a feeble attempt to DE-RAIL meaningful discussions about the observable facts regarding what really happened.
and to spread deception and confusionEven though those wolves are about as obvious as it gets, and they only succeed at proving how ignorant and dishonest they really are, you can rest assured those wolves will be sent, if for nothing else, but to disrupt legitimate discussions.
And this is why I sometimes have to sound a little harsh to these disingenuous ILKS, as I sometimes have grab them by their little throats and expose their stupidity, ignorance and demented little minds.
Sometimes I have to remind people of the facts of the case, as all so many people seem to forget that little bush waited for about a half hour after being told that the United States was being attacked, similar to that of Pearl Harbor.
So obviously we shouldn't really take any of these clowns seriously nor PRETEND to think any of their questions are legitimate, as they've proven to us all time and time again that they have absolutely no interest in the truth or the facts or in logic and reasoning whatsoever.
They do however might make for some entertainment from time to time.
Read the link!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll re-post the link for those who missed it a page back.
My Webpagehttp://www.aapor.org/default.asp?ID=27&pag...wsletter_detail
Its not a long article and uses no really big words, honest.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 24 2006, 02:58 AM)
Has this been linked here yet:
Comparison of Demolition of Landmark Towers, Fort Worth, Texas, 18th March 2006 and Collapse of WTC 7 on Sept 11th 2001
The similarities are undeniable, and yet, according to the guy heading the NIST report, they don't know why WTC7 fell. They don't know, and yet they completely reject a method that can easily reproduce the observations.
According to this site:
http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.htm
work began on the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Oct 05. So it took 5 months of preparation for this building to collapse fast and straight down, in exactly the style WTC7 managed from supposedly completely random forces.
Also, as is clear in the Landmark video, explosives are set off, in a planned sequence, at ALL levels of the building. WTC7 supposedly had no organised removal of its supports and yet collapsed in an identical fashion.
Assuming that the WTC7 collapse was actually possible without explosives, what would the actual probability of it occuring be? What is the probability that uncoordinated, assymetric damages from different sources would mimic the speed and symmetry of a 5 month operation involving the use of explosives placed throughout the entire building (and, in all likelyhood, quite a bit of the support taken out prior to the demolition)? What are the chances? 1 in a million?
And some people here don't find it the least bit suspicious that a perfect implosion occured from random forces on 9/11 when it normally requires months of work and the energy input of explosives to achieve, and that none of their trusted experts can propose an alternate solution?
It's even stranger that these same people can accuse others of being idiots for recognising how low the chances are of random forces mimicking 5 months of expert planning and building-wide explosive energy.
Here we are again, dismissing, diverting, and denieing. Lenbrazil, YID, NEU-CHACHE. You guys came here to make Physics and Engineering arguments, right????? Address the links above. Please explain to us all how the two collapses can be so similar.
Comparison of Demolition of Landmark Towers, Fort Worth, Texas, 18th March 2006 and Collapse of WTC 7 on Sept 11th 2001
The similarities are undeniable, and yet, according to the guy heading the NIST report, they don't know why WTC7 fell. They don't know, and yet they completely reject a method that can easily reproduce the observations.
According to this site:
http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.htm
work began on the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Oct 05. So it took 5 months of preparation for this building to collapse fast and straight down, in exactly the style WTC7 managed from supposedly completely random forces.
Also, as is clear in the Landmark video, explosives are set off, in a planned sequence, at ALL levels of the building. WTC7 supposedly had no organised removal of its supports and yet collapsed in an identical fashion.
Assuming that the WTC7 collapse was actually possible without explosives, what would the actual probability of it occuring be? What is the probability that uncoordinated, assymetric damages from different sources would mimic the speed and symmetry of a 5 month operation involving the use of explosives placed throughout the entire building (and, in all likelyhood, quite a bit of the support taken out prior to the demolition)? What are the chances? 1 in a million?
And some people here don't find it the least bit suspicious that a perfect implosion occured from random forces on 9/11 when it normally requires months of work and the energy input of explosives to achieve, and that none of their trusted experts can propose an alternate solution?
It's even stranger that these same people can accuse others of being idiots for recognising how low the chances are of random forces mimicking 5 months of expert planning and building-wide explosive energy.
Here we are again, dismissing, diverting, and denieing. Lenbrazil, YID, NEU-CHACHE. You guys came here to make Physics and Engineering arguments, right????? Address the links above. Please explain to us all how the two collapses can be so similar.
Hey Arthur, Wassup baby!!! Came back for some drive-by easy shots?
QUOTE
Arthur
Women are impure?
Can you prove it by folding up some money?
Women are impure?
Can you prove it by folding up some money?
I've been gone for about a month now and I thought you would have grown up a little by now, at least enough to know that women have that special time, normally ever month, that's sometimes referred to as "The time of their impurity".
This image might give some of the more mature audiences out there what it really means...
And that doesn't mean anything against women, as that's just the way they were made, they have biological clocks, so to speak and from the time their about 13, until they're in their 40's they have this little thing called a rhythmic clock.
Now with that out of the way, do you need me to explain what the birds and the bees really mean?
But try to remember, we can get into deep, heated debates about the corrupt government, 9/11 and the war in Iraq, however we should try to keep this forum clean, so I sugges you ask your mom and dad about the birds and bees.
From its creation onward, the OSS was a fundamentally new type of military-intelligence agency. Its Director, "Wild" Bill Donovan, saw the OSS as a new type of multidisciplinary intelligence agency which relied on a variety of creative and unconventional means of both collecting intelligence and undertaking covert actions. The OSS recruited the best and brightest from elite academic and social circles for its ranks. In many ways, Gregory Bateson was a natural candidate for the OSS. Since 1940, Bateson and his then-wife Margaret Mead had been developing and refining the methods used in their studies of "culture at a distance" (Yans-McLaughlin 1986a: 196). These were the very sorts of techniques that the OSS was interested in using to understand and subvert the enemy.
Bateson was initially reluctant to work for a military or intelligence organization. It was his view that, when working for an intelligence organization - as with most applied projects - one is far from free to choose the scope of research, or what is actually done with the fruits of one's labors. Even before Bateson considered joining the OSS, he was troubled by the ethical questions raised by anthropologists using their knowledge as a weapon in war, or further- that social scientists could expect to have little say in what was done with their research. In 1941, he wrote that the war is now a life-or-death struggle over the role which the social sciences shall play in the ordering of human relationships. It is hardly an exaggeration to say...this war is ideologically about just this - the role of the social sciences. Are we to reserve the techniques and the right to manipulate peoples as the privilege of a few planning, goal-oriented and power hungry individuals to whom the instrumentality of science makes a natural appeal? Now that we have techniques, are we in cold blood, going to treat people as things? Or what are we going to do with these techniques? (Bateson 1942:84 - as quoted in Yans-McLaughlin 1986a:209).
While Bateson expressed second thoughts before and again after the war, surprisingly, the picture that emerges from examining the material in his OSS files show a dedicated, even enthusiastic intelligence operative during the war.
Bateson began the war working under contract at Columbia University for the OSS and later the US Navy as a PidginEnglish instructor for troops heading to the South Pacific (YansMcLaughlin 1986a: 197). His next post was as the "secretary of the Morale Committee" (Yans-McLaughlin 1986a:200). Finally, he served as a civilian "member of a forward intelligence u[n]it in the Arakan mountains of Burma from 1944 to 1945" (Bateson 1944).
Bateson spent much of his wartime duty designing and carrying out "black propaganda" radio broadcasts from remote, secret locations in Burma and Thailand (Lipset 1980:174), and also worked in China, India, and Ceylon (Yans-McLaughlin 1986a:202). The term "black propaganda" simply refers to a technique whereby an individual or group pretends to represent the positions of their enemy, and mixes a preponderance of facts with a careful seasoning of disinformation that will portray the enemy in a negative light. In this work Bateson applied the principles of his theory of schismogenesis to help foster disorder among the enemy.
[He] helped to operate an allied radio station that pretended to be an official Japanese station: it undermined Japanese propaganda by following the official Japanese line but exaggerating it (Mabee 1987:8).
link
Core Aim of His Work
Bateson in his own words was seeking the pattern which connects and indeed his definition of aesthetic was responsiveness to the pattern which connects. In the introduction to "Mind and Nature" he poses a series of questions:-
"What pattern connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose and all the four of them to me? And me to you? And all the six of us to the amoeba in one direction and the backward schizophrenic in another?" (M&N p.8)
In an attempt to answer these questions his approach was to establish an epistemology(4), one that relies on a unique conception of `difference,' `context' and `pattern.'
lesson 1
Analysis tool for information.
Bateson was initially reluctant to work for a military or intelligence organization. It was his view that, when working for an intelligence organization - as with most applied projects - one is far from free to choose the scope of research, or what is actually done with the fruits of one's labors. Even before Bateson considered joining the OSS, he was troubled by the ethical questions raised by anthropologists using their knowledge as a weapon in war, or further- that social scientists could expect to have little say in what was done with their research. In 1941, he wrote that the war is now a life-or-death struggle over the role which the social sciences shall play in the ordering of human relationships. It is hardly an exaggeration to say...this war is ideologically about just this - the role of the social sciences. Are we to reserve the techniques and the right to manipulate peoples as the privilege of a few planning, goal-oriented and power hungry individuals to whom the instrumentality of science makes a natural appeal? Now that we have techniques, are we in cold blood, going to treat people as things? Or what are we going to do with these techniques? (Bateson 1942:84 - as quoted in Yans-McLaughlin 1986a:209).
While Bateson expressed second thoughts before and again after the war, surprisingly, the picture that emerges from examining the material in his OSS files show a dedicated, even enthusiastic intelligence operative during the war.
Bateson began the war working under contract at Columbia University for the OSS and later the US Navy as a PidginEnglish instructor for troops heading to the South Pacific (YansMcLaughlin 1986a: 197). His next post was as the "secretary of the Morale Committee" (Yans-McLaughlin 1986a:200). Finally, he served as a civilian "member of a forward intelligence u[n]it in the Arakan mountains of Burma from 1944 to 1945" (Bateson 1944).
Bateson spent much of his wartime duty designing and carrying out "black propaganda" radio broadcasts from remote, secret locations in Burma and Thailand (Lipset 1980:174), and also worked in China, India, and Ceylon (Yans-McLaughlin 1986a:202). The term "black propaganda" simply refers to a technique whereby an individual or group pretends to represent the positions of their enemy, and mixes a preponderance of facts with a careful seasoning of disinformation that will portray the enemy in a negative light. In this work Bateson applied the principles of his theory of schismogenesis to help foster disorder among the enemy.
[He] helped to operate an allied radio station that pretended to be an official Japanese station: it undermined Japanese propaganda by following the official Japanese line but exaggerating it (Mabee 1987:8).
link
Core Aim of His Work
Bateson in his own words was seeking the pattern which connects and indeed his definition of aesthetic was responsiveness to the pattern which connects. In the introduction to "Mind and Nature" he poses a series of questions:-
"What pattern connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose and all the four of them to me? And me to you? And all the six of us to the amoeba in one direction and the backward schizophrenic in another?" (M&N p.8)
In an attempt to answer these questions his approach was to establish an epistemology(4), one that relies on a unique conception of `difference,' `context' and `pattern.'
lesson 1
Analysis tool for information.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 24 2006, 08:43 PM)
QUOTE
Women are impure?
Can you prove it by folding up some money?
Can you prove it by folding up some money?
I hope so
Hey Arthur, wassup .
let us bow our heads and pray for blessings, brother.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 24 2006, 09:08 PM)
Core Aim of His Work
Bateson in his own words was seeking the pattern which connects and indeed his definition of aesthetic was responsiveness to the pattern which connects. In the introduction to "Mind and Nature" he poses a series of questions:-
"What pattern connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose and all the four of them to me? And me to you? And all the six of us to the amoeba in one direction and the backward schizophrenic in another?" (M&N p.8)
In an attempt to answer these questions his approach was to establish an epistemology(4), one that relies on a unique conception of `difference,' `context' and `pattern.'
lesson 1
Analysis tool for information.
very similiar to marshall mcluhan's 'figure/ground' relationships, which are products of 'enviroments', or 'spaces'.
