Hi zoktoberfest!
Any TRULY 'scientific/objective' mind, in order to function EFFECTIVELY, must be SIMULTANEOUSLY capable of BOTH entertaining assumptions/suspicions AND remaining 'open' to 'objective' information/evidence which will impact on those assumptions/suspicions EITHER WAY.
Apparently, Schneibster is following 'standard procedure' for scientific enquiry/debate. Not all here are doing likewise. Perhaps you have some comments about them in this area?
RealityCheck.
.
yesitdid, you make good points.
I neither assert a motive, nor deny that one exists. I don't see Iraq as exactly the first target, but you have to admit that the timing WRT announcements by Saudi Arabia of the status of their oil fields was interesting, to say the least, and that Afghanistan may not have been the only Stan on the menu; although it may have been the only one CONQUERED.
There's a whole other dimension to this: China. And I'm still watching.
But enough of this; it's speculation. Let's try to stick to the points at hand.
I neither assert a motive, nor deny that one exists. I don't see Iraq as exactly the first target, but you have to admit that the timing WRT announcements by Saudi Arabia of the status of their oil fields was interesting, to say the least, and that Afghanistan may not have been the only Stan on the menu; although it may have been the only one CONQUERED.
There's a whole other dimension to this: China. And I'm still watching.
But enough of this; it's speculation. Let's try to stick to the points at hand.
QUOTE (shneibster+)
No, not out of the blue; I was asked, directly, "what's your agenda?" And I answered. If you were curious, you might have asked yourself.
Really? You said you that I had initially asked you "What's your agenda?". Are you sure about this? Because if I recall, my first post in this discussion (which was directed at you) looked like this.....
Well...I for one find your extreme persistence in this thread rather odd to say the least. You seem to be spending a great deal of time trying to debunk every conspiracy theory about 9/11 (and this is a clear pattern amongst many defenders of the official story all over the internet). And you have been doing this day in and day out (for weeks). That type of persistence is for the most part, a characteristic that is usually only common when a profession is undertaken.
So where above do I even remotely ask you "What's your agenda?" Are your trying to put words in my mouth now? Furthermore, it actually seems that you were the first one to ask "What's your agenda?" Your response below (which is the response to my statement above) looks like this...
This is a threat to my objectivity, because, you see, I'd really like to do precisely that if I weren't so interested in finding out what REALLY happened. And when I was younger, I might have done just exactly that. But I got older and (I hope) wiser, and decided really knowing is better than just believing. So onward I plod. For now.
What's YOUR agenda, friend?
Given a choice between making an out-of-the-box hypothesis for an out-of-the-ordinary phenomenon, for which there's lots of evidence (for anybody who will look at it...) [ This would be me. ]
and
making not only a hand-waiving criticism, but a sketchy one at that, which might convince your mother, but not most 12 year olds
[ This would be you. ]
I'll stick with the former, thank-you very much.
Since you never intended to convince me, who was your intended audience? All the 11 year olds and under that frequent this forum?
By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas -- knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly. A recent congressional report suggests that the Pentagon may be relying on "covert psychological operations affecting audiences within friendly nations." In a "secret amendment" to Pentagon policy, the report warns, "psyops funds might be used to publish stories favorable to American policies, or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of administration policies." The report also concludes that military planners are shifting away from the Cold War view that power comes from superior weapons systems. Instead, the Pentagon now believes that "combat power can be enhanced by communications networks and technologies that control access to, and directly manipulate, information. As a result, information itself is now both a tool and a target of warfare."
The secret targeting of foreign journalists may have had a sinister purpose. Among the missions proposed for the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was one to "coerce" foreign journalists and plant false information overseas. Secret briefing papers also said the office should find ways to "punish" those who convey the "wrong message." One senior officer told CNN that the plan would "formalize government deception, dishonesty and misinformation."
According to the Pentagon documents, Rendon would use his media analysis to conduct a worldwide propaganda campaign, deploying teams of information warriors to allied nations to assist them "in developing and delivering specific messages to the local population, combatants, front-line states, the media and the international community." Among the places Rendon's info-war teams would be sent were Jakarta, Indonesia; Islamabad, Pakistan; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Cairo; Ankara, Turkey; and Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The teams would produce and script television news segments "built around themes and story lines supportive of U.S. policy objectives."
Rendon was also charged with engaging in "military deception" online -- an activity once assigned to the OSI. The company was contracted to monitor Internet chat rooms in both English and Arabic -- and "participate in these chat rooms when/if tasked." Rendon would also create a Web site "with regular news summaries and feature articles. Targeted at the global public, in English and at least four (4) additional languages, this activity also will include an extensive e-mail push operation." These techniques are commonly used to plant a variety of propaganda, including false information.
Hi. I'm sorry I can't offer much in the way of a response right now (possibly tomorrow...), but I just wanted to compliment you on your post.
I was struck by the fact that you seem to seem to be a layman on one hand, but have thought deeply and perceptively about the collapse, as though you were an engineer or physicist.
You also did a pretty decent job of expressing your thoughts.
Just curious, but what explains this? Frankly, the impression I have is that you're an extremely bright 16 year old. (PLEASE don't take that the wrong way. It's actually a compliment.)
Hopefully somebody else will give your post the attention it deserves.
Unfortunately, a complete answer would require a computer simulation.
BTW, I have complained bitterly of the NIST hand waiving report. Set aside the fact that some people (like Steven E. Jones) seem to me to be at least strongly implying that what it attempts to do, it does in a fraudulent manner.
What is even worse, IMO, is that they never run simulations for even a few floors to see if there's any conceivable way that a local collapse could possibly turn into a burgeoning, accelerating, global collapse. I simply don't believe that a finite element model of the entire building is required to get a handle on this (doing so would be prohibitively expensive.) Thus, I think they could have easily and affordably produced evidence either supporting or discrediting their hand-waiving assumption that a local collapse must inevitably result in a global collapse. The fact that they didn't is, of course, yet another glaring red flag that FEMA Fairy Tale believers have no problems with.
You can check the 911 thread on apollohoax.net if you're interested.
Really? You said you that I had initially asked you "What's your agenda?". Are you sure about this? Because if I recall, my first post in this discussion (which was directed at you) looked like this.....
Well...I for one find your extreme persistence in this thread rather odd to say the least. You seem to be spending a great deal of time trying to debunk every conspiracy theory about 9/11 (and this is a clear pattern amongst many defenders of the official story all over the internet). And you have been doing this day in and day out (for weeks). That type of persistence is for the most part, a characteristic that is usually only common when a profession is undertaken.
So where above do I even remotely ask you "What's your agenda?" Are your trying to put words in my mouth now? Furthermore, it actually seems that you were the first one to ask "What's your agenda?" Your response below (which is the response to my statement above) looks like this...
This is a threat to my objectivity, because, you see, I'd really like to do precisely that if I weren't so interested in finding out what REALLY happened. And when I was younger, I might have done just exactly that. But I got older and (I hope) wiser, and decided really knowing is better than just believing. So onward I plod. For now.
What's YOUR agenda, friend?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Apparently, Schneibster is following 'standard procedure' for scientific enquiry/debate. Not all here are doing likewise. Perhaps you have some comments about them in this area?
Standard procedure? Can you be more specific? And why are you always defending Shneibster? I can understand that you may share his points of view, but you're defending him on even the most trivial and technical matters. Standard procedure? Give me a break.
Standard procedure? Can you be more specific? And why are you always defending Shneibster? I can understand that you may share his points of view, but you're defending him on even the most trivial and technical matters. Standard procedure? Give me a break.
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 05:31 AM)
You do know that so much evidence was concealed and taken away from the destruction site almost immediately, right? Why would you even question the motives of the non-believers out there when such an obvious oddity in the behaviour of FEMA and the Government is easily observable?
None of us can prove anything at this point. Not you, not me, not Shneibster, not anyone. The reason being, there just isn't enough evidence. On the other hand, the government's high level efforts to suspend any type of national investigation and access to the confiscated evidence is more than apparent. I really don't see the need to be surprised to the notion that people are skeptical of the official story.
What else would you have them do with that debris?
What the heck was NISTs report then?
Arthur
None of us can prove anything at this point. Not you, not me, not Shneibster, not anyone. The reason being, there just isn't enough evidence. On the other hand, the government's high level efforts to suspend any type of national investigation and access to the confiscated evidence is more than apparent. I really don't see the need to be surprised to the notion that people are skeptical of the official story.
What else would you have them do with that debris?
What the heck was NISTs report then?
Arthur
bolt has no physics to offer, and no new information to offer. Any questions?
Bye, bolt.
On edit: or should I say, "Bye, Faux?"
Bye, bolt.
On edit: or should I say, "Bye, Faux?"
Hi all,
Several pages back, I made my first post under a 'Guest' account, and having just finished reading Schneibster's announcement that he doesn't believe the gov't's OBL story of 9/11, I just had to sign up and participate in this momentous event. Reading that admission was like reading a really good novel whose outcome is assured, then being completely thrown by a surprise ending.
The post I made several pages back put forward 3 relatively simple questions regarding several aspects of the towers' collapse, and I received only a single, unsatisfactory response from 'RealityCheck'. As I believe the 3 questions are quite relevant to the case for CD, and since you (Schneibster) stated to 'bolt' that you were always on the lookout for new CD 'evidence' (my questions do not constitute evidence), I was hoping that you might take the questions to task.
I will restate the questions below, but first let me say something about your 'admission' of disbelief in the official story: if you truly believe what you say (no OBL, convenient war games, etc, herein referred to unfittingly as NOBL), then is there somewhere on the Internet that you wield your sizable analytical axe toward the case for NOBL as mightily as you do the case against CD? If so, I would be very interested in reading it, and if not, then the obvious question is 'why not?'. If, as you say, the government is perhaps behind 9/11 (LIHOP/MIHOP/whatever), then why does it matter what 'evidence' is used to bring the perps to justice? In my opinion, the visual evidence for CD is powerful, and it is easily communicated to newcomers to the issue, thus even if you claim that the collapses were reasonable without explosives, to the casual viewer who really 'watches' the collapses, they sure LOOK like CDs.
The horror of that day is burned into most people's minds (and I believe it was this horror-producing aspect of the collapses that was the driving force behind the CD, even if it was extremely risky). The people responsible wanted to make damn sure that their efforts were not wasted, and what could be more dramatic than total collapse? And there's plenty of other well-documented motivations for bringing them down, and I won;t repeat them here.
If we can convince people that it was a CD -- and this is REALLY easy to do, in my experience -- then maybe it's the double-horror of this alternate reality that will shock the masses into taking action. It's very hard to get TV-addicted zombies to read 600 pages of 'Crossing the Rubicon', but it's a simple matter to get 'em to watch some videos.
And once we have the suspects in custody, we can start bringing the 'Rubicon' stuff to the table. And here's a suggestion: why couldn't we 'render' the prisoners 'extraordinarily' to get the full story?
Now, if you wouldn't mind, could you please address these questions:
Several pages back, I made my first post under a 'Guest' account, and having just finished reading Schneibster's announcement that he doesn't believe the gov't's OBL story of 9/11, I just had to sign up and participate in this momentous event. Reading that admission was like reading a really good novel whose outcome is assured, then being completely thrown by a surprise ending.
The post I made several pages back put forward 3 relatively simple questions regarding several aspects of the towers' collapse, and I received only a single, unsatisfactory response from 'RealityCheck'. As I believe the 3 questions are quite relevant to the case for CD, and since you (Schneibster) stated to 'bolt' that you were always on the lookout for new CD 'evidence' (my questions do not constitute evidence), I was hoping that you might take the questions to task.
I will restate the questions below, but first let me say something about your 'admission' of disbelief in the official story: if you truly believe what you say (no OBL, convenient war games, etc, herein referred to unfittingly as NOBL), then is there somewhere on the Internet that you wield your sizable analytical axe toward the case for NOBL as mightily as you do the case against CD? If so, I would be very interested in reading it, and if not, then the obvious question is 'why not?'. If, as you say, the government is perhaps behind 9/11 (LIHOP/MIHOP/whatever), then why does it matter what 'evidence' is used to bring the perps to justice? In my opinion, the visual evidence for CD is powerful, and it is easily communicated to newcomers to the issue, thus even if you claim that the collapses were reasonable without explosives, to the casual viewer who really 'watches' the collapses, they sure LOOK like CDs.
The horror of that day is burned into most people's minds (and I believe it was this horror-producing aspect of the collapses that was the driving force behind the CD, even if it was extremely risky). The people responsible wanted to make damn sure that their efforts were not wasted, and what could be more dramatic than total collapse? And there's plenty of other well-documented motivations for bringing them down, and I won;t repeat them here.
If we can convince people that it was a CD -- and this is REALLY easy to do, in my experience -- then maybe it's the double-horror of this alternate reality that will shock the masses into taking action. It's very hard to get TV-addicted zombies to read 600 pages of 'Crossing the Rubicon', but it's a simple matter to get 'em to watch some videos.
And once we have the suspects in custody, we can start bringing the 'Rubicon' stuff to the table. And here's a suggestion: why couldn't we 'render' the prisoners 'extraordinarily' to get the full story?
Now, if you wouldn't mind, could you please address these questions:
QUOTE
1. What forces came in to play to stop the rotation of the top section of the South Tower after it began its collapse?
2. The pancake theory suggests, and the video footage confirms, that the buildings came straight down onto themselves (stating the obvious, I hope). Given this, and 'cepting of course the notable non-pancake behavior of the top section of the South Tower, IMO it's reasonable to assume that the forces being applied to any given floor were reasonably uniform across the floor as the weight of all the floors above made contact. In other words, whatever combination of forces caused one truss or column to "fail", like forces probably caused other similar trusses/columns on that floor to fail. If this were not the case, I find it hard to imagine how we would get a symmetrical collapse.
I make the above observation so that I can ask my next question from the simplified perspective of a single core column (if the answer to this question applies to one column, then by the above-observation, it applies to all columns...?):
As a single core column above the impact point began its journey toward the ground, exactly what forces came in to play that would cause all sections of the same column below it to snap into 30 foot lengths? Presumably, the column above would pile-drive the column directly below it, so what laws of physics dictate that the section below would always came out the absolute loser in the contest between it and the section above (and thus leaving the above section perfectly intact for the next "hit")? I realize that the falling section brought with it the weight of the floors above, but since the full weight of the falling section would be distributed more or less evenly across the entire impact area, each pile-driving impact would be made with only the force from a percentage of the weight from above? Has anyone done a calculation as the the pile-driving force that might be applied to a single section of core column below the impact site as the collapse began?
As an upper section of a core column pile-drove (?) and "snapped off" the section below, what forces were at work that ensured the above section remained perfectly lined up for its impact with the next section, instead of perhaps being deflected even several inches in the horizontal plane? Accumulated deflections over several floors would certainly put a stop to the observed recursive nature of each floor's destruction.
And how did each break point of a column remain perfectly flat so that the next pile-drive would not be "chamfered" away, thus putting an end to the observed recursive nature of each floor's destruction? If you say it's because the breaks occurred at joints, then what transverse forces caused the joints to fail, but did not also cause a deflection of the section above?
3. A question about the "flouring" of all the concrete in the building: exactly what mechanical action and forces caused the powderization of the concrete (particularly the floors)? At first glance, the "Pancake Theory" would seem to easily explain the action: one concrete floor falls on to the one below, thus turning the (both) floor's concrete to fine powder. While this may or may not be "theoretically"accurate (I'm not a materials expert and don't know how concrete should behave under compression), for me the whole explanation falls apart when I make the simple observation that the floors were not pancakes. Rather, they were a series of parallel trusses with a top sheet of a corrugated steel filled with concrete. As one floor fell onto the next, the point of impact would have been the lower edge of the upper trusses meeting the upper edge of the lower trusses, through a thin layer of concrete/corrugated steel. The concrete floor slab should have been broken up cookie-cutter style, not pulverized pancake style.