Bateson in his own words was seeking the pattern which connects and indeed his definition of aesthetic was responsiveness to the pattern which connects. In the introduction to "Mind and Nature" he poses a series of questions:-
"What pattern connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose and all the four of them to me? And me to you? And all the six of us to the amoeba in one direction and the backward schizophrenic in another?" (M&N p.8)
In an attempt to answer these questions his approach was to establish an epistemology(4), one that relies on a unique conception of `difference,' `context' and `pattern.'
lesson 1
Analysis tool for information.
very similiar to marshall mcluhan's 'figure/ground' relationships, which are products of 'enviroments', or 'spaces'.
I studied this for my MA, fu<k knows why ? I just thought it was a good tool for analyzing information. So is the OCT true or not ?
hasta manyana
hasta manyana
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 24 2006, 08:52 PM)
Here we are again, dismissing, diverting, and denieing. Lenbrazil, YID, NEU-CHACHE. You guys came here to make Physics and Engineering arguments, right????? Address the links above. Please explain to us all how the two collapses can be so similar.
I already posted some dis-similarities a few pages back.
So far no comment on that at all.
I'll add another.
The demolition of theLandmark was deliberatly designed to have the building fall to one side rather than straight down. To do this the charges on the lower floors had to be placed and timed specifically to have that happen.
As for the similarities, tall straight structures will demonstrate some gross similarities in their collapses due to their similar geometry.
But then you did not actually want an explanation did you? You , IMHO, actually want me to say that the only way to have them look even the slightest bit alike is to employ controlled demolition in both cases. Am I correct? yes or no
steve52 chooses to belabor the paper money trick.
he posts(from two separate posts)
....And if you have the gall to post reasonable, logical, true scientific and proven mathematically correct hypotheses on what probably happened on 9/11, then you can rest assured neo/conservatives wolf attack dogs will be sent after you and bombard your posts with irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved posts
...........................
...The problem some of you are having with the folded bills is that it is a REAL PROVABLE thing. Even if it doesn't address the scientific physics involved with the control demolition of the WTC buildings it should be pretty obvious that Newton was simply showing us some of the interesting coincidences that are in plain view.
I didn't hear Newton making a big issue of the folded bills, but he was rather displaying them so we could see for ourselves that it really does work. You really can fold up the bills and they really do look very similar to some of the visions we all saw on 9/11. It's no big deal, but these are real things that really are visible.
Ok, since I have stopped laughing and since steve wishes to make excuses for this subject even being brought up...........
What is ,"reasonable, logical, true scientific " about the folding money??
What is not , " irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved" about the folding money?
Pretend I am a complete neophyte, a clean slate, now explain to me in consise terms what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
Ok, since I have stopped laughing and since steve wishes to make excuses for this subject even being brought up...........
What is ,"reasonable, logical, true scientific " about the folding money??
What is not , " irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved" about the folding money?
Pretend I am a complete neophyte, a clean slate, now explain to me in consise terms what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
But regarding the folded $20. bill and other strange coincidences, well there's really no reason that should bother anybody, after all it gives us a little break from all the insanity spewing out of the posts from the mentally depraved magician in a cave, fairy tale supporters posts
By posting mentally depraved, insane fairy tales about palour tricks?? newton listed this with other aspects that you all take seriously so I naturally assumed that he also took this seriously.
BTW, I am not a ceo-conservative anything let alone an attack dog.
Here we are again, dismissing, diverting, and denieing. Lenbrazil, YID, NEU-CHACHE. You guys came here to make Physics and Engineering arguments, right????? Address the links above. Please explain to us all how the two collapses can be so similar.
I already posted some dis-similarities a few pages back.
So far no comment on that at all.
I'll add another.
The demolition of theLandmark was deliberatly designed to have the building fall to one side rather than straight down. To do this the charges on the lower floors had to be placed and timed specifically to have that happen.
As for the similarities, tall straight structures will demonstrate some gross similarities in their collapses due to their similar geometry.
But then you did not actually want an explanation did you? You , IMHO, actually want me to say that the only way to have them look even the slightest bit alike is to employ controlled demolition in both cases. Am I correct? yes or no
No, I want you to explain to me using fema and NIST explainations of the fire hypothesis how WTC 7 collapses remarkably similar to the CD of the Landmark Towers and other documented CDs. I've seen your posts before of the external damage of WTC 7, yet it did not fall to one side as observed with the Landmark CD.
Here we are again, dismissing, diverting, and denieing. Lenbrazil, YID, NEU-CHACHE. You guys came here to make Physics and Engineering arguments, right????? Address the links above. Please explain to us all how the two collapses can be so similar.
I already posted some dis-similarities a few pages back.
So far no comment on that at all.
I'll add another.
The demolition of theLandmark was deliberatly designed to have the building fall to one side rather than straight down. To do this the charges on the lower floors had to be placed and timed specifically to have that happen.
As for the similarities, tall straight structures will demonstrate some gross similarities in their collapses due to their similar geometry.
But then you did not actually want an explanation did you? You , IMHO, actually want me to say that the only way to have them look even the slightest bit alike is to employ controlled demolition in both cases. Am I correct? yes or no
No, I want you to explain to me using fema and NIST explainations of the fire hypothesis how WTC 7 collapses remarkably similar to the CD of the Landmark Towers and other documented CDs. I've seen your posts before of the external damage of WTC 7, yet it did not fall to one side as observed with the Landmark CD.
When you have read through NIST's appendix L , the link to which I posted yesterday, get back to me.
NIST gives a preliminary hypothysis on the collapse of #7.
It supposes that the damage to the center of the south face indicates the cause of initial damage and subsequent fires that led to the collapse of internal load carrying columns in the core of #7.
Obviously you have not read it yet. It isn't that long though it is detailed in the description of the construction of #7.
he posts(from two separate posts)
QUOTE
....And if you have the gall to post reasonable, logical, true scientific and proven mathematically correct hypotheses on what probably happened on 9/11, then you can rest assured neo/conservatives wolf attack dogs will be sent after you and bombard your posts with irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved posts
...........................
...The problem some of you are having with the folded bills is that it is a REAL PROVABLE thing. Even if it doesn't address the scientific physics involved with the control demolition of the WTC buildings it should be pretty obvious that Newton was simply showing us some of the interesting coincidences that are in plain view.
I didn't hear Newton making a big issue of the folded bills, but he was rather displaying them so we could see for ourselves that it really does work. You really can fold up the bills and they really do look very similar to some of the visions we all saw on 9/11. It's no big deal, but these are real things that really are visible.
Ok, since I have stopped laughing and since steve wishes to make excuses for this subject even being brought up...........
What is ,"reasonable, logical, true scientific " about the folding money??
What is not , " irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved" about the folding money?
Pretend I am a complete neophyte, a clean slate, now explain to me in consise terms what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
....And if you have the gall to post reasonable, logical, true scientific and proven mathematically correct hypotheses on what probably happened on 9/11, then you can rest assured neo/conservatives wolf attack dogs will be sent after you and bombard your posts with irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved posts ........................... ...The problem some of you are having with the folded bills is that it is a REAL PROVABLE thing. Even if it doesn't address the scientific physics involved with the control demolition of the WTC buildings it should be pretty obvious that Newton was simply showing us some of the interesting coincidences that are in plain view. I didn't hear Newton making a big issue of the folded bills, but he was rather displaying them so we could see for ourselves that it really does work. You really can fold up the bills and they really do look very similar to some of the visions we all saw on 9/11. It's no big deal, but these are real things that really are visible. |
Ok, since I have stopped laughing and since steve wishes to make excuses for this subject even being brought up...........
What is ,"reasonable, logical, true scientific " about the folding money??
What is not , " irrelevant, illogical, unproven, unscientific and mentally depraved" about the folding money?
Pretend I am a complete neophyte, a clean slate, now explain to me in consise terms what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
But regarding the folded $20. bill and other strange coincidences, well there's really no reason that should bother anybody, after all it gives us a little break from all the insanity spewing out of the posts from the mentally depraved magician in a cave, fairy tale supporters posts
By posting mentally depraved, insane fairy tales about palour tricks?? newton listed this with other aspects that you all take seriously so I naturally assumed that he also took this seriously.
BTW, I am not a ceo-conservative anything let alone an attack dog.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 24 2006, 09:36 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 24 2006, 08:52 PM)
Here we are again, dismissing, diverting, and denieing. Lenbrazil, YID, NEU-CHACHE. You guys came here to make Physics and Engineering arguments, right????? Address the links above. Please explain to us all how the two collapses can be so similar.
I already posted some dis-similarities a few pages back.
So far no comment on that at all.
I'll add another.
The demolition of theLandmark was deliberatly designed to have the building fall to one side rather than straight down. To do this the charges on the lower floors had to be placed and timed specifically to have that happen.
As for the similarities, tall straight structures will demonstrate some gross similarities in their collapses due to their similar geometry.
But then you did not actually want an explanation did you? You , IMHO, actually want me to say that the only way to have them look even the slightest bit alike is to employ controlled demolition in both cases. Am I correct? yes or no
No, I want you to explain to me using fema and NIST explainations of the fire hypothesis how WTC 7 collapses remarkably similar to the CD of the Landmark Towers and other documented CDs. I've seen your posts before of the external damage of WTC 7, yet it did not fall to one side as observed with the Landmark CD.
yesitdid,
Please forgive me, but after reading some of your posts I had to go to the bathroom...
Please forgive me, but after reading some of your posts I had to go to the bathroom...
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 24 2006, 09:51 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 24 2006, 09:36 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 24 2006, 08:52 PM)
Here we are again, dismissing, diverting, and denieing. Lenbrazil, YID, NEU-CHACHE. You guys came here to make Physics and Engineering arguments, right????? Address the links above. Please explain to us all how the two collapses can be so similar.
I already posted some dis-similarities a few pages back.
So far no comment on that at all.
I'll add another.
The demolition of theLandmark was deliberatly designed to have the building fall to one side rather than straight down. To do this the charges on the lower floors had to be placed and timed specifically to have that happen.
As for the similarities, tall straight structures will demonstrate some gross similarities in their collapses due to their similar geometry.
But then you did not actually want an explanation did you? You , IMHO, actually want me to say that the only way to have them look even the slightest bit alike is to employ controlled demolition in both cases. Am I correct? yes or no
No, I want you to explain to me using fema and NIST explainations of the fire hypothesis how WTC 7 collapses remarkably similar to the CD of the Landmark Towers and other documented CDs. I've seen your posts before of the external damage of WTC 7, yet it did not fall to one side as observed with the Landmark CD.
When you have read through NIST's appendix L , the link to which I posted yesterday, get back to me.
NIST gives a preliminary hypothysis on the collapse of #7.
It supposes that the damage to the center of the south face indicates the cause of initial damage and subsequent fires that led to the collapse of internal load carrying columns in the core of #7.
Obviously you have not read it yet. It isn't that long though it is detailed in the description of the construction of #7.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 24 2006, 10:01 PM)
yesitdid,
Please forgive me, but after reading some of your posts I had to go to the bathroom...
Yeah, this coming from the guy who considers menstruating women to be "impure".
Please forgive me, but after reading some of your posts I had to go to the bathroom...
Yeah, this coming from the guy who considers menstruating women to be "impure".
Newt, where did that image of the tower piece falling come from?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 24 2006, 09:34 AM)
follow the money
and the ones that started it all......9+11=20....
As far as the funny money. Irony, we've been carrying due notice in our pockets for years and don't know symbols 'nuff to be wary when they change.
The secrecy of 9-11 is better than secrecy, it is unconscious, mostly.
That is why the most sensitive secrets are kept.
Art comes from the unconscious, engravers are artists. Ancient fraternal orders involved with the occult value symbols depicted through art and have a penchant for irony.
We have no respect for the unconscious, some do not believe it exists although it is 86% of each of our mental capacities. This is the real dumbing down. Acomplished through fear. In the beginning, mortal fear. Now, fear of ridicule.
Each of us sleeps at night, having no idea of what our mind is doing, or if it is doing something, we do not even know that we are doing it! We think we know because of dreams. We do not. Any asumption is too much when we cannot find control over our world with reason.
Wanna' bet?
and the ones that started it all......9+11=20....