And assuming that the cookie-cutter action was somehow able to completely pulverize the concrete, how did (seemingly) all the dust escape so easily from underneath a floor's coverings? I've never been in the WTC towers, but I would assume that the floors were not bare concrete, and had some sort of covering on them. In the case of carpeting, would it not be flexible enough to "go with the flow" of the collapse and keep a lot of the powdered concrete sandwiched between itself and the steel pan?
2. The pancake theory suggests, and the video footage confirms, that the buildings came straight down onto themselves (stating the obvious, I hope). Given this, and 'cepting of course the notable non-pancake behavior of the top section of the South Tower, IMO it's reasonable to assume that the forces being applied to any given floor were reasonably uniform across the floor as the weight of all the floors above made contact. In other words, whatever combination of forces caused one truss or column to "fail", like forces probably caused other similar trusses/columns on that floor to fail. If this were not the case, I find it hard to imagine how we would get a symmetrical collapse.
I make the above observation so that I can ask my next question from the simplified perspective of a single core column (if the answer to this question applies to one column, then by the above-observation, it applies to all columns...?):
As a single core column above the impact point began its journey toward the ground, exactly what forces came in to play that would cause all sections of the same column below it to snap into 30 foot lengths? Presumably, the column above would pile-drive the column directly below it, so what laws of physics dictate that the section below would always came out the absolute loser in the contest between it and the section above (and thus leaving the above section perfectly intact for the next "hit")? I realize that the falling section brought with it the weight of the floors above, but since the full weight of the falling section would be distributed more or less evenly across the entire impact area, each pile-driving impact would be made with only the force from a percentage of the weight from above? Has anyone done a calculation as the the pile-driving force that might be applied to a single section of core column below the impact site as the collapse began?
As an upper section of a core column pile-drove (?) and "snapped off" the section below, what forces were at work that ensured the above section remained perfectly lined up for its impact with the next section, instead of perhaps being deflected even several inches in the horizontal plane? Accumulated deflections over several floors would certainly put a stop to the observed recursive nature of each floor's destruction.
And how did each break point of a column remain perfectly flat so that the next pile-drive would not be "chamfered" away, thus putting an end to the observed recursive nature of each floor's destruction? If you say it's because the breaks occurred at joints, then what transverse forces caused the joints to fail, but did not also cause a deflection of the section above?
3. A question about the "flouring" of all the concrete in the building: exactly what mechanical action and forces caused the powderization of the concrete (particularly the floors)? At first glance, the "Pancake Theory" would seem to easily explain the action: one concrete floor falls on to the one below, thus turning the (both) floor's concrete to fine powder. While this may or may not be "theoretically"accurate (I'm not a materials expert and don't know how concrete should behave under compression), for me the whole explanation falls apart when I make the simple observation that the floors were not pancakes. Rather, they were a series of parallel trusses with a top sheet of a corrugated steel filled with concrete. As one floor fell onto the next, the point of impact would have been the lower edge of the upper trusses meeting the upper edge of the lower trusses, through a thin layer of concrete/corrugated steel. The concrete floor slab should have been broken up cookie-cutter style, not pulverized pancake style.
And assuming that the cookie-cutter action was somehow able to completely pulverize the concrete, how did (seemingly) all the dust escape so easily from underneath a floor's coverings? I've never been in the WTC towers, but I would assume that the floors were not bare concrete, and had some sort of covering on them. In the case of carpeting, would it not be flexible enough to "go with the flow" of the collapse and keep a lot of the powdered concrete sandwiched between itself and the steel pan?
Hi bolt!
(1)
>>To QUOTE you: "Also, why do you favor him the most? Based on your post above, you have. Despite the fact that there a few others who also share his point of view. How come you didn't include them as well?"<<
The implication/innuendo there is that I demostrated FAVOUR without BALANCE. Not something I take kindly to from ANYONE. Now, as to why I view the comparative merits as I do: In any assessment of the facts there has to be a 'top result'. It so happened that, so far as my assessment criteria of 'most objective information' posted to date in this thread was concerned, Schneibster popped up as 'top result'. If ANYONE ELSE had been 'top result', I would have, as you put it, "elevated him above everyone else in this thread". Don't blame me for the reality of the situation as based on fact rather than guesses, suspicions, innuendoes, irrelevancies etc.---I don't deal in such things; never have; never will; not only do they do nothing for me, but are actually extremely counter-productive in oh so many ways in the scientific method. Speaking of which....
(2)
To QUOTE you: >>"Standard procedure? Can you be more specific? And why are you always defending Shneibster? I can understand that you may share his points of view, but you're defending him on even the most trivial and technical matters. Standard procedure? Give me a break."
This thread deals with 'physics' matters. Schneibster began, and continues to, post 'physics' information. He was personally attacked for it. He responded in kind after being unfairly attacked. He has nevertheless posted more physics info than anyone else here. He supports all his contentions with objective information and explains any personal opinions using logic, common sense and 'occam's razor' arguments. Standard procedure for such discussions as these. I'm only surprised he has had the stamina for it. I know I wouldn't have, given my lung problems.
(3) Also, for general information as to why ANYONE frequents this forum MORE or LESS often: Out of the millions of technical/scientific people in the world that have access to the net, it is not wholly beyond the bounds of probability that at least a handful (including myself) DON'T have a 9 to 5 job/schedule...and so can spend their extensive 'extra-curricular activity' time on a forum dealing with scientific matters/discussions that they feel they can contribute to...as is their right in such an open forum as PHYSORG.
Good luck, mate!
RealityCheck.
.
(1)
>>To QUOTE you: "Also, why do you favor him the most? Based on your post above, you have. Despite the fact that there a few others who also share his point of view. How come you didn't include them as well?"<<
The implication/innuendo there is that I demostrated FAVOUR without BALANCE. Not something I take kindly to from ANYONE. Now, as to why I view the comparative merits as I do: In any assessment of the facts there has to be a 'top result'. It so happened that, so far as my assessment criteria of 'most objective information' posted to date in this thread was concerned, Schneibster popped up as 'top result'. If ANYONE ELSE had been 'top result', I would have, as you put it, "elevated him above everyone else in this thread". Don't blame me for the reality of the situation as based on fact rather than guesses, suspicions, innuendoes, irrelevancies etc.---I don't deal in such things; never have; never will; not only do they do nothing for me, but are actually extremely counter-productive in oh so many ways in the scientific method. Speaking of which....
(2)
To QUOTE you: >>"Standard procedure? Can you be more specific? And why are you always defending Shneibster? I can understand that you may share his points of view, but you're defending him on even the most trivial and technical matters. Standard procedure? Give me a break."
This thread deals with 'physics' matters. Schneibster began, and continues to, post 'physics' information. He was personally attacked for it. He responded in kind after being unfairly attacked. He has nevertheless posted more physics info than anyone else here. He supports all his contentions with objective information and explains any personal opinions using logic, common sense and 'occam's razor' arguments. Standard procedure for such discussions as these. I'm only surprised he has had the stamina for it. I know I wouldn't have, given my lung problems.
(3) Also, for general information as to why ANYONE frequents this forum MORE or LESS often: Out of the millions of technical/scientific people in the world that have access to the net, it is not wholly beyond the bounds of probability that at least a handful (including myself) DON'T have a 9 to 5 job/schedule...and so can spend their extensive 'extra-curricular activity' time on a forum dealing with scientific matters/discussions that they feel they can contribute to...as is their right in such an open forum as PHYSORG.
Good luck, mate!
RealityCheck.
.
Hi Mel!
Regarding the 'dust containment' by floor-coverings: Floors have two 'faces'. The underside is a 'ceiling' from which crumbling material can readily escape into the floor-area below and be 'compressed' and then 'explosively expelled' through the shattered windows as the collapse proceeds through that lower floor area...whereupon the process repeats all the way down.
Regarding the 'NON-chamfering' of each floor collapse: As I suggested earlier, until each floor's external-structure wall-elements/surfaces were destroyed, each levels collapse would have been 'guided' and 'funnelled INWARDS to their 'common focus'. By the time each levels outer walls WERE destroyed, the debris that destroyed that level's outer walls would have proceeded into the next level's floor space; and so on.
I'll leave the rest till later or to others, for I'm pressed for time in other matters. Ciao and WELCOME, Mel!
RealityCheck.
.
Regarding the 'dust containment' by floor-coverings: Floors have two 'faces'. The underside is a 'ceiling' from which crumbling material can readily escape into the floor-area below and be 'compressed' and then 'explosively expelled' through the shattered windows as the collapse proceeds through that lower floor area...whereupon the process repeats all the way down.
Regarding the 'NON-chamfering' of each floor collapse: As I suggested earlier, until each floor's external-structure wall-elements/surfaces were destroyed, each levels collapse would have been 'guided' and 'funnelled INWARDS to their 'common focus'. By the time each levels outer walls WERE destroyed, the debris that destroyed that level's outer walls would have proceeded into the next level's floor space; and so on.
I'll leave the rest till later or to others, for I'm pressed for time in other matters. Ciao and WELCOME, Mel!
RealityCheck.
.
Quote; IMAGINATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWLEDGE----Albert Einstein
IF an organization were considering violating all protocols of human decency and decided to use nukes in a major city to bring down buildings like the WTC how would they use it? It's interesting that the WTCs have a hollow vertical shaft running from the basement to the top. Golly gee, Wilbur, that might be an interesting thing to exploit. Do ya think? How about taking a look at the latest developments from our boys at livermore. Your not gonna find that stuff on google. Nobody peeks at those cards, they're our ace in the hole. Three parameters of a nuclear reaction are blast, fallout and temperature(K). They need the cleanest heat nuke with the smallest, possible, blast potential. Tactical conventional explosives can cut off the legs. They want to create a plasma blast furnace effect in the elevators shafts to weaken the central support structure. Now geniuses, work backwards and find the device that can do that. Reverse engineering. WE know how the movie ends so lets extrapolate our way back to the beginning.
IF an organization were considering violating all protocols of human decency and decided to use nukes in a major city to bring down buildings like the WTC how would they use it? It's interesting that the WTCs have a hollow vertical shaft running from the basement to the top. Golly gee, Wilbur, that might be an interesting thing to exploit. Do ya think? How about taking a look at the latest developments from our boys at livermore. Your not gonna find that stuff on google. Nobody peeks at those cards, they're our ace in the hole. Three parameters of a nuclear reaction are blast, fallout and temperature(K). They need the cleanest heat nuke with the smallest, possible, blast potential. Tactical conventional explosives can cut off the legs. They want to create a plasma blast furnace effect in the elevators shafts to weaken the central support structure. Now geniuses, work backwards and find the device that can do that. Reverse engineering. WE know how the movie ends so lets extrapolate our way back to the beginning.
QUOTE
Never expected to convince you.
You think there is some SUPER RAY GUN (or some such) that can turn steel to powder.
If you believe that, what WON'T you believe?
Is obvious your logical analysis allows for a step called "A Miracle Occurs".
Arthur
You think there is some SUPER RAY GUN (or some such) that can turn steel to powder.
If you believe that, what WON'T you believe?
Is obvious your logical analysis allows for a step called "A Miracle Occurs".
Arthur
Given a choice between making an out-of-the-box hypothesis for an out-of-the-ordinary phenomenon, for which there's lots of evidence (for anybody who will look at it...) [ This would be me. ]
and
making not only a hand-waiving criticism, but a sketchy one at that, which might convince your mother, but not most 12 year olds
[ This would be you. ]
I'll stick with the former, thank-you very much.
Since you never intended to convince me, who was your intended audience? All the 11 year olds and under that frequent this forum?
QUOTE
The INC's choice for the worldwide print exclusive was equally easy: Chalabi contacted Judith Miller of The New York Times.Miller, who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration, had been a trusted outlet for the INC's anti-Saddam propaganda for years. Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar, Miller flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his INC handlers. Miller later made perfunctory calls to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, but despite her vaunted intelligence sources, she claimed not to know about the results of al-Haideri's lie-detector test. Instead, she reported that unnamed "government experts" called his information "reliable and significant" -- thus adding a veneer of truth to the lies.
Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer," Miller wrote, "said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." If verified, she noted, "his allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so."
Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer," Miller wrote, "said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." If verified, she noted, "his allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The INC's choice for the worldwide print exclusive was equally easy: Chalabi contacted Judith Miller of The New York Times.Miller, who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration, had been a trusted outlet for the INC's anti-Saddam propaganda for years. Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar, Miller flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his INC handlers. Miller later made perfunctory calls to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, but despite her vaunted intelligence sources, she claimed not to know about the results of al-Haideri's lie-detector test. Instead, she reported that unnamed "government experts" called his information "reliable and significant" -- thus adding a veneer of truth to the lies. Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer," Miller wrote, "said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." If verified, she noted, "his allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so." |
By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas -- knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly. A recent congressional report suggests that the Pentagon may be relying on "covert psychological operations affecting audiences within friendly nations." In a "secret amendment" to Pentagon policy, the report warns, "psyops funds might be used to publish stories favorable to American policies, or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of administration policies." The report also concludes that military planners are shifting away from the Cold War view that power comes from superior weapons systems. Instead, the Pentagon now believes that "combat power can be enhanced by communications networks and technologies that control access to, and directly manipulate, information. As a result, information itself is now both a tool and a target of warfare."
QUOTE
Rendon's influence rose considerably in Washington after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. In a single stroke, Osama bin Laden altered the world's perception of reality -- and in an age of nonstop information, whoever controls perception wins. What Bush needed to fight the War on Terror was a skilled information warrior -- and Rendon was widely acknowledged as the best. "The events of 11 September 2001 changed everything, not least of which was the administration's outlook concerning strategic influence," notes one Army report. "Faced with direct evidence that many people around the world actively hated the United States, Bush began taking action to more effectively explain U.S. policy overseas. Initially the White House and DoD turned to the Rendon Group."
Three weeks after the September 11th attacks, according to documents obtained from defense sources, the Pentagon awarded a large contract to the Rendon Group. Around the same time, Pentagon officials also set up a highly secret organization called the Office of Strategic Influence. Part of the OSI's mission was to conduct covert disinformation and deception operations -- planting false news items in the media and hiding their origins. "It's sometimes valuable from a military standpoint to be able to engage in deception with respect to future anticipated plans," Vice President *** Cheney said in explaining the operation. Even the military's top brass found the clandestine unit unnerving. "When I get their briefings, it's scary," a senior official said at the time.
Three weeks after the September 11th attacks, according to documents obtained from defense sources, the Pentagon awarded a large contract to the Rendon Group. Around the same time, Pentagon officials also set up a highly secret organization called the Office of Strategic Influence. Part of the OSI's mission was to conduct covert disinformation and deception operations -- planting false news items in the media and hiding their origins. "It's sometimes valuable from a military standpoint to be able to engage in deception with respect to future anticipated plans," Vice President *** Cheney said in explaining the operation. Even the military's top brass found the clandestine unit unnerving. "When I get their briefings, it's scary," a senior official said at the time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Rendon's influence rose considerably in Washington after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. In a single stroke, Osama bin Laden altered the world's perception of reality -- and in an age of nonstop information, whoever controls perception wins. What Bush needed to fight the War on Terror was a skilled information warrior -- and Rendon was widely acknowledged as the best. "The events of 11 September 2001 changed everything, not least of which was the administration's outlook concerning strategic influence," notes one Army report. "Faced with direct evidence that many people around the world actively hated the United States, Bush began taking action to more effectively explain U.S. policy overseas. Initially the White House and DoD turned to the Rendon Group." Three weeks after the September 11th attacks, according to documents obtained from defense sources, the Pentagon awarded a large contract to the Rendon Group. Around the same time, Pentagon officials also set up a highly secret organization called the Office of Strategic Influence. Part of the OSI's mission was to conduct covert disinformation and deception operations -- planting false news items in the media and hiding their origins. "It's sometimes valuable from a military standpoint to be able to engage in deception with respect to future anticipated plans," Vice President *** Cheney said in explaining the operation. Even the military's top brass found the clandestine unit unnerving. "When I get their briefings, it's scary," a senior official said at the time. |
The secret targeting of foreign journalists may have had a sinister purpose. Among the missions proposed for the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was one to "coerce" foreign journalists and plant false information overseas. Secret briefing papers also said the office should find ways to "punish" those who convey the "wrong message." One senior officer told CNN that the plan would "formalize government deception, dishonesty and misinformation."