As far as the funny money. Irony, we've been carrying due notice in our pockets for years and don't know symbols 'nuff to be wary when they change.
The secrecy of 9-11 is better than secrecy, it is unconscious, mostly.
That is why the most sensitive secrets are kept.
Art comes from the unconscious, engravers are artists. Ancient fraternal orders involved with the occult value symbols depicted through art and have a penchant for irony.
We have no respect for the unconscious, some do not believe it exists although it is 86% of each of our mental capacities. This is the real dumbing down. Acomplished through fear. In the beginning, mortal fear. Now, fear of ridicule.
Each of us sleeps at night, having no idea of what our mind is doing, or if it is doing something, we do not even know that we are doing it! We think we know because of dreams. We do not. Any asumption is too much when we cannot find control over our world with reason.
Wanna' bet?
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 24 2006, 10:57 PM)
]
The secrecy of 9-11 is better than secrecy, it is unconscious, mostly.
That is why the most sensitive secrets are kept.
Art comes from the unconscious, engravers are artists. Ancient fraternal orders involved with the occult value symbols depicted through art and have a penchant for irony.
We have no respect for the unconscious, some do not believe it exists although it is 86% of each of our mental capacities. This is the real dumbing down. Acomplished through fear. In the beginning, mortal fear. Now, fear of ridicule.
Each of us sleeps at night, having no idea of what our mind is doing, or if it is doing something, we do not even know that we are doing it! We think we know because of dreams. We do not. Any asumption is too much when we cannot find control over our world with reason.
Wanna' bet?
Uh, yeah, perhaps the others will have a better go at explaining, in consise terms, what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
You , sir have simply waved your hands about and mumbled.
The secrecy of 9-11 is better than secrecy, it is unconscious, mostly.
That is why the most sensitive secrets are kept.
Art comes from the unconscious, engravers are artists. Ancient fraternal orders involved with the occult value symbols depicted through art and have a penchant for irony.
We have no respect for the unconscious, some do not believe it exists although it is 86% of each of our mental capacities. This is the real dumbing down. Acomplished through fear. In the beginning, mortal fear. Now, fear of ridicule.
Each of us sleeps at night, having no idea of what our mind is doing, or if it is doing something, we do not even know that we are doing it! We think we know because of dreams. We do not. Any asumption is too much when we cannot find control over our world with reason.
Wanna' bet?
Uh, yeah, perhaps the others will have a better go at explaining, in consise terms, what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
You , sir have simply waved your hands about and mumbled.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 24 2006, 11:03 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 24 2006, 10:57 PM)
]
The secrecy of 9-11 is better than secrecy, it is unconscious, mostly.
That is why the most sensitive secrets are kept.
Art comes from the unconscious, engravers are artists. Ancient fraternal orders involved with the occult value symbols depicted through art and have a penchant for irony.
We have no respect for the unconscious, some do not believe it exists although it is 86% of each of our mental capacities. This is the real dumbing down. Acomplished through fear. In the beginning, mortal fear. Now, fear of ridicule.
Each of us sleeps at night, having no idea of what our mind is doing, or if it is doing something, we do not even know that we are doing it! We think we know because of dreams. We do not. Any asumption is too much when we cannot find control over our world with reason.
Wanna' bet?
Uh, yeah, perhaps the others will have a better go at explaining, in consise terms, what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
You , sir have simply waved your hands about and mumbled.
I would expect that from you. You support secrets.
The secrecy of 9-11 is better than secrecy, it is unconscious, mostly.
That is why the most sensitive secrets are kept.
Art comes from the unconscious, engravers are artists. Ancient fraternal orders involved with the occult value symbols depicted through art and have a penchant for irony.
We have no respect for the unconscious, some do not believe it exists although it is 86% of each of our mental capacities. This is the real dumbing down. Acomplished through fear. In the beginning, mortal fear. Now, fear of ridicule.
Each of us sleeps at night, having no idea of what our mind is doing, or if it is doing something, we do not even know that we are doing it! We think we know because of dreams. We do not. Any asumption is too much when we cannot find control over our world with reason.
Wanna' bet?
Uh, yeah, perhaps the others will have a better go at explaining, in consise terms, what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
You , sir have simply waved your hands about and mumbled.
I would expect that from you. You support secrets.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 24 2006, 02:58 AM)
Has this been linked here yet:
Comparison of Demolition of Landmark Towers, Fort Worth, Texas, 18th March 2006 and Collapse of WTC 7 on Sept 11th 2001
The similarities are undeniable, and yet, according to the guy heading the NIST report, they don't know why WTC7 fell. They don't know, and yet they completely reject a method that can easily reproduce the observations.
According to this site:
http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.htm
work began on the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Oct 05. So it took 5 months of preparation for this building to collapse fast and straight down, in exactly the style WTC7 managed from supposedly completely random forces.
Also, as is clear in the Landmark video, explosives are set off, in a planned sequence, at ALL levels of the building. WTC7 supposedly had no organised removal of its supports and yet collapsed in an identical fashion.
Assuming that the WTC7 collapse was actually possible without explosives, what would the actual probability of it occuring be? What is the probability that uncoordinated, assymetric damages from different sources would mimic the speed and symmetry of a 5 month operation involving the use of explosives placed throughout the entire building (and, in all likelyhood, quite a bit of the support taken out prior to the demolition)? What are the chances? 1 in a million?
And some people here don't find it the least bit suspicious that a perfect implosion occured from random forces on 9/11 when it normally requires months of work and the energy input of explosives to achieve, and that none of their trusted experts can propose an alternate solution?
It's even stranger that these same people can accuse others of being idiots for recognising how low the chances are of random forces mimicking 5 months of expert planning and building-wide explosive energy.
THAT was the best post in over 500.
Comparison of Demolition of Landmark Towers, Fort Worth, Texas, 18th March 2006 and Collapse of WTC 7 on Sept 11th 2001
The similarities are undeniable, and yet, according to the guy heading the NIST report, they don't know why WTC7 fell. They don't know, and yet they completely reject a method that can easily reproduce the observations.
According to this site:
http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.htm
work began on the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Oct 05. So it took 5 months of preparation for this building to collapse fast and straight down, in exactly the style WTC7 managed from supposedly completely random forces.
Also, as is clear in the Landmark video, explosives are set off, in a planned sequence, at ALL levels of the building. WTC7 supposedly had no organised removal of its supports and yet collapsed in an identical fashion.
Assuming that the WTC7 collapse was actually possible without explosives, what would the actual probability of it occuring be? What is the probability that uncoordinated, assymetric damages from different sources would mimic the speed and symmetry of a 5 month operation involving the use of explosives placed throughout the entire building (and, in all likelyhood, quite a bit of the support taken out prior to the demolition)? What are the chances? 1 in a million?
And some people here don't find it the least bit suspicious that a perfect implosion occured from random forces on 9/11 when it normally requires months of work and the energy input of explosives to achieve, and that none of their trusted experts can propose an alternate solution?
It's even stranger that these same people can accuse others of being idiots for recognising how low the chances are of random forces mimicking 5 months of expert planning and building-wide explosive energy.
THAT was the best post in over 500.
The book
J. Byles
"Rubble: unearthing the history of demolition"
Harmony Books, 2005
offers a non-technical overview of modern controlled demolition. Examples of using demolition charges to push over structures include smokestacks and, most spectacular, a Las Vegas hotel pushed over so the scene could be used in the B-grade movie, "Mars Attacks!" What is clear enough from the book is the special effort required to get a structure to fall in any other direction than essential straight down.
Whatever your "A vs. D" perspective, I believe you will find this book useful.
J. Byles
"Rubble: unearthing the history of demolition"
Harmony Books, 2005
offers a non-technical overview of modern controlled demolition. Examples of using demolition charges to push over structures include smokestacks and, most spectacular, a Las Vegas hotel pushed over so the scene could be used in the B-grade movie, "Mars Attacks!" What is clear enough from the book is the special effort required to get a structure to fall in any other direction than essential straight down.
Whatever your "A vs. D" perspective, I believe you will find this book useful.
YID - you failed to address my initial arguments, instead focussing on other, less important traits of the collapses. Interesting then that you accuse me of dodging arguments. (I didn't anyway, I said your difference(s) could be explained by different demolition techniques, whereas the characteristics I discussed are common to all demolitions). If you will first address the two most important features of controlled demolition (speed and direction), then I will in turn address the secondary traits that you brought up.
I notice you bring up NISTs preliminary hypothesis for WTC7 as if it settles the matter. Funny, Dr. Sunder doesn't agree with you:
"But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
So either the preliminary hypothesis does not do an adequate job, or Dr.Sunder is a liar. Which is it?
From Guest_David B. Benson:
Yes, but only in the scenario that explosives are being used. If they are, of course the building will want to go straight down, as there is no resistance getting in the way.
Your statement is misleading by omission, what you actually meant was:
Yes, but only in the scenario that explosives are being used. If they are, of course the building will want to go straight down, as there is no resistance getting in the way.
Your statement is misleading by omission, what you actually meant was:
"What is clear enough from the book is the special effort required to get a structure to fall in any other direction than essentially straight down when being demolished by explosives."
For a building that has retained the majority of its structural integrity the path of least resistance is to topple.
This building suffered a mid-level collapse. Not only did it NOT collapse all the way down into a huge pile of dust, but clearly it had begun to topple immediately:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76205
Seems to me that newtonnjd hit the nail on the head, YID...
I left a message for you this morning before heading off to work. The message was in regards to your repetitive statements related to the firefighter who reached the 78th floor in the south tower and only reported 'spotty fires'.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76211
You often bring up the statement... (I guess, in your mind, you view it as a 'refute' of some sort) ... that he {the firefighter in question} only reached the 78th floor, and therefore could not see the fires above him.
Am I correct in assuming that is your position?
Upon my return to my computer after work, I expected to see some sort of response from you related to my debunking of your position.
Instead, I see you have done exactly what newtonnjd accused you of ... (see rule # 4 of the 25 rules of disinformation, above).
You completely avoided my post, and spent your time today gleefully attacking irrelevant issues such as Charlie Sheen... and folding money. These 'issues' are easy to 'attack', and provide no REAL solid evidence regarding 9/11 issues, whereas...
...apart from 'fire' / 'raging-infernos' weakening the steel support structures, there is NO case for the fairy tale presented by NIST / FEMA for the structures to 'collapse', (according to gravity-driven scenarios).
I'm afraid that this is why the likes of you, lenbrazil, arthur, etc - (ad infinitum) are not taken seriously on 9/11 threads.
You pick & choose the weakest links to attack, then sit back polishing your fingernails on your chest, whilst ignoring the real issues, pretending that the REAL ISSUES being presented are actors opinions and odd coincidences of folding paper money...
AS IF !!!
In my opinion Sheens 'opinion' is no better than yours or mine... The only relevance is that persons of such 'stature' (well above yours and mine) are 'coming out of the closet' to speak openly about their thoughts on 9/11, and are suggesting a valid independant investigation into the known facts.
As far as the folding money 'oddity'... I certainly don't view it as a 'make or break' issue.
It could be a psychic thing... or maybe nothing more than a one in a million 'coincidence', (and I / WE, certainly wouldn't be basing OUR 'beliefs' on such an oddity).
Now why don't you, lenbrazil, and your raft of 'debunkers' get to debunking some real issues and show evidence of 'raging infernos' which could have possibly / plausibly brought down WTC 2?
Please provide timelines, and photo-video evidence from your favourite FEMA / NIST report to support your case, and we'll work from there.
Thanks.
I notice you bring up NISTs preliminary hypothesis for WTC7 as if it settles the matter. Funny, Dr. Sunder doesn't agree with you:
"But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
So either the preliminary hypothesis does not do an adequate job, or Dr.Sunder is a liar. Which is it?
From Guest_David B. Benson:
QUOTE
What is clear enough from the book is the special effort required to get a structure to fall in any other direction than essential straight down.
Yes, but only in the scenario that explosives are being used. If they are, of course the building will want to go straight down, as there is no resistance getting in the way.
Your statement is misleading by omission, what you actually meant was:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What is clear enough from the book is the special effort required to get a structure to fall in any other direction than essential straight down. |
Yes, but only in the scenario that explosives are being used. If they are, of course the building will want to go straight down, as there is no resistance getting in the way.
Your statement is misleading by omission, what you actually meant was:
"What is clear enough from the book is the special effort required to get a structure to fall in any other direction than essentially straight down when being demolished by explosives."
For a building that has retained the majority of its structural integrity the path of least resistance is to topple.
This building suffered a mid-level collapse. Not only did it NOT collapse all the way down into a huge pile of dust, but clearly it had begun to topple immediately:
QUOTE
Originally posted by newtonnjd
(Directed to YID...)
yesitdid, instead of having to rely on snide comebacks, I will calmly illustrate the tactics you just employed. From the "25 Rules of disinformation":
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
(Directed to YID...)
yesitdid, instead of having to rely on snide comebacks, I will calmly illustrate the tactics you just employed. From the "25 Rules of disinformation":
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76205
Seems to me that newtonnjd hit the nail on the head, YID...
I left a message for you this morning before heading off to work. The message was in regards to your repetitive statements related to the firefighter who reached the 78th floor in the south tower and only reported 'spotty fires'.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76211
You often bring up the statement... (I guess, in your mind, you view it as a 'refute' of some sort) ... that he {the firefighter in question} only reached the 78th floor, and therefore could not see the fires above him.
Am I correct in assuming that is your position?
Upon my return to my computer after work, I expected to see some sort of response from you related to my debunking of your position.
Instead, I see you have done exactly what newtonnjd accused you of ... (see rule # 4 of the 25 rules of disinformation, above).
You completely avoided my post, and spent your time today gleefully attacking irrelevant issues such as Charlie Sheen... and folding money. These 'issues' are easy to 'attack', and provide no REAL solid evidence regarding 9/11 issues, whereas...
...apart from 'fire' / 'raging-infernos' weakening the steel support structures, there is NO case for the fairy tale presented by NIST / FEMA for the structures to 'collapse', (according to gravity-driven scenarios).
I'm afraid that this is why the likes of you, lenbrazil, arthur, etc - (ad infinitum) are not taken seriously on 9/11 threads.
You pick & choose the weakest links to attack, then sit back polishing your fingernails on your chest, whilst ignoring the real issues, pretending that the REAL ISSUES being presented are actors opinions and odd coincidences of folding paper money...
AS IF !!!
In my opinion Sheens 'opinion' is no better than yours or mine... The only relevance is that persons of such 'stature' (well above yours and mine) are 'coming out of the closet' to speak openly about their thoughts on 9/11, and are suggesting a valid independant investigation into the known facts.
As far as the folding money 'oddity'... I certainly don't view it as a 'make or break' issue.
It could be a psychic thing... or maybe nothing more than a one in a million 'coincidence', (and I / WE, certainly wouldn't be basing OUR 'beliefs' on such an oddity).
Now why don't you, lenbrazil, and your raft of 'debunkers' get to debunking some real issues and show evidence of 'raging infernos' which could have possibly / plausibly brought down WTC 2?
Please provide timelines, and photo-video evidence from your favourite FEMA / NIST report to support your case, and we'll work from there.
Thanks.
Hi newtonnjd.
Welcome to the 'clown car'.
Interesting photo...
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/e...es/image018.jpg
This is what would be expected in a gravity-driven progressive collapse where certain structural members failed randomly and without intelligent selection.
Please provide the link to the article or document regarding this particular partial collapse.
Thanks, and keep the good stuff coming. Great posts, so far.
Foxx
Welcome to the 'clown car'.
Interesting photo...
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/e...es/image018.jpg
This is what would be expected in a gravity-driven progressive collapse where certain structural members failed randomly and without intelligent selection.
Please provide the link to the article or document regarding this particular partial collapse.
Thanks, and keep the good stuff coming. Great posts, so far.
Foxx
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 25 2006, 02:13 AM)
Hi newtonnjd.
Welcome to the 'clown car'.
Interesting photo...
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/e...es/image018.jpg
This is what would be expected in a gravity-driven progressive collapse where certain structural members failed randomly and without intelligent selection.
Please provide the link to the article or document regarding this particular partial collapse.
Thanks, and keep the good stuff coming. Great posts, so far.
Foxx
You really should have been straight with us and said that this partial collapse was the result of an EARTHQUAKE*. Toppling is not uncommon in earthquakes. Buildings that collapse due to faulty construction (a situation much closer to what happened to 1, 2 & 7 WTC than a quake) tend to fall straight down.
*the photo comes from an earthquake site http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/ and the photo is eqphoto1 from the eqphotos folder
Welcome to the 'clown car'.
Interesting photo...
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/e...es/image018.jpg
This is what would be expected in a gravity-driven progressive collapse where certain structural members failed randomly and without intelligent selection.
Please provide the link to the article or document regarding this particular partial collapse.
Thanks, and keep the good stuff coming. Great posts, so far.
Foxx
You really should have been straight with us and said that this partial collapse was the result of an EARTHQUAKE*. Toppling is not uncommon in earthquakes. Buildings that collapse due to faulty construction (a situation much closer to what happened to 1, 2 & 7 WTC than a quake) tend to fall straight down.
*the photo comes from an earthquake site http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/ and the photo is eqphoto1 from the eqphotos folder
Christophera,
At least you have the decency to post various concepts that require some neurological activity, and you do raise some interesting points that have enough merit to discuss, as the unconscious mind does exist, if nothing else than being an underlying aspect of the mind.
Take an onion and peel it off layer by layer
While some of the less fortunate individuals on this board can't seem to comprehend much more than a 2 dimensional world, where all that exists are one liners from the white house, there are a few people who realize that life and reality consist of many layers.
Even if the subject of subconscious activity brings up many debatable issues, we cannot deny the fact that the human mind has many different layers of thought.
The folding of the $20. bill and why it's there does raise some questions, not necessarily to prove or disprove control demolition, (as that has already been proven by simple mathematics and physics), but who knows maybe there are some other mysteries going on that will some day come to light.
And sometimes revelations and scientific discoveries come from the strangest of places. The scientist who discovered DNA said it came to him in a very strange dream, through what you might call symbolic form, which motivated the guy into piecing it together.
But of course the mentally handicapped don't like to discuss things that imply life is more than a one sided, 2 dimensional, one liner slogan put out by fox news, which is why all too many of them just can't handle the truth about 9/11, it causes the brain to think, and that is something the mentally handicapped aren't trained to do.
I should be kinder to yesdidit, and be more understanding of his problem
At least you have the decency to post various concepts that require some neurological activity, and you do raise some interesting points that have enough merit to discuss, as the unconscious mind does exist, if nothing else than being an underlying aspect of the mind.
Take an onion and peel it off layer by layer
While some of the less fortunate individuals on this board can't seem to comprehend much more than a 2 dimensional world, where all that exists are one liners from the white house, there are a few people who realize that life and reality consist of many layers.
Even if the subject of subconscious activity brings up many debatable issues, we cannot deny the fact that the human mind has many different layers of thought.
The folding of the $20. bill and why it's there does raise some questions, not necessarily to prove or disprove control demolition, (as that has already been proven by simple mathematics and physics), but who knows maybe there are some other mysteries going on that will some day come to light.
And sometimes revelations and scientific discoveries come from the strangest of places. The scientist who discovered DNA said it came to him in a very strange dream, through what you might call symbolic form, which motivated the guy into piecing it together.
But of course the mentally handicapped don't like to discuss things that imply life is more than a one sided, 2 dimensional, one liner slogan put out by fox news, which is why all too many of them just can't handle the truth about 9/11, it causes the brain to think, and that is something the mentally handicapped aren't trained to do.
I should be kinder to yesdidit, and be more understanding of his problem
QUOTE (newton+Mar 24 2006, 07:39 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 24 2006, 09:34 AM)
follow the money
and the ones that started it all......9+11=20....
yesitdid , have another laugh.
you might want to do some big quotes and whatnot, now. just to make sure these images get buried, again. just 'cause, you know, they're too funny.
i'm still waiting for that apology, lenbrazil.
I guess I owe you a partial appoligy because when fold the resulting images look vaugely like the scenes from 9/11 as described so it's NOT the dumbest theory I've heard. One minor quible when folded the note says United and Amarica not American, hardly surprising since the name of the country is 'The United States of America'.
What do you think is the significance of this? Do you think it's just an odd coincidence or do you think it was an inside joke made by the Illuminati?
Len
It doesn't matter. The point is, part of the structural support was lost, and an entire portion of the building was able to start moving downwards, exactly what is supposed to have happened with each WTC. (And infact, the earthquake would have put stresses on the entire building, not just a small section). But this downwards motion was quickly extinguished due to the structural integrity of the rest of the building. Even if collapse had ensued, it would have been asymmetric (the plane crashes and fires were assymetric too) and the top portion would have toppled.
Any structure built strong enough to safely support its own weight will not suddenly lose ~90% of its effectiveness when its equilibrium is broken. It will put up a hell of a fight against being quickly and completely dismantled, as the earthquake-hit building above did.
It doesn't matter. The point is, part of the structural support was lost, and an entire portion of the building was able to start moving downwards, exactly what is supposed to have happened with each WTC. (And infact, the earthquake would have put stresses on the entire building, not just a small section). But this downwards motion was quickly extinguished due to the structural integrity of the rest of the building. Even if collapse had ensued, it would have been asymmetric (the plane crashes and fires were assymetric too) and the top portion would have toppled.
Any structure built strong enough to safely support its own weight will not suddenly lose ~90% of its effectiveness when its equilibrium is broken. It will put up a hell of a fight against being quickly and completely dismantled, as the earthquake-hit building above did.
Buildings that collapse due to faulty construction (a situation much closer to what happened to 1, 2 & 7 WTC than a quake) tend to fall straight down.
Now this should be interesting - please provide the evidence you base this assertion on. Then once you've done that, explain how this faulty construction mimics the damage to the WTC buildings.
There are many circumstances which can cause the loss of structural integrity to a building - amongst which are:
- landslides
- tidal waves
- earthquakes
- faulty construction
- fires
...and
- demolition
As far as the WTC we can pretty much rule out the first 4.
That leaves... fires & demolition.
Read my last post, lenny...
...and see if you can prove the 'fire' scenario from your favourite FEMA / NIST report...
{To keep on track here, let's just discuss WTC 2 for the moment}.
here's some reference help...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76211
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireNE904.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig00SouthTower.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Need any more help? Just lemme know.
Well according to mentally depraved ILKS such as lenbrazil, a true scientific poll can only be conducted with the approval of the white house.
A scientific poll is a survey of scientists LOL. A scientific poll is just a “high falutin” name for an opinion poll that is carefully set up to accurately reflect the targeted demographic groups view on the subject at hand. I don’t know much about the science but it is not a simple as choosing phone numbers at random. For example if pollsters wanted to predicted the outcome of a statewide election they would carefully select the areas to be called to get a representative sample i.e. a proper ratio of “upstate” and “downstate”: urban, suburban and rural; male and female voters etc. Wikipedia has a good article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll. An Internet poll is the antithesis of a scientific one because there is no way of knowing how accurately it reflects peoples views.
Steve52 for all your references to maturity your posts are the most childish I’ve seen on any of the forums I participate in. Why do you assume that just because I don’t buy into to your paranoid fantasies I support Bush? I hate the sleaze bag. You are probably quite young so I imagine I’ve been voting against the GOP since before you were born. Do you think that only a Bush supporter could reject CD theories? Since Bushshit is down to about 35% approval ratings that would mean that 65% of Americans believe the towers were demo’d.
What the *** do to mean by an “ilk” or “ilks”? You do know how to use the word properly don’t you?
I actually let you off easy your posts are not just childish they are plain offensive like the one above, mocking a handicapped kid that’s pretty low.
and the ones that started it all......9+11=20....
yesitdid , have another laugh.
you might want to do some big quotes and whatnot, now. just to make sure these images get buried, again. just 'cause, you know, they're too funny.
i'm still waiting for that apology, lenbrazil.
I guess I owe you a partial appoligy because when fold the resulting images look vaugely like the scenes from 9/11 as described so it's NOT the dumbest theory I've heard. One minor quible when folded the note says United and Amarica not American, hardly surprising since the name of the country is 'The United States of America'.