According to the Pentagon documents, Rendon would use his media analysis to conduct a worldwide propaganda campaign, deploying teams of information warriors to allied nations to assist them "in developing and delivering specific messages to the local population, combatants, front-line states, the media and the international community." Among the places Rendon's info-war teams would be sent were Jakarta, Indonesia; Islamabad, Pakistan; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Cairo; Ankara, Turkey; and Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The teams would produce and script television news segments "built around themes and story lines supportive of U.S. policy objectives."
Rendon was also charged with engaging in "military deception" online -- an activity once assigned to the OSI. The company was contracted to monitor Internet chat rooms in both English and Arabic -- and "participate in these chat rooms when/if tasked." Rendon would also create a Web site "with regular news summaries and feature articles. Targeted at the global public, in English and at least four (4) additional languages, this activity also will include an extensive e-mail push operation." These techniques are commonly used to plant a variety of propaganda, including false information.
QUOTE
Indeed, Rendon is already thinking ahead. Last year, he attended a conference on information operations in London, where he offered an assessment on the Pentagon's efforts to manipulate the media. According to those present, Rendon applauded the practice of embedding journalists with American forces. "He said the embedded idea was great," says an Air Force colonel who attended the talk. "It worked as they had found in the test. It was the war version of reality television, and for the most part they did not lose control of the story." But Rendon also cautioned that individual news organizations were often able to "take control of the story," shaping the news before the Pentagon asserted its spin on the day's events.
"We lost control of the context," Rendon warned. "That has to be fixed for the next war."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...has-player=true"We lost control of the context," Rendon warned. "That has to be fixed for the next war."
QUOTE
Hi all,
Hi. I'm sorry I can't offer much in the way of a response right now (possibly tomorrow...), but I just wanted to compliment you on your post.
I was struck by the fact that you seem to seem to be a layman on one hand, but have thought deeply and perceptively about the collapse, as though you were an engineer or physicist.
You also did a pretty decent job of expressing your thoughts.
Just curious, but what explains this? Frankly, the impression I have is that you're an extremely bright 16 year old. (PLEASE don't take that the wrong way. It's actually a compliment.)
Hopefully somebody else will give your post the attention it deserves.
Unfortunately, a complete answer would require a computer simulation.
BTW, I have complained bitterly of the NIST hand waiving report. Set aside the fact that some people (like Steven E. Jones) seem to me to be at least strongly implying that what it attempts to do, it does in a fraudulent manner.
What is even worse, IMO, is that they never run simulations for even a few floors to see if there's any conceivable way that a local collapse could possibly turn into a burgeoning, accelerating, global collapse. I simply don't believe that a finite element model of the entire building is required to get a handle on this (doing so would be prohibitively expensive.) Thus, I think they could have easily and affordably produced evidence either supporting or discrediting their hand-waiving assumption that a local collapse must inevitably result in a global collapse. The fact that they didn't is, of course, yet another glaring red flag that FEMA Fairy Tale believers have no problems with.
You can check the 911 thread on apollohoax.net if you're interested.
.
My biggest doubts ito of height and mass are the WTC collapses. Of course, claiming that the almost perfectly symmetrical WTC 7 collapse was due to a few fires is patently absurd - not even worth talking about, except to the brainwashed who have never been seriously challenged. Of course, not showing the collapse on Tucker Carlson, or, to the best of my knowlege, ever on TV, is part of maintaining the brainwashing which commenced promptly the morning of 911, while the nation was in a highly traumatized state. I, for one, was absolutely mesmerized by building collapses.
My biggest doubts apart from physics focus on the very un-Islamic Mohammed Atta - he of the strange Muslim sect that partakes of pink-haired stripper girlfriends, frequent drug and alcohol abuse, and fits the profile quite well of a drug-running intelligence asset. People who so love this world are quite unlikely to voluntarily leave it for the next. And if 72 virgins are a sure thing as a reward for suicide, while copious drug profits can procure 720 non-virgins, why not a little extra experience? The 72 virgins may appreciate the difference.
The fact that his father swears up and down he received a phone call from his son on Sept. 12, raises the question "How could the very un-Christ-like Mohammed Atta be resurrected from the dead, and beat Christ's record by 2 days, no less?"
I think the answer is obvious.
Those who are interested in the curious case of the ringleader who could, even though he couldn't, I refer to madcowprod.com. Note well, anybody who is not poor like myself - there are attempts to put Daniel Hopsicker out of business via expensive lawsuits. If you can contribute, please do so.
Also, please read Hopsicker's article (or articles) on Atta's GERMAN speaking international intimates. That is not a coincidence, and transcends the fact that he happened to live in Germany for many years.
The destruction of military intelligence data on Mohammed Atta, plus the fact that information on Atta was deliberately kept from the FBI well before 911 is of great interest, though hardly a shockeroo. Google "Able Danger" and Weldon.
The other huge red flag, as psychologically large as the WTC towers were physically, is the phony-baloney 911 Commission Report - a real insult to the families that lost their loved ones if there ever was one. The members of that commission are guilty accomplices after the fact, at least in a moral sense (I'm hardly a lawyer.) To learn more about this "whitewash", as Senator Dayton called it, Google David Ray Griffin.
You don't cover up what you're not ashamed of.
The failure by NIST to even attempt to model a few floors under the impact zone such that they could prove their hand-waving assumption that global collapse was inevitable, once local collapse began, must be viewed from the vantage point such that these other, non-physics aspects of the 911 plot are clearly in view. The NIST apologists who parrot the official line that everything is fine and dandy with the NIST report (even though it's not, considered in isolation) , uttering this garbage from the vantage point of an ostrich, do a disservice to their country.
An ostrich which parrots - now there's an interesting meme!
I failed to note: Atta's GERMAN speaking international intimates, who were neither Middle Easter nor even swarthy.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Nov 23 2005, 07:42 AM)
Quote; IMAGINATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWLEDGE----Albert Einstein
"And EITHER/BOTH may be utterly useless, or even worse, extremely dangerous, if they have no connection whatsoever with reality"-----[RealityCheck]
RealityCheck.
.
"And EITHER/BOTH may be utterly useless, or even worse, extremely dangerous, if they have no connection whatsoever with reality"-----[RealityCheck]
RealityCheck.
.
Hahahah, "Vice President **** Cheney." 
"Don't be a ****. ****." -XXX
"Don't be a ****. ****." -XXX
Frater, you're on the wrong dang board. This is a physics board. Go register at GNN. That was good, and you'll do well there. Straight up, no BS. Take it from me. I'd like to see you there.
My biggest doubt with 9-11 is it´s simplistic presentation of the eternal struggle between supposed forces of good and the "evil dooers"....implying they move in parallel universes and are somewhat unconnected..
That the Good Spirits and Angelic Powers of Light are superior in power to the Fallen Spirits of Darkness. That these latter as a punishment have been condemned to the service of the Initiates of the Magic of Light. (This Idea is to be found also in the Koran or, as it is frequently and perhaps more correctly written, "Qur-an".) As a consequence of this doctrine, all ordinary material effects and phenomena are produced by the labour of the Evil Spirits under the command usually of the Good. That consequently whenever the Evil Demons can escape from the control of the Good, there is no evil that they will not work by way of vengeance. That therefore sooner than obey man, they will try to make him their servant, by inducing him to conclude Pacts and Agreements with them.
But also it is notable that Abraham the Jew speaks only of two great classes of Spirits: the Angels and the Devils; the former to control, the latter to be controlled; and leaves entirely out of consideration, or rather does not describe that vast race of beings, the Elemental Spirits, who in themselves comprise an infinitude of various divisions of classification, some of these being good, some evil, and a great proportion neither the one nor the other.