What do you think is the significance of this? Do you think it's just an odd coincidence or do you think it was an inside joke made by the Illuminati?
Len
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 24 2006, 05:01 PM)
I thought you would ... know that women have that special time, normally ever month, that's sometimes referred to as "The time of their impurity".
Which you say is also catagorized by a time of "mental difficulties"
Which makes you a sexist pig.
Which is not surprising in the least.
Arthur
Which you say is also catagorized by a time of "mental difficulties"
Which makes you a sexist pig.
Which is not surprising in the least.
Arthur
QUOTE
You really should have been straight with us and said that this partial collapse was the result of an EARTHQUAKE*. Toppling is not uncommon in earthquakes.
It doesn't matter. The point is, part of the structural support was lost, and an entire portion of the building was able to start moving downwards, exactly what is supposed to have happened with each WTC. (And infact, the earthquake would have put stresses on the entire building, not just a small section). But this downwards motion was quickly extinguished due to the structural integrity of the rest of the building. Even if collapse had ensued, it would have been asymmetric (the plane crashes and fires were assymetric too) and the top portion would have toppled.
Any structure built strong enough to safely support its own weight will not suddenly lose ~90% of its effectiveness when its equilibrium is broken. It will put up a hell of a fight against being quickly and completely dismantled, as the earthquake-hit building above did.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You really should have been straight with us and said that this partial collapse was the result of an EARTHQUAKE*. Toppling is not uncommon in earthquakes. |
It doesn't matter. The point is, part of the structural support was lost, and an entire portion of the building was able to start moving downwards, exactly what is supposed to have happened with each WTC. (And infact, the earthquake would have put stresses on the entire building, not just a small section). But this downwards motion was quickly extinguished due to the structural integrity of the rest of the building. Even if collapse had ensued, it would have been asymmetric (the plane crashes and fires were assymetric too) and the top portion would have toppled.
Any structure built strong enough to safely support its own weight will not suddenly lose ~90% of its effectiveness when its equilibrium is broken. It will put up a hell of a fight against being quickly and completely dismantled, as the earthquake-hit building above did.
Buildings that collapse due to faulty construction (a situation much closer to what happened to 1, 2 & 7 WTC than a quake) tend to fall straight down.
Now this should be interesting - please provide the evidence you base this assertion on. Then once you've done that, explain how this faulty construction mimics the damage to the WTC buildings.
QUOTE
by Lenny's-feelin-his-oats
"You really should have been straight with us and said that this partial collapse was the result of an EARTHQUAKE*. Toppling is not uncommon in earthquakes. Buildings that collapse due to faulty construction (a situation much closer to what happened to 1, 2 & 7 WTC than a quake) tend to fall straight down".
"You really should have been straight with us and said that this partial collapse was the result of an EARTHQUAKE*. Toppling is not uncommon in earthquakes. Buildings that collapse due to faulty construction (a situation much closer to what happened to 1, 2 & 7 WTC than a quake) tend to fall straight down".
There are many circumstances which can cause the loss of structural integrity to a building - amongst which are:
- landslides
- tidal waves
- earthquakes
- faulty construction
- fires
...and
- demolition
As far as the WTC we can pretty much rule out the first 4.
That leaves... fires & demolition.
Read my last post, lenny...
...and see if you can prove the 'fire' scenario from your favourite FEMA / NIST report...
{To keep on track here, let's just discuss WTC 2 for the moment}.
here's some reference help...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76211
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireNE904.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Fig00SouthTower.html
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/fireSTthermite01.html
Need any more help? Just lemme know.
Charlie Sheen: 'Challenge Me On the Facts'
Actor's first response since media firestorm over 9/11 comments
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | March 24 2006
Charlie Sheen has responded publicly for the first time since the media firestorm over his comments by challenging his detractors to debate him on the evidence of 9/11 and not issues relating to his personal life.
"I am an American citizen that loves my country and as a citizen with my passion for this great country I demand that I be challenged on the facts not on immature behavior from twenty years ago," said Sheen.
"If they continue to attack me personally it only gives credence to our side of the argument."
Sheen elaborated on how developments during the course of the week had unfolded and his reaction to them.
"All I can say is wow! Wow! this has been some kind of week I can tell you."
Sheen tipped his hat to A.J. Hammer and CNN's Showbiz Tonight for having the guts to cover the story and give 9/11 skeptics a balanced platform on which to discuss the issues. He called the CNN poll showing around 82% support his stance on 9/11 an "inspiration" and "staggering" but Sheen also outlined the fact that he was not entirely surprised by the outcome. Sheen said he was encouraged by the support shown on blogs and message boards across the Internet.
The poll directly contradicts a line of attack used on a Hannity and Colmes piece Thursday night which claimed that Sheen's views didn't reflect the mainstream of America. If we are to treat an 82% majority as the mainstream then that accusation is completely fraudulent.
Sheen addressed the attack pieces generated from his comments.
"The majority of them, in fact 90% of them, were attacking me personally, were attacking my credibility, were attacking my observational or talents of insight or observance and what they did not attack is the specific points that you and I raised, the points that generate the most controversy about the events," Sheen told the Alex Jones Show.
"For anyone to have any kind of opinion on something that warrants an opinion I guess you have to be squeaky clean."
Sheen made the point that the hit pieces singled out his quotes relating to his first reaction to 9/11, and in particular the suspicious collapse of the buildings, but deliberately avoided the hardcore evidence he later presented, making him appear uninformed when in fact he had documented why he had serious doubts about the official story.
"I was vilified for expressing my feelings about what I saw and I was demonized for expressing my gut reaction to what I saw."
Even so, both Dan Rather and Peter Jennings' gut instincts were that the collapse of the buildings looked like controlled demolition so Sheen is hardly on a skinny branch in simply stating what common sense told him at the time.
"When they pigeon-hole me into the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy knuckle-head brigade they don't mention those quotes by Peter Jennings and Dan Rather," said Sheen.
Sheen responded to the claims made by National Geographic producer Nicole Rittenmeyer aired by CNN on Wednesday night. Rittenmeyer insinuated that her conclusions on 9/11 were credible simply due to the fact that the series she produced had high viewing figures.
"This woman based all of her credibility on the ratings that the show received and I find that ludicrous because what that speaks to is people's interest. Whether you believe the official story or you're curious about an alternate viewpoint so she kind of shot herself in the foot talking about 'this is the base of my credibility', 'this is why I'm right, because a lot of people watched it', you know I could say the same thing about the reaction to my comments this week....but I'm not saying that I'm just here to remind people that the only credibility that I need is what I have and that is as an upstanding taxpaying American citizen who loves his country and who refuses to stand by as this level of insanity is blanketed over obvious truths."
Sheen reiterated his main focus as being on what caused Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, to become only the third steel building in history to collapse from fire damage (the other two being the twin towers). Photographs taken prior to the building's collapse show minor fires before it falls in a textbook demolition fashion.
"If there's a problem with Building 7 then there's a problem with the whole damn thing and guess what? There's a serious problem with Building 7,"said Sheen.
Sheen demanded that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, explain what he meant when he told a September 2002 PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' that the decision was made to "pull" the building, which is a demolition term for deliberate implosion.
"When someone makes a statement like that I think it warrants a follow up response," said Sheen.
"In fact you know what I'll come right out and say that I'm personally requesting a direct answer from Mr. Silverstein about what he meant....give him my number tell him to call me I'm just curious. Tell him to call CNN tell him to call somebody because you cannot make a statement like that and not follow it up, and not back it up and not explain it."
"Anyone that cannot view this as a controlled demolition, I would have to say that their chair was not facing the television. Anyone that can look at this and say 'yes, that is a random event caused by fire' really needs psychiatric evaluation," said Sheen.
Sheen challenged the mainstream media to run a poll on Building 7 asking if viewers believe from video evidence that the building was brought down by means of controlled implosion.
Sheen again underscored his challenge to his detractors to debate him on the evidence and not idle gossip about his private life and his family.
"I ask that they look at the evidence and they debate myself, yourself, people that support us on those specific issues. Not about me personally, not about what they think about me personally not about what they think they know about me personally, just about the facts. I issue that challenge."
Sheen expressed his excitement at the response that his stance received and hinted that this was only the beginning of the journey.
"It feels like you and I have started the revolution and God bless America," said Sheen in closing.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...challengeme.htm
Actor's first response since media firestorm over 9/11 comments
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | March 24 2006
Charlie Sheen has responded publicly for the first time since the media firestorm over his comments by challenging his detractors to debate him on the evidence of 9/11 and not issues relating to his personal life.
"I am an American citizen that loves my country and as a citizen with my passion for this great country I demand that I be challenged on the facts not on immature behavior from twenty years ago," said Sheen.
"If they continue to attack me personally it only gives credence to our side of the argument."
Sheen elaborated on how developments during the course of the week had unfolded and his reaction to them.
"All I can say is wow! Wow! this has been some kind of week I can tell you."
Sheen tipped his hat to A.J. Hammer and CNN's Showbiz Tonight for having the guts to cover the story and give 9/11 skeptics a balanced platform on which to discuss the issues. He called the CNN poll showing around 82% support his stance on 9/11 an "inspiration" and "staggering" but Sheen also outlined the fact that he was not entirely surprised by the outcome. Sheen said he was encouraged by the support shown on blogs and message boards across the Internet.
The poll directly contradicts a line of attack used on a Hannity and Colmes piece Thursday night which claimed that Sheen's views didn't reflect the mainstream of America. If we are to treat an 82% majority as the mainstream then that accusation is completely fraudulent.
Sheen addressed the attack pieces generated from his comments.
"The majority of them, in fact 90% of them, were attacking me personally, were attacking my credibility, were attacking my observational or talents of insight or observance and what they did not attack is the specific points that you and I raised, the points that generate the most controversy about the events," Sheen told the Alex Jones Show.
"For anyone to have any kind of opinion on something that warrants an opinion I guess you have to be squeaky clean."
Sheen made the point that the hit pieces singled out his quotes relating to his first reaction to 9/11, and in particular the suspicious collapse of the buildings, but deliberately avoided the hardcore evidence he later presented, making him appear uninformed when in fact he had documented why he had serious doubts about the official story.
"I was vilified for expressing my feelings about what I saw and I was demonized for expressing my gut reaction to what I saw."
Even so, both Dan Rather and Peter Jennings' gut instincts were that the collapse of the buildings looked like controlled demolition so Sheen is hardly on a skinny branch in simply stating what common sense told him at the time.
"When they pigeon-hole me into the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy knuckle-head brigade they don't mention those quotes by Peter Jennings and Dan Rather," said Sheen.
Sheen responded to the claims made by National Geographic producer Nicole Rittenmeyer aired by CNN on Wednesday night. Rittenmeyer insinuated that her conclusions on 9/11 were credible simply due to the fact that the series she produced had high viewing figures.
"This woman based all of her credibility on the ratings that the show received and I find that ludicrous because what that speaks to is people's interest. Whether you believe the official story or you're curious about an alternate viewpoint so she kind of shot herself in the foot talking about 'this is the base of my credibility', 'this is why I'm right, because a lot of people watched it', you know I could say the same thing about the reaction to my comments this week....but I'm not saying that I'm just here to remind people that the only credibility that I need is what I have and that is as an upstanding taxpaying American citizen who loves his country and who refuses to stand by as this level of insanity is blanketed over obvious truths."
Sheen reiterated his main focus as being on what caused Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, to become only the third steel building in history to collapse from fire damage (the other two being the twin towers). Photographs taken prior to the building's collapse show minor fires before it falls in a textbook demolition fashion.
"If there's a problem with Building 7 then there's a problem with the whole damn thing and guess what? There's a serious problem with Building 7,"said Sheen.
Sheen demanded that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, explain what he meant when he told a September 2002 PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' that the decision was made to "pull" the building, which is a demolition term for deliberate implosion.
"When someone makes a statement like that I think it warrants a follow up response," said Sheen.
"In fact you know what I'll come right out and say that I'm personally requesting a direct answer from Mr. Silverstein about what he meant....give him my number tell him to call me I'm just curious. Tell him to call CNN tell him to call somebody because you cannot make a statement like that and not follow it up, and not back it up and not explain it."