The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage
http://www.esotericarchives.com/abramelin/abramelin.htm
QUOTE
That the Good Spirits and Angelic Powers of Light are superior in power to the Fallen Spirits of Darkness. That these latter as a punishment have been condemned to the service of the Initiates of the Magic of Light. (This Idea is to be found also in the Koran or, as it is frequently and perhaps more correctly written, "Qur-an".) As a consequence of this doctrine, all ordinary material effects and phenomena are produced by the labour of the Evil Spirits under the command usually of the Good. That consequently whenever the Evil Demons can escape from the control of the Good, there is no evil that they will not work by way of vengeance. That therefore sooner than obey man, they will try to make him their servant, by inducing him to conclude Pacts and Agreements with them.
But also it is notable that Abraham the Jew speaks only of two great classes of Spirits: the Angels and the Devils; the former to control, the latter to be controlled; and leaves entirely out of consideration, or rather does not describe that vast race of beings, the Elemental Spirits, who in themselves comprise an infinitude of various divisions of classification, some of these being good, some evil, and a great proportion neither the one nor the other.
http://www.esotericarchives.com/abramelin/abramelin.htm
QUOTE (Schneibster+)
Frater, you're on the wrong dang board. This is a physics board. Go register at GNN. That was good, and you'll do well there. Straight up, no BS. Take it from me. I'd like to see you there.
GNN eh??? Wow you're an idiot.... you actually gave out a clue as to where I could find more information about you. Thanks for the clue dumbass. Ahhh, so now you pay the consequences. ATTENTION ALL READERS, below is the information that I found out about "Schneibster" through GNN............
Schneibster's profile
Profile:
rank: Conscript
points: 21
occupation: Computer Programmer
location: Seattle, US
So here we have a computer programmer trying to make us believe that he is an expert on structural engineering. Seems like what we have here is an imposter. BWAHAHAHAH!!!
GNN eh??? Wow you're an idiot.... you actually gave out a clue as to where I could find more information about you. Thanks for the clue dumbass. Ahhh, so now you pay the consequences. ATTENTION ALL READERS, below is the information that I found out about "Schneibster" through GNN............
Schneibster's profile
Profile:
rank: Conscript
points: 21
occupation: Computer Programmer
location: Seattle, US
So here we have a computer programmer trying to make us believe that he is an expert on structural engineering. Seems like what we have here is an imposter. BWAHAHAHAH!!!
QUOTE
My biggest doubt with 9-11 is it´s simplistic presentation of the eternal struggle between supposed forces of good and the "evil dooers"
My biggest doubts ito of height and mass are the WTC collapses. Of course, claiming that the almost perfectly symmetrical WTC 7 collapse was due to a few fires is patently absurd - not even worth talking about, except to the brainwashed who have never been seriously challenged. Of course, not showing the collapse on Tucker Carlson, or, to the best of my knowlege, ever on TV, is part of maintaining the brainwashing which commenced promptly the morning of 911, while the nation was in a highly traumatized state. I, for one, was absolutely mesmerized by building collapses.
My biggest doubts apart from physics focus on the very un-Islamic Mohammed Atta - he of the strange Muslim sect that partakes of pink-haired stripper girlfriends, frequent drug and alcohol abuse, and fits the profile quite well of a drug-running intelligence asset. People who so love this world are quite unlikely to voluntarily leave it for the next. And if 72 virgins are a sure thing as a reward for suicide, while copious drug profits can procure 720 non-virgins, why not a little extra experience? The 72 virgins may appreciate the difference.
The fact that his father swears up and down he received a phone call from his son on Sept. 12, raises the question "How could the very un-Christ-like Mohammed Atta be resurrected from the dead, and beat Christ's record by 2 days, no less?"
I think the answer is obvious.
Those who are interested in the curious case of the ringleader who could, even though he couldn't, I refer to madcowprod.com. Note well, anybody who is not poor like myself - there are attempts to put Daniel Hopsicker out of business via expensive lawsuits. If you can contribute, please do so.
Also, please read Hopsicker's article (or articles) on Atta's GERMAN speaking international intimates. That is not a coincidence, and transcends the fact that he happened to live in Germany for many years.
The destruction of military intelligence data on Mohammed Atta, plus the fact that information on Atta was deliberately kept from the FBI well before 911 is of great interest, though hardly a shockeroo. Google "Able Danger" and Weldon.
The other huge red flag, as psychologically large as the WTC towers were physically, is the phony-baloney 911 Commission Report - a real insult to the families that lost their loved ones if there ever was one. The members of that commission are guilty accomplices after the fact, at least in a moral sense (I'm hardly a lawyer.) To learn more about this "whitewash", as Senator Dayton called it, Google David Ray Griffin.
You don't cover up what you're not ashamed of.
The failure by NIST to even attempt to model a few floors under the impact zone such that they could prove their hand-waving assumption that global collapse was inevitable, once local collapse began, must be viewed from the vantage point such that these other, non-physics aspects of the 911 plot are clearly in view. The NIST apologists who parrot the official line that everything is fine and dandy with the NIST report (even though it's not, considered in isolation) , uttering this garbage from the vantage point of an ostrich, do a disservice to their country.
An ostrich which parrots - now there's an interesting meme!
QUOTE
Also, please read Hopsicker's article (or articles) on Atta's GERMAN speaking international intimates. That is not a coincidence, and transcends the fact that he happened to live in Germany for many years.
I failed to note: Atta's GERMAN speaking international intimates, who were neither Middle Easter nor even swarthy.
QUOTE (mickydoolittle+)
ATTENTION ALL READERS, below is the information that I found out about "Schneibster" through GNN............
http://schneibster.gnn.tv/
Profile:
rank: Conscript
points: 21
occupation: Computer Programmer
location: Seattle, US
So here we have a computer programmer trying to make us believe that he is an expert on structural engineering. Seems like what we have here is an imposter. BWAHAHAHAH!!!
Thanks for the find. At least now we know that his arguements are not to be trusted. I had suspicions that something was not right about his debating style anyways. I even caught him trying to accuse me of things which I didn't even type. He had said to someone else that I asked him "What is your agenda?". I of course, never even asked that question. At least now we know that he deceives , and the information that you found on him further reinforces that fact.
http://schneibster.gnn.tv/
Profile:
rank: Conscript
points: 21
occupation: Computer Programmer
location: Seattle, US
So here we have a computer programmer trying to make us believe that he is an expert on structural engineering. Seems like what we have here is an imposter. BWAHAHAHAH!!!
Thanks for the find. At least now we know that his arguements are not to be trusted. I had suspicions that something was not right about his debating style anyways. I even caught him trying to accuse me of things which I didn't even type. He had said to someone else that I asked him "What is your agenda?". I of course, never even asked that question. At least now we know that he deceives , and the information that you found on him further reinforces that fact.
QUOTE (metamars+)
My biggest doubts ito of height and mass are the WTC collapses. Of course, claiming that the almost perfectly symmetrical WTC 7 collapse was due to a few fires is patently absurd - not even worth talking about, except to the brainwashed who have never been seriously challenged. Of course, not showing the collapse on Tucker Carlson, or, to the best of my knowlege, ever on TV, is part of maintaining the brainwashing which commenced promptly the morning of 911, while the nation was in a highly traumatized state. I, for one, was absolutely mesmerized by building collapses.
The moment I saw the towers collapsed, I knew something was not physically possible - that airliners could singlehandedly bring down the buildings. It even became more absurd when those towers fell on their own footprints and the steel beams were all roughly cut down to the same size. Then one has to wonder why all that debris was shipped so quickly away ground zero. Then the thermal hot spots (which was present for 3 months) is another smoking gun against the official story thet jet fuel caused the collapses.
The above table and image details WTC hot spots and their temperatures five days after the buildings came to ground. Two hot spots have been highlighted:
Hot spot A is located in the debris pile of WTC 7. A thermite detonation in the basement of this building would have burned at temperatures greater than 2500ºC. The temperature of the hot spot is 727ºC
Hot spot G is located in the debris pile of WTC 2. This building contained only office fires when it collapsed. The temperature of the hot spot is 747ºC.
How could the wreckage of a building brought down by office fires radiate more heat than a building demolished with extreme temperature charges?
The molten steel found deep in the debris of each building along with the high temperature hot spots recorded days after the collapses demonstrate that all of the buildings came to ground in the same manner.
If WTC 7 was demolished, so were the twin towers.
Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_hotspots.html
The moment I saw the towers collapsed, I knew something was not physically possible - that airliners could singlehandedly bring down the buildings. It even became more absurd when those towers fell on their own footprints and the steel beams were all roughly cut down to the same size. Then one has to wonder why all that debris was shipped so quickly away ground zero. Then the thermal hot spots (which was present for 3 months) is another smoking gun against the official story thet jet fuel caused the collapses.
The above table and image details WTC hot spots and their temperatures five days after the buildings came to ground. Two hot spots have been highlighted:
Hot spot A is located in the debris pile of WTC 7. A thermite detonation in the basement of this building would have burned at temperatures greater than 2500ºC. The temperature of the hot spot is 727ºC
Hot spot G is located in the debris pile of WTC 2. This building contained only office fires when it collapsed. The temperature of the hot spot is 747ºC.
How could the wreckage of a building brought down by office fires radiate more heat than a building demolished with extreme temperature charges?
The molten steel found deep in the debris of each building along with the high temperature hot spots recorded days after the collapses demonstrate that all of the buildings came to ground in the same manner.
If WTC 7 was demolished, so were the twin towers.
Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_hotspots.html
QUOTE (metamars+)
The fact that his father swears up and down he received a phone call from his son on Sept. 12, raises the question "How could the very un-Christ-like Mohammed Atta be resurrected from the dead, and beat Christ's record by 2 days, no less?"
I think the answer is obvious.
Yeah, there was no call.
If Atta WAS ALIVE, all it would take is a simple photo of him holding a Sept 12th newspaper to prove it.
Metamars, the only one "hand waving" is you.
Zip Physics
Belief in devices for which no evidence of their existence has been shown, and whose amazing powers defy explanation
The reason NIST didn't investigate the progression of the global collapse is pretty obvious. Once the LOCAL collapse occurs, the building is history. They focused on what caused the local collapse because ONLY by preventing local collapses can Global collapses be prevented.
Sure you would like to see it modeled, but SO WHAT? NIST isn't in the business of satisfying your curiosity.
There is NO EVIDENCE, presented here or anywhere else that I have been of ANY EXPLOSIVE devices used at the WTC towers.
I recently read the report posted earlier on use of Thermite to cut the beams and it is, big surprise, totally lacking in common sense. You can't cut a vertical Beam the thickness of the beams at the WTC with Thermite, even if you put 700+ kg of thermite in each of them. Think about how the reaction progresses UPWARD, it would NOT stay concentrated at one spot, which is what is required. You want to cut steel with thermite, you do it with the metal horizontal and the thermite ON TOP. Secondly, you put 700 +kg of thermite in an enclosed space and set it off you don't get the slow burn needed to cut steel, you get an explosion, as burn rate is dependent on pressure. The explosion however, being that thermite intentionally creates relatively small amounts of gas, will probably not be strong enough to damage the beam, as the explosion would occur well before most of the thermite has been burnt. Finally, burning 700 kg of thermite in say 20 or more columns would be QUITE NOTICEABLE, both when it is occurring and after, as the slag from many tons of thermite is quite unique from anything that would have been in the towers.
My guess is we will never exactly know what happened at WTC 7 because we don't really know the extent of the damage to the structure. What is OBVIOUS though is no explosives were used.
Arthur
I think the answer is obvious.
Yeah, there was no call.
If Atta WAS ALIVE, all it would take is a simple photo of him holding a Sept 12th newspaper to prove it.
Metamars, the only one "hand waving" is you.
Zip Physics
Belief in devices for which no evidence of their existence has been shown, and whose amazing powers defy explanation
The reason NIST didn't investigate the progression of the global collapse is pretty obvious. Once the LOCAL collapse occurs, the building is history. They focused on what caused the local collapse because ONLY by preventing local collapses can Global collapses be prevented.
Sure you would like to see it modeled, but SO WHAT? NIST isn't in the business of satisfying your curiosity.
There is NO EVIDENCE, presented here or anywhere else that I have been of ANY EXPLOSIVE devices used at the WTC towers.
I recently read the report posted earlier on use of Thermite to cut the beams and it is, big surprise, totally lacking in common sense. You can't cut a vertical Beam the thickness of the beams at the WTC with Thermite, even if you put 700+ kg of thermite in each of them. Think about how the reaction progresses UPWARD, it would NOT stay concentrated at one spot, which is what is required. You want to cut steel with thermite, you do it with the metal horizontal and the thermite ON TOP. Secondly, you put 700 +kg of thermite in an enclosed space and set it off you don't get the slow burn needed to cut steel, you get an explosion, as burn rate is dependent on pressure. The explosion however, being that thermite intentionally creates relatively small amounts of gas, will probably not be strong enough to damage the beam, as the explosion would occur well before most of the thermite has been burnt. Finally, burning 700 kg of thermite in say 20 or more columns would be QUITE NOTICEABLE, both when it is occurring and after, as the slag from many tons of thermite is quite unique from anything that would have been in the towers.
My guess is we will never exactly know what happened at WTC 7 because we don't really know the extent of the damage to the structure. What is OBVIOUS though is no explosives were used.
Arthur
The information below was a post by Rokerijdude11 from Some interesting links and info for all:
Quick Facts about WTC7
World Trade Center 7 was the main FEMA command center for lower Manhattan Island. It contained some very interesting tenants. In 1999 Mayor Giuliani built a “Federal Command Bunker” on the 23rd floor, complete with its own filtered oxygen supply and water supply, and bullet/bomb proof windows.
Department of Defence – 25th floor
Central Intelligence Agency – 25th floor
Inland Revenue Service – 24th & 25th floors
FEMA Office of Emergency Management – 23rd floor
U.S Secret Service – 9th & 10th floors
Securities and Exchange Commission – 11th 13th floor
The building collapsed on 9/11 8+ hours after the attack. Building 7 was not hit by an aircraft, nor did it suffer extensive damage from the collapse of either tower. Building 7 was further away from many buildings which survived the attack including buildings like Bankers Trust, and WTC6 (In-between 7 and the Tower). Building 7 was easily the most engineered building around the complex.
Larry Silverstien took control of the towers two months before 9/11. The towers were built with taxpayer money. He originally only owned WTC7.
The World Trade Center Site
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/pp190104wtc.jpe
World Trade 7 from the Main Towers
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/b7_new.jpe
When the North Tower collapsed it damaged small segments of WTC7 only. Here is the reported damage from the FEMA report, Fires were evident on the 7th and 12th floor, they started several hours after the collapse of 1 & 2, and no reason has been given by the government for this. They failed to spread to other floors in significant amounts or even consume both sides of the floor 7 or 12.
Physical damage to the Structure
This is the only evidence we have off physical damage to the World Trade Center. These are both from Chapter 5 of the FEMA report which deals with WTC7, despite people saying the scratch in the roof is enough to bring down this building from the bottom in a level fashion, it is clearly not to anyone with a partial grip on reality.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wtc7_3.jpe
The Fires
The fires in WTC7 started sometime after the collapse of both buildings. Most people suggest arson, the building was much further away from other buildings which did not catch fire but WTC7 did, in one instance at a completely undamaged side. These mainly burned on floors 7 and 12, and failed to spread any significant distance or grow in intensity, no fire-fighter operations were ever conducted in WTC7, and the building was empty before the collapse of both towers. FEMA says this is due to the heavy damage to WTC7, a laughable suggestion.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wtc7_1.jpe
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104building7.jpg
The World Trade Center Site (Damage & Distance)
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/fig_1_7.jpg
The dark red area surrounding each tower represents the immediate damage field caused by both collapses. World Trade 6, 5 and 4 are both in this section, despite surviving the attack standing until they were demolished. Also noted is Bankers Trust. Below WTC7, this was a large building which bordered on the red zone. It lost an outer column but the building held fast. Other buildings in the orange zone or bordering it include the Verizon building, a few feet away from WTC7. Also note 98 West Street and many others are engulfed by the orange zone. WTC7 is around 33% Covered by this zone. Also notice WTC6, 5 and 4 survived the attack. The only buildings other then WTC1 and 2 to be gutted were WTC3 (Marriott Hotel) & WTC7.