"Anyone that cannot view this as a controlled demolition, I would have to say that their chair was not facing the television. Anyone that can look at this and say 'yes, that is a random event caused by fire' really needs psychiatric evaluation," said Sheen.
Sheen challenged the mainstream media to run a poll on Building 7 asking if viewers believe from video evidence that the building was brought down by means of controlled implosion.
Sheen again underscored his challenge to his detractors to debate him on the evidence and not idle gossip about his private life and his family.
"I ask that they look at the evidence and they debate myself, yourself, people that support us on those specific issues. Not about me personally, not about what they think about me personally not about what they think they know about me personally, just about the facts. I issue that challenge."
Sheen expressed his excitement at the response that his stance received and hinted that this was only the beginning of the journey.
"It feels like you and I have started the revolution and God bless America," said Sheen in closing.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...challengeme.htm
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 24 2006, 07:04 PM)
QUOTE
What is a scientific poll ?
Norom
Norom
Well according to mentally depraved ILKS such as lenbrazil, a true scientific poll can only be conducted with the approval of the white house.
A scientific poll is a survey of scientists LOL. A scientific poll is just a “high falutin” name for an opinion poll that is carefully set up to accurately reflect the targeted demographic groups view on the subject at hand. I don’t know much about the science but it is not a simple as choosing phone numbers at random. For example if pollsters wanted to predicted the outcome of a statewide election they would carefully select the areas to be called to get a representative sample i.e. a proper ratio of “upstate” and “downstate”: urban, suburban and rural; male and female voters etc. Wikipedia has a good article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll. An Internet poll is the antithesis of a scientific one because there is no way of knowing how accurately it reflects peoples views.
Steve52 for all your references to maturity your posts are the most childish I’ve seen on any of the forums I participate in. Why do you assume that just because I don’t buy into to your paranoid fantasies I support Bush? I hate the sleaze bag. You are probably quite young so I imagine I’ve been voting against the GOP since before you were born. Do you think that only a Bush supporter could reject CD theories? Since Bushshit is down to about 35% approval ratings that would mean that 65% of Americans believe the towers were demo’d.
What the *** do to mean by an “ilk” or “ilks”? You do know how to use the word properly don’t you?
I actually let you off easy your posts are not just childish they are plain offensive like the one above, mocking a handicapped kid that’s pretty low.
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?
It escapes you, does it, why the opinion of the co-publisher of a technical paper that mentions elastic dynamic analysis, but fails to mention that it has no validity beyond a few millimeters, at least in the way that BZ used it, should not have greater weight than that of Charlie Sheen?
You are really comparing apples and oranges, because Bazant's background should make him more qualified to talk about aspects of the collapses that pertain to structural engineering. The fact that he did such a misleading job of it (whether intentionally or not, I don't know), leads me to discount his opinion of the collapses, or any other aspects of 911. Certainly, anybody with a standard, second year course in ordinary differential equations can solve an inhomogenous spring equation, and plug in BZ's spring constant.
Thus, while Bazant (and Zhou) should have something useful to offer wrt to certain aspects of the 911 attacks, in point of fact, they don't. (Not overall, anyway. However, Gordon has extracted some useful information out of the paper, so we can't knock it, totally.)
This certainly doesn't make Charlie Sheen's opinions right, but at least he hasn't been discredited. Unless you consider his prior experiences with drugs and women discrediting, but I, for one, don't see what that has to do with 911.
It seems to me that the folly of Bazant's "elastic dynamic analysis" was already something that you were aware of, due to your participation on this thread. Why are you still pretending otherwise? Because "Common Sense" kept spamming this thread with mention of the paper, and the reviewing committee?
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?
It escapes you, does it, why the opinion of the co-publisher of a technical paper that mentions elastic dynamic analysis, but fails to mention that it has no validity beyond a few millimeters, at least in the way that BZ used it, should not have greater weight than that of Charlie Sheen?
You are really comparing apples and oranges, because Bazant's background should make him more qualified to talk about aspects of the collapses that pertain to structural engineering. The fact that he did such a misleading job of it (whether intentionally or not, I don't know), leads me to discount his opinion of the collapses, or any other aspects of 911. Certainly, anybody with a standard, second year course in ordinary differential equations can solve an inhomogenous spring equation, and plug in BZ's spring constant.
Thus, while Bazant (and Zhou) should have something useful to offer wrt to certain aspects of the 911 attacks, in point of fact, they don't. (Not overall, anyway. However, Gordon has extracted some useful information out of the paper, so we can't knock it, totally.)
This certainly doesn't make Charlie Sheen's opinions right, but at least he hasn't been discredited. Unless you consider his prior experiences with drugs and women discrediting, but I, for one, don't see what that has to do with 911.
It seems to me that the folly of Bazant's "elastic dynamic analysis" was already something that you were aware of, due to your participation on this thread. Why are you still pretending otherwise? Because "Common Sense" kept spamming this thread with mention of the paper, and the reviewing committee?
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 24 2006, 11:15 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 24 2006, 11:03 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 24 2006, 10:57 PM)
]
The secrecy of 9-11 is better than secrecy, it is unconscious, mostly.
That is why the most sensitive secrets are kept.
Art comes from the unconscious, engravers are artists. Ancient fraternal orders involved with the occult value symbols depicted through art and have a penchant for irony.
We have no respect for the unconscious, some do not believe it exists although it is 86% of each of our mental capacities. This is the real dumbing down. Acomplished through fear. In the beginning, mortal fear. Now, fear of ridicule.
Each of us sleeps at night, having no idea of what our mind is doing, or if it is doing something, we do not even know that we are doing it! We think we know because of dreams. We do not. Any asumption is too much when we cannot find control over our world with reason.
Wanna' bet?
Uh, yeah, perhaps the others will have a better go at explaining, in consise terms, what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
You , sir have simply waved your hands about and mumbled.
I would expect that from you. You support secrets.
Strike two for your side.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76205
Seems to me that newtonnjd hit the nail on the head, YID...
I left a message for you this morning before heading off to work. The message was in regards to your repetitive statements related to the firefighter who reached the 78th floor in the south tower and only reported 'spotty fires'.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76211
You often bring up the statement... (I guess, in your mind, you view it as a 'refute' of some sort) ... that he {the firefighter in question} only reached the 78th floor, and therefore could not see the fires above him.
Am I correct in assuming that is your position?
Upon my return to my computer after work, I expected to see some sort of response from you related to my debunking of your position.
Instead, I see you have done exactly what newtonnjd accused you of ... (see rule # 4 of the 25 rules of disinformation, above).
You completely avoided my post, and spent your time today gleefully attacking irrelevant issues such as Charlie Sheen... and folding money. These 'issues' are easy to 'attack', and provide no REAL solid evidence regarding 9/11 issues, whereas...
...apart from 'fire' / 'raging-infernos' weakening the steel support structures, there is NO case for the fairy tale presented by NIST / FEMA for the structures to 'collapse', (according to gravity-driven scenarios).
I'm afraid that this is why the likes of you, lenbrazil, arthur, etc - (ad infinitum) are not taken seriously on 9/11 threads.
You pick & choose the weakest links to attack, then sit back polishing your fingernails on your chest, whilst ignoring the real issues, pretending that the REAL ISSUES being presented are actors opinions and odd coincidences of folding paper money...
AS IF !!!
In my opinion Sheens 'opinion' is no better than yours or mine... The only relevance is that persons of such 'stature' (well above yours and mine) are 'coming out of the closet' to speak openly about their thoughts on 9/11, and are suggesting a valid independant investigation into the known facts.
As far as the folding money 'oddity'... I certainly don't view it as a 'make or break' issue.
Now why don't you, lenbrazil, and your raft of 'debunkers' get to debunking some real issues and show evidence of 'raging infernos' which could have possibly / plausibly brought down WTC 2?
Please provide timelines, and photo-video evidence from your favourite FEMA / NIST report to support your case, and we'll work from there.
Thanks.
Awww, Fox, I tend to have you on ignore. You remember ignore don't you.
Sorry I did not read your post.
yes my position is that this firefighter never mentions anything about the conditions above the 78th floor, the lowest impact floor. Am I incorrect in that?
I have been speaking to the Charlie Sheen and paper money subjects specifically because I have addressed all the other issues before(with the exception of the Landmark which I also did address and will further address later).
I see that you are completely ignoring the fact that I did not bring up either Charlie Sheen or folding money. Others did. I am now being attacked for addressing two new issues on this thread. If you don't want non-physics issues brought into the discussion then perhaps those who bring them up should be told to stay on topic by you and others who those posters might listen to.
I have , on many occasions complained about non-science issues being brought up here. I have been told that they are relevant and that I am just trying to shut down debate, that I am a lover of secrets. This time I instead went with it and now you and others are weeping that I am attacking straw men. Too bad so sad, your comrades made that bed and now you and others are avoiding lieing on it.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76205
Seems to me that newtonnjd hit the nail on the head, YID...
I left a message for you this morning before heading off to work. The message was in regards to your repetitive statements related to the firefighter who reached the 78th floor in the south tower and only reported 'spotty fires'.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76211
You often bring up the statement... (I guess, in your mind, you view it as a 'refute' of some sort) ... that he {the firefighter in question} only reached the 78th floor, and therefore could not see the fires above him.
Am I correct in assuming that is your position?
Upon my return to my computer after work, I expected to see some sort of response from you related to my debunking of your position.
Instead, I see you have done exactly what newtonnjd accused you of ... (see rule # 4 of the 25 rules of disinformation, above).
You completely avoided my post, and spent your time today gleefully attacking irrelevant issues such as Charlie Sheen... and folding money. These 'issues' are easy to 'attack', and provide no REAL solid evidence regarding 9/11 issues, whereas...
...apart from 'fire' / 'raging-infernos' weakening the steel support structures, there is NO case for the fairy tale presented by NIST / FEMA for the structures to 'collapse', (according to gravity-driven scenarios).
I'm afraid that this is why the likes of you, lenbrazil, arthur, etc - (ad infinitum) are not taken seriously on 9/11 threads.
You pick & choose the weakest links to attack, then sit back polishing your fingernails on your chest, whilst ignoring the real issues, pretending that the REAL ISSUES being presented are actors opinions and odd coincidences of folding paper money...
AS IF !!!
In my opinion Sheens 'opinion' is no better than yours or mine... The only relevance is that persons of such 'stature' (well above yours and mine) are 'coming out of the closet' to speak openly about their thoughts on 9/11, and are suggesting a valid independant investigation into the known facts.
As far as the folding money 'oddity'... I certainly don't view it as a 'make or break' issue.
Now why don't you, lenbrazil, and your raft of 'debunkers' get to debunking some real issues and show evidence of 'raging infernos' which could have possibly / plausibly brought down WTC 2?
Please provide timelines, and photo-video evidence from your favourite FEMA / NIST report to support your case, and we'll work from there.
Thanks.
Awww, Fox, I tend to have you on ignore. You remember ignore don't you.
Sorry I did not read your post.
yes my position is that this firefighter never mentions anything about the conditions above the 78th floor, the lowest impact floor. Am I incorrect in that?
I have been speaking to the Charlie Sheen and paper money subjects specifically because I have addressed all the other issues before(with the exception of the Landmark which I also did address and will further address later).
I see that you are completely ignoring the fact that I did not bring up either Charlie Sheen or folding money. Others did. I am now being attacked for addressing two new issues on this thread. If you don't want non-physics issues brought into the discussion then perhaps those who bring them up should be told to stay on topic by you and others who those posters might listen to.
I have , on many occasions complained about non-science issues being brought up here. I have been told that they are relevant and that I am just trying to shut down debate, that I am a lover of secrets. This time I instead went with it and now you and others are weeping that I am attacking straw men. Too bad so sad, your comrades made that bed and now you and others are avoiding lieing on it.
It could be a psychic thing... or maybe nothing more than a one in a million 'coincidence', (and I / WE, certainly wouldn't be basing OUR 'beliefs' on such an oddity).
Steeeee- riike three, you're out.
As far as I am concerned the issue of the folding money is settled. It is no more than the human brain's propensity to attempt to make sense of patterns by comparing them with experiences. It is completely irrelevant and bears absolutly no significance to the issue of 9/11.
Good night and thanks for playing the Woo-Woo game.
A "similar" accelleration? I see the Landmark falling at a faster rate. Would it be close to that of the towers? Sure it would since the term "close" is so subjective.
A "similar" accelleration? I see the Landmark falling at a faster rate. Would it be close to that of the towers? Sure it would since the term "close" is so subjective.
2. Both towers fell straight down. WTC7 actually fell straighter. Landmark achieved this straight fall through symmetrical, building-wide removal of supports. The damage to WTC7 was neither symmetrical or building-wide. And yet it disappeared into nothing in exactly the same fashion.
Actually as I pointed out the Landmark falls very definately to one side due to the supports on lower floors that are closest to that side were blown slightly ahead of the others. WTC 7 on the other hand shows good evidence of having suffered a failure very close to the center, back to front, of the building and somewhat to one side of center lengthwise. The evidence of this is the penthouse structure sinking before the rest of the building collapses. Progression of the collapse then moves along the center of the building as evidenced by the other roof structures sinking.
All of this does suggest an initial failure deep within the building.
I cannot tell you exactly how this occured any more than you can explain exactly how demolitions could accomplish this. NIST also has only been able to come up with a preliminary explanation. Odd that you would demand that I come up with an exact , second by second explanation of what damage occured where and when to cause the collapse as seen while you only feel the need to state that explosives could do it. Sure they could, given months of prep time to load explosives in place, weaken key columns etc. CD is a pretty well understood concept while the randomness of debris impact and fire damage makes an exact description of a collapse much more difficult.
(Best Mr. Rogers voice: Can you say straw man? yeah, sure you can)
NO, a huge mass, relatively undamaged(unlike the mass of the Landmark which has had all columns cut) such as the top section of the WTC towers has enormous force acting straight down. Such huge mass would require very specific conditions to be in place in order to NOT fall straight down.
As Mr. Benson points out page prior to this one.
NO, a huge mass, relatively undamaged(unlike the mass of the Landmark which has had all columns cut) such as the top section of the WTC towers has enormous force acting straight down. Such huge mass would require very specific conditions to be in place in order to NOT fall straight down.
As Mr. Benson points out page prior to this one.
"But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
So either the preliminary hypothesis does not do an adequate job, or Dr.Sunder is a liar. Which is it
True, it does not do as adequate a job as Sunder would like. Too many details need to be checked or verified. See above.
That Japanese building leaning over differs in several significant ways from the towers.
Since it is in Japan(at least I assume the characters on the signs are Japanese) one could expect that it is built to a fairly stringent earthquake code.
There is no evidence of prior damage to the structure nor is there any evidence of fire. This means that all of the structure was in absolutely pristine condition prior to the earthquake(seems obvious that this was an earthquake. It was , wasn't it?).
It is also likely to have been a more conservative post and beam construction.
More proof that steve52 is in the wrong place.
No need for analysis when , "it don't look right to me" is good 'nuff.
Issac Newton you are not. (BTW ol' Issac was a fervent believer in the Christian God. You'd have liked him)
The secrecy of 9-11 is better than secrecy, it is unconscious, mostly.
That is why the most sensitive secrets are kept.
Art comes from the unconscious, engravers are artists. Ancient fraternal orders involved with the occult value symbols depicted through art and have a penchant for irony.
We have no respect for the unconscious, some do not believe it exists although it is 86% of each of our mental capacities. This is the real dumbing down. Acomplished through fear. In the beginning, mortal fear. Now, fear of ridicule.
Each of us sleeps at night, having no idea of what our mind is doing, or if it is doing something, we do not even know that we are doing it! We think we know because of dreams. We do not. Any asumption is too much when we cannot find control over our world with reason.
Wanna' bet?
Uh, yeah, perhaps the others will have a better go at explaining, in consise terms, what the relevance and significance of this palor trick with folding money is.
You , sir have simply waved your hands about and mumbled.
I would expect that from you. You support secrets.
Strike two for your side.
reasonwhy,
Well good for you for posting what may very well be the beginning of a title wave concerning what really happened on 9/11.
It is amazing what may be on the horizon, as now that Charlie tested the waters, which resulted in some polls showing 81% of Americans believe the government covered up what happened, it's very possible that many other stars and public figures will start coming out of their closets, and as that happens it will probably bring out the bush attack dogs, such as the phony popular mechanic scientists who whore'd themselves out to the fairy tale, and that in turn may bring out the honest scientists who will respond with facts and logic that proves UNDENIABLY that bombs were planted in the buildings.
When all is said and done it could have a very traumatic effect on this nation, because when people realize that much of the government actually did this crime and the rest of it sat back idly and complacent and took no action, the people will have to wonder, what the heck are we gonna do now?
How will they arrest bush, cheney, rumsfield and other parties responsible for not only 9/11 but also these illegal wars, and more importantly HOW WILL PEOPLE BE ABLE TO NOT DO ANYTHING?
I'm sure that many people at the top will try to keep it silent as their justification is it may start a national panic that will send the Dow Jones into a nose dive as well as many other markets, not to mention all the other potential national disasters resulting from protests like we've never seen. And we just thought the Rodney King riots were bad, just wait until this gets going.
There's already a silent civil war, but who knows, it's very possible that this could lean to a full blown civil war, just like the way little bush and boys started in Iraq. And his famous words "I'm a uniter, not a divider" will be added to his long list of total and complete lies.
So I'm sure that many leading news agencies and others have already accepted the fact that too much exposure may lead to some serious PANICS, but here's the thing, once the title wave gets going it may be impossible to stop, and because the basic crux of our capitalistic society is based on competition along with a little greed mixed into the pile, it will be hard for news agencies to keep away from this story.
If CNN and MSNBC starts grabbing all the ratings, because 82% of the American public are sick and tired of all the Sean Hamnity rhetorical one liners ad nausea that are all based on repetitive BS and they CHANGE THE CHANNEL then what will fox news do? They'll have to report the story, and though they'll try their best to continue the BS story it may get to the point where it's so obvious that even they won't be able to keep up the charade.
So BUCKLE UP YOUR SEAT BELTS BOYS AND GIRLS, life as you know it may take a major change. And yes you can mark my words and see what happens in the next few weeks.
lenbrazil, if I don't respond to all of your posts try to understand that I consider you a complete waste of my time.
Well good for you for posting what may very well be the beginning of a title wave concerning what really happened on 9/11.
It is amazing what may be on the horizon, as now that Charlie tested the waters, which resulted in some polls showing 81% of Americans believe the government covered up what happened, it's very possible that many other stars and public figures will start coming out of their closets, and as that happens it will probably bring out the bush attack dogs, such as the phony popular mechanic scientists who whore'd themselves out to the fairy tale, and that in turn may bring out the honest scientists who will respond with facts and logic that proves UNDENIABLY that bombs were planted in the buildings.
When all is said and done it could have a very traumatic effect on this nation, because when people realize that much of the government actually did this crime and the rest of it sat back idly and complacent and took no action, the people will have to wonder, what the heck are we gonna do now?
How will they arrest bush, cheney, rumsfield and other parties responsible for not only 9/11 but also these illegal wars, and more importantly HOW WILL PEOPLE BE ABLE TO NOT DO ANYTHING?
I'm sure that many people at the top will try to keep it silent as their justification is it may start a national panic that will send the Dow Jones into a nose dive as well as many other markets, not to mention all the other potential national disasters resulting from protests like we've never seen. And we just thought the Rodney King riots were bad, just wait until this gets going.
There's already a silent civil war, but who knows, it's very possible that this could lean to a full blown civil war, just like the way little bush and boys started in Iraq. And his famous words "I'm a uniter, not a divider" will be added to his long list of total and complete lies.
So I'm sure that many leading news agencies and others have already accepted the fact that too much exposure may lead to some serious PANICS, but here's the thing, once the title wave gets going it may be impossible to stop, and because the basic crux of our capitalistic society is based on competition along with a little greed mixed into the pile, it will be hard for news agencies to keep away from this story.
If CNN and MSNBC starts grabbing all the ratings, because 82% of the American public are sick and tired of all the Sean Hamnity rhetorical one liners ad nausea that are all based on repetitive BS and they CHANGE THE CHANNEL then what will fox news do? They'll have to report the story, and though they'll try their best to continue the BS story it may get to the point where it's so obvious that even they won't be able to keep up the charade.
So BUCKLE UP YOUR SEAT BELTS BOYS AND GIRLS, life as you know it may take a major change. And yes you can mark my words and see what happens in the next few weeks.
lenbrazil, if I don't respond to all of your posts try to understand that I consider you a complete waste of my time.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 25 2006, 01:56 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by newtonnjd
(Directed to YID...)
yesitdid, instead of having to rely on snide comebacks, I will calmly illustrate the tactics you just employed. From the "25 Rules of disinformation":
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
(Directed to YID...)
yesitdid, instead of having to rely on snide comebacks, I will calmly illustrate the tactics you just employed. From the "25 Rules of disinformation":
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76205
Seems to me that newtonnjd hit the nail on the head, YID...
I left a message for you this morning before heading off to work. The message was in regards to your repetitive statements related to the firefighter who reached the 78th floor in the south tower and only reported 'spotty fires'.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76211
You often bring up the statement... (I guess, in your mind, you view it as a 'refute' of some sort) ... that he {the firefighter in question} only reached the 78th floor, and therefore could not see the fires above him.
Am I correct in assuming that is your position?
Upon my return to my computer after work, I expected to see some sort of response from you related to my debunking of your position.
Instead, I see you have done exactly what newtonnjd accused you of ... (see rule # 4 of the 25 rules of disinformation, above).
You completely avoided my post, and spent your time today gleefully attacking irrelevant issues such as Charlie Sheen... and folding money. These 'issues' are easy to 'attack', and provide no REAL solid evidence regarding 9/11 issues, whereas...
...apart from 'fire' / 'raging-infernos' weakening the steel support structures, there is NO case for the fairy tale presented by NIST / FEMA for the structures to 'collapse', (according to gravity-driven scenarios).
I'm afraid that this is why the likes of you, lenbrazil, arthur, etc - (ad infinitum) are not taken seriously on 9/11 threads.
You pick & choose the weakest links to attack, then sit back polishing your fingernails on your chest, whilst ignoring the real issues, pretending that the REAL ISSUES being presented are actors opinions and odd coincidences of folding paper money...
AS IF !!!
In my opinion Sheens 'opinion' is no better than yours or mine... The only relevance is that persons of such 'stature' (well above yours and mine) are 'coming out of the closet' to speak openly about their thoughts on 9/11, and are suggesting a valid independant investigation into the known facts.
As far as the folding money 'oddity'... I certainly don't view it as a 'make or break' issue.
Now why don't you, lenbrazil, and your raft of 'debunkers' get to debunking some real issues and show evidence of 'raging infernos' which could have possibly / plausibly brought down WTC 2?
Please provide timelines, and photo-video evidence from your favourite FEMA / NIST report to support your case, and we'll work from there.
Thanks.
Awww, Fox, I tend to have you on ignore. You remember ignore don't you.
Sorry I did not read your post.
yes my position is that this firefighter never mentions anything about the conditions above the 78th floor, the lowest impact floor. Am I incorrect in that?
I have been speaking to the Charlie Sheen and paper money subjects specifically because I have addressed all the other issues before(with the exception of the Landmark which I also did address and will further address later).
I see that you are completely ignoring the fact that I did not bring up either Charlie Sheen or folding money. Others did. I am now being attacked for addressing two new issues on this thread. If you don't want non-physics issues brought into the discussion then perhaps those who bring them up should be told to stay on topic by you and others who those posters might listen to.
I have , on many occasions complained about non-science issues being brought up here. I have been told that they are relevant and that I am just trying to shut down debate, that I am a lover of secrets. This time I instead went with it and now you and others are weeping that I am attacking straw men. Too bad so sad, your comrades made that bed and now you and others are avoiding lieing on it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by newtonnjd (Directed to YID...) yesitdid, instead of having to rely on snide comebacks, I will calmly illustrate the tactics you just employed. From the "25 Rules of disinformation": 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. |
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76205
Seems to me that newtonnjd hit the nail on the head, YID...
I left a message for you this morning before heading off to work. The message was in regards to your repetitive statements related to the firefighter who reached the 78th floor in the south tower and only reported 'spotty fires'.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76211
You often bring up the statement... (I guess, in your mind, you view it as a 'refute' of some sort) ... that he {the firefighter in question} only reached the 78th floor, and therefore could not see the fires above him.
Am I correct in assuming that is your position?
Upon my return to my computer after work, I expected to see some sort of response from you related to my debunking of your position.
Instead, I see you have done exactly what newtonnjd accused you of ... (see rule # 4 of the 25 rules of disinformation, above).
You completely avoided my post, and spent your time today gleefully attacking irrelevant issues such as Charlie Sheen... and folding money. These 'issues' are easy to 'attack', and provide no REAL solid evidence regarding 9/11 issues, whereas...
...apart from 'fire' / 'raging-infernos' weakening the steel support structures, there is NO case for the fairy tale presented by NIST / FEMA for the structures to 'collapse', (according to gravity-driven scenarios).
I'm afraid that this is why the likes of you, lenbrazil, arthur, etc - (ad infinitum) are not taken seriously on 9/11 threads.
You pick & choose the weakest links to attack, then sit back polishing your fingernails on your chest, whilst ignoring the real issues, pretending that the REAL ISSUES being presented are actors opinions and odd coincidences of folding paper money...
AS IF !!!
In my opinion Sheens 'opinion' is no better than yours or mine... The only relevance is that persons of such 'stature' (well above yours and mine) are 'coming out of the closet' to speak openly about their thoughts on 9/11, and are suggesting a valid independant investigation into the known facts.
As far as the folding money 'oddity'... I certainly don't view it as a 'make or break' issue.
Now why don't you, lenbrazil, and your raft of 'debunkers' get to debunking some real issues and show evidence of 'raging infernos' which could have possibly / plausibly brought down WTC 2?
Please provide timelines, and photo-video evidence from your favourite FEMA / NIST report to support your case, and we'll work from there.
Thanks.
Awww, Fox, I tend to have you on ignore. You remember ignore don't you.
Sorry I did not read your post.
yes my position is that this firefighter never mentions anything about the conditions above the 78th floor, the lowest impact floor. Am I incorrect in that?
I have been speaking to the Charlie Sheen and paper money subjects specifically because I have addressed all the other issues before(with the exception of the Landmark which I also did address and will further address later).
I see that you are completely ignoring the fact that I did not bring up either Charlie Sheen or folding money. Others did. I am now being attacked for addressing two new issues on this thread. If you don't want non-physics issues brought into the discussion then perhaps those who bring them up should be told to stay on topic by you and others who those posters might listen to.
I have , on many occasions complained about non-science issues being brought up here. I have been told that they are relevant and that I am just trying to shut down debate, that I am a lover of secrets. This time I instead went with it and now you and others are weeping that I am attacking straw men. Too bad so sad, your comrades made that bed and now you and others are avoiding lieing on it.
It could be a psychic thing... or maybe nothing more than a one in a million 'coincidence', (and I / WE, certainly wouldn't be basing OUR 'beliefs' on such an oddity).
Steeeee- riike three, you're out.
As far as I am concerned the issue of the folding money is settled. It is no more than the human brain's propensity to attempt to make sense of patterns by comparing them with experiences. It is completely irrelevant and bears absolutly no significance to the issue of 9/11.
Good night and thanks for playing the Woo-Woo game.
QUOTE
1. Both towers fell with a similar rate of acceleration. And I'm not even bringing WTC1&2 into it, which are fundamentally different types of collapse to Landmark/WTC7 (top down as opposed to bottum up). Explain how Landmark and WTC7 dropped at the same rate?
A "similar" accelleration? I see the Landmark falling at a faster rate. Would it be close to that of the towers? Sure it would since the term "close" is so subjective.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Both towers fell with a similar rate of acceleration. And I'm not even bringing WTC1&2 into it, which are fundamentally different types of collapse to Landmark/WTC7 (top down as opposed to bottum up). Explain how Landmark and WTC7 dropped at the same rate? |
A "similar" accelleration? I see the Landmark falling at a faster rate. Would it be close to that of the towers? Sure it would since the term "close" is so subjective.
2. Both towers fell straight down. WTC7 actually fell straighter. Landmark achieved this straight fall through symmetrical, building-wide removal of supports. The damage to WTC7 was neither symmetrical or building-wide. And yet it disappeared into nothing in exactly the same fashion.
Actually as I pointed out the Landmark falls very definately to one side due to the supports on lower floors that are closest to that side were blown slightly ahead of the others. WTC 7 on the other hand shows good evidence of having suffered a failure very close to the center, back to front, of the building and somewhat to one side of center lengthwise. The evidence of this is the penthouse structure sinking before the rest of the building collapses. Progression of the collapse then moves along the center of the building as evidenced by the other roof structures sinking.
All of this does suggest an initial failure deep within the building.
I cannot tell you exactly how this occured any more than you can explain exactly how demolitions could accomplish this. NIST also has only been able to come up with a preliminary explanation. Odd that you would demand that I come up with an exact , second by second explanation of what damage occured where and when to cause the collapse as seen while you only feel the need to state that explosives could do it. Sure they could, given months of prep time to load explosives in place, weaken key columns etc. CD is a pretty well understood concept while the randomness of debris impact and fire damage makes an exact description of a collapse much more difficult.
(Best Mr. Rogers voice: Can you say straw man? yeah, sure you can)
QUOTE
Your arguements about flashes and the dust cloud are easily explainable as features that could vary depending on the style of demolition. But what does not vary between demolitions is the need to remove supports throughout the building in a carefully planned and symmetrical way in order to achieve a fast collapse straight downwards.
NO, a huge mass, relatively undamaged(unlike the mass of the Landmark which has had all columns cut) such as the top section of the WTC towers has enormous force acting straight down. Such huge mass would require very specific conditions to be in place in order to NOT fall straight down.
As Mr. Benson points out page prior to this one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your arguements about flashes and the dust cloud are easily explainable as features that could vary depending on the style of demolition. But what does not vary between demolitions is the need to remove supports throughout the building in a carefully planned and symmetrical way in order to achieve a fast collapse straight downwards. |
NO, a huge mass, relatively undamaged(unlike the mass of the Landmark which has had all columns cut) such as the top section of the WTC towers has enormous force acting straight down. Such huge mass would require very specific conditions to be in place in order to NOT fall straight down.
As Mr. Benson points out page prior to this one.
"But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
So either the preliminary hypothesis does not do an adequate job, or Dr.Sunder is a liar. Which is it
True, it does not do as adequate a job as Sunder would like. Too many details need to be checked or verified. See above.
That Japanese building leaning over differs in several significant ways from the towers.
Since it is in Japan(at least I assume the characters on the signs are Japanese) one could expect that it is built to a fairly stringent earthquake code.
There is no evidence of prior damage to the structure nor is there any evidence of fire. This means that all of the structure was in absolutely pristine condition prior to the earthquake(seems obvious that this was an earthquake. It was , wasn't it?).
It is also likely to have been a more conservative post and beam construction.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 25 2006, 03:30 AM)
Any structure built strong enough to safely support its own weight will not suddenly lose ~90% of its effectiveness when its equilibrium is broken. It will put up a hell of a fight against being quickly and completely dismantled, as the earthquake-hit building above did.
Just to underscore how much of a fight the buildings would put up (and to reiterate a previous point), the collapse simulation of Lu-Jiang, to date still the only one I am aware of, gives collapse times of 1:53 and 1:32 for the North and South Tower respectively, and that is only after weakening the steel to the point the model no longer represents reality. The bottom line remains, as everything here has confirmed, the towers could not have fallen in the time they did without a lot of "help".
Just to underscore how much of a fight the buildings would put up (and to reiterate a previous point), the collapse simulation of Lu-Jiang, to date still the only one I am aware of, gives collapse times of 1:53 and 1:32 for the North and South Tower respectively, and that is only after weakening the steel to the point the model no longer represents reality. The bottom line remains, as everything here has confirmed, the towers could not have fallen in the time they did without a lot of "help".
The reason why most all of these posts are so utterly childish and ridiculous, and why the fairy tale believers are such an OBVIOUS SCAM can be summed up in ONE FACT, AND ONE FACT ALONE.
It's the speed of the crash
The rate of decent
How fast those buildings collapsed
That's all the proof any legitimate analysts needs, because it is absolutely impossible for those structures to have fallen at virtual free fall speed, unless carefully timed explosives were strategically placed and timed to go off in such a way so as to cause the buildings to collapse as FAST as they did.
And this is why you don't even need advanced scientific analysis to KNOW THIS, as we all saw the buildings come down on the news, yes we all saw how fast the came down, with VIRTUALLY NO RESISTANCE, other than air and smoke and tiny fragments that were blown to pieces.
And because of this, all the additional scientific analysis including the fire, the strength of the metal, the columns, the trusses, whether there was sufficient fire proofing or not is all SIDE ISSUES.
Because it's the actual speed of decent that proves beyond ANY DOUBT that explosives were used.
In fact Steven Jones would have to be a complete idiot if he were to say the towers and building 7 came down any other way, because it's one of the most basic and elementary laws of physics and gravity that we're talking about here.
You can debate all these other items for the next 50 years, but there is NO DEBATE OVER THE SPEED AT WHICH THE TOWERS FELL. Even if people want to waste valuable time on whether it was 10 seconds or 13 seconds, that is IRRELEVANT, because it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for those buildings to have collapsed as fast as they did unless explosives were used to remove the RESISTANCE FACTOR.
And because of this anyone with with the slightest bit of honesty knows that all these so called geniuses who argue fire brought down the towers are just out and out BS'ers. End of story.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the most basic laws of gravity, even small children are aware of this, and because of this undeniable fact it seems to me that most everybody, even the scammers on this board know for certain that explosives were used.
Yeah, yeah, the mind can play tricks on people and maybe after all that fox news repetitive BS, maybe some of them have tried to convince themselves of the impossible, but I find that hard to believe that people like yesdidit, common sense and even arthur are that ignorant, yeah, I'm sure there is a lot of ignorance going on in their little brains, but come on now, even they cannot be that stupid.
It's the speed of the crash
The rate of decent
How fast those buildings collapsed
That's all the proof any legitimate analysts needs, because it is absolutely impossible for those structures to have fallen at virtual free fall speed, unless carefully timed explosives were strategically placed and timed to go off in such a way so as to cause the buildings to collapse as FAST as they did.
And this is why you don't even need advanced scientific analysis to KNOW THIS, as we all saw the buildings come down on the news, yes we all saw how fast the came down, with VIRTUALLY NO RESISTANCE, other than air and smoke and tiny fragments that were blown to pieces.
And because of this, all the additional scientific analysis including the fire, the strength of the metal, the columns, the trusses, whether there was sufficient fire proofing or not is all SIDE ISSUES.
Because it's the actual speed of decent that proves beyond ANY DOUBT that explosives were used.
In fact Steven Jones would have to be a complete idiot if he were to say the towers and building 7 came down any other way, because it's one of the most basic and elementary laws of physics and gravity that we're talking about here.
You can debate all these other items for the next 50 years, but there is NO DEBATE OVER THE SPEED AT WHICH THE TOWERS FELL. Even if people want to waste valuable time on whether it was 10 seconds or 13 seconds, that is IRRELEVANT, because it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for those buildings to have collapsed as fast as they did unless explosives were used to remove the RESISTANCE FACTOR.
And because of this anyone with with the slightest bit of honesty knows that all these so called geniuses who argue fire brought down the towers are just out and out BS'ers. End of story.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the most basic laws of gravity, even small children are aware of this, and because of this undeniable fact it seems to me that most everybody, even the scammers on this board know for certain that explosives were used.
Yeah, yeah, the mind can play tricks on people and maybe after all that fox news repetitive BS, maybe some of them have tried to convince themselves of the impossible, but I find that hard to believe that people like yesdidit, common sense and even arthur are that ignorant, yeah, I'm sure there is a lot of ignorance going on in their little brains, but come on now, even they cannot be that stupid.
QUOTE
you don't even need advanced scientific analysis
More proof that steve52 is in the wrong place.
No need for analysis when , "it don't look right to me" is good 'nuff.
Issac Newton you are not. (BTW ol' Issac was a fervent believer in the Christian God. You'd have liked him)
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.