Bankers Trust
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/fig-6-1.jpe
Bankers Trust was the closest large building to the World Trade Center towers. Only across the street. The vast majority of the damage is very light, with one outer column missing, no breech of the inner core has occurred so the building could easily have sustained much more damage and still survived. This was the closest “big” building to the towers, WTC7 was much further away but collapsed.
World Trade 4, 5, and 6 (Commodities Exchange Building)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/b7_nofire.jpe
World Trade 4 was right under the South Tower, The large building in the background is World Trade 7, which fell soon after. Obscuring the lower part of this building is World Trade 5. The damage to World Trade 5 is extremely superficial from all available photographs, Notice in this picture no major breeches of its structure have occurred, and the flagpoles are still intact This building largely engulfed by the red and orange zones in the WTC damage plan.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/im...2001014156a.jpe
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/ca...acks_nyr193.jpe
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/search2.jpe
World Trade 6 was in-between WTC7 and the North Tower. In the damage plan it is 90% in the red zone. Despite that large sections of WTC6 remained standing. Also visible is the Verizon building. This photograph was taken just after the collapse of the North Tower. Almost mint condition, this was next door to WTC7, slightly further away from the tower as it is at the diagonal.
World Trade 4 & 5 were demolished weeks after the attack, World Trade 6 was demolished in December.
Ground Zero Examined
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/80...Cgroundzero.jpe
http://www.physics911.net/WTC_map2.jpg
All of the buildings actually at ground Zero, and to the right were much closer then WTC7, the big black building is Bankers Trust which we examined before. Notice parts of 4 and all of 5 survived the attack with only surface damage. These buildings and the others on the right were not built to the standard that World Trade 7, a substation, was built to. World Trade 5 could be compared to a mouse, while World Trade 7 is an elephant.
World Trade 7 – The Collapse
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/docs/7795.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/docs/7796.jpg
Videos of the collapse are quite numerous. Any video marked DIVX plays in Windows Media Player, but it will require the DIVX Codec to be installed:
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV - Filmed from about 1 Mile away. Shows building up close, same as below. (WMP Average Quality)
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...7_collapse2.mpg - Same Video again.(MPG)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wtc-7-demolition.avi – Same as above but much better quality. Evident is demolition style shape charges, and the classical controlled demolition kink. The area near the kink also has streamers pouring out of it. No fire was anywhere near the top of this 47 story building, the highest fire was floor 12. (DIVX WMP High Quality)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wt...emolition-2.avi - Midway in the collapse close up. Again the building falls like a controlled demolition, again smoke is pouring out the top of the building, where no fires existed at all, and the central kink gives way as it is supposed to in a controlled demolition preventing damage to the Verizon building next door.(DIVX WMP)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wt...emolition-3.avi - Quite far away but shows the progression of the collapse. (DIVX WMP)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wt...emolition-4.avi - Reasonably close, shows the kink progression of the collapse and streamers. (DIVX WMP)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wt...emolition-5.avi - Far away, shows the Kink. (DIVX WMP)
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...s/wtc_7_cbs.mpg - Shows the Penthouse fall first. The Central Core failed at every single point. A good indication of how the media isn’t so much controlled, just misled and given a teleprompter to read off, as Dan Rather says it looks like it was blown up with explosives. (MPG)
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...c7_collapse.mpg - MPG of Video 4 above (MPG)
The “official” lines on the collapse of World Trade 7
FEMA’s report on WTC7 is chapter 5 of the World Trade Center building performance study. They conclude their report with the following.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
However the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein gave us a much better explanation in the PBS Production “America Rebuilds”.
remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
The exact same phrase is used by a group of engineers in the same Video as they take down building 6 in December.
Hello, oh were getting ready to pull building 6. We had to be very careful how we demolish building 6, we were worried about the building 6 coming down and damaging the red slurry wall so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3 - Larry Silverstein, PBS America Rebuilds MP3
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV - Larry Silverstein, PBS America Rebuilds VIDEO
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3 - Building 6, PBS America Rebuilds MP3
http://madcowpolitics.com/martialaw2.wmv - Martial Law 911 Rise of the Police State PART 2, the only video that I can still find which has both videos, also covers more on WTC7
From these quotes we can establish that the phrase “Pull It” refers to a controlled demolition. WTC6 was destroyed in December. Many people claim it means to “Discontinue fire fighting procedures and/or evacuate the building. The FEMA Report and the local media all stated quite clearly the building was never subject to fire fighter operations, and the mayor had evacuated the building before either tower had collapsed. FEMA in chapter 5 puts it this way.
In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.
Local Radio in NY City also reported that they were planning to demolish building 7, along with the Associated Press who reported the “Red Flag” was raised at 4pm.
Controlled Demolitions
A building can be brought down anyway possible. It all depends on the planning phase and how they decided to drop a building. If a building is to fall straight down, all columns at the bottom are blasted off at the same time, usually with an exception of one group in the middle (to keep the building together), If a building is to fall in separate pieces you simply cut the building with explosives as you would a loaf of bread, if you want to drop a building to the left, explosives on the left columns, just like a logger cuts down a tree.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
First Case – Side to Side: J.L. Hudson Department Store
Info - http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Video - http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/jlhudson.mpg MPG
Hackney Building
Info - http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosi...e/explosive.asp
Video – http://www.demolitiongroup.com/common/hackney.mov QT
The first building is a side-to-side collapse. Charges were detonated at the correct places from one side of the building to the other. This method is much easier to carry out. The second one is the similar but quickly timed to keep the building in its own footprint.
Second Case - Side to Side and Completely Down: Holly Street Developments
Video - http://science.howstuffworks.com/mpeg/implosion01.mpg
The First is another Side-to-side collapse, but the second in the background is one which fell down to one side
Third Case – Unconventional
Video - http://www.demolitiongroup.com/common/phil.mov
Multiples
Video - http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
The first videos destroyed by explosives in an unconventional way, The link to implosion world has lots of different types of implosions ranging from Buildings to Bridges.
Forth Case – Straight Down: Oslo Building
Info - http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosi...p~international
Video – http://www.demolitiongroup.com/common/oslo.mov
Video - http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm (Higher Quality, Top Far Right Icon)
Straight down Implosions are very complicated. Few times are these carried out. Compare this one to WTC7, the roof is nowhere near as smooth on the way down. They also decided not to kink this one to help it reach the bottom in its footprint. I doubt it was required on a small 15 story building like this.
Evidence Suggesting a Controlled Demolition of World Trade 7
Style of Collapse
The building came down in a smooth controlled fashion from the bottom. The penthouse of the building fell first indicating a total failure of ALL the columns first & the same time. Supportive of this is the amazingly level roof as it falls from the bottom, indicating no obstructions were met anywhere on the building, had the left been obstructive the building would have fallen to the right and vice-versa. Any suggestion that the fires in WTC7 took out every single support at the same time on the same floor is a complete joke. Just before the collapse occurred the building swelled out sideways indicating its guts were being blown out. In order to keep the collapse “progressive” each floor would have to fail as it reached the ground level, to not do so would cause the building to crash into the ground and the free-fall speeds observed on that day would be impossible. All columns on a single floor failed at the exact same time, and each floor thereafter continued the trend. To deny this is to deny the style of WTC7’s collapse.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...s/wtc_7_cbs.mpg
Heres how it would have fallen if every column had not failed at the same time:
http://www.implosionworld.com/chriscolum.htm
http://www.implosionworld.com/fischer.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/chrisant1.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/southwark.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/essexhouse.html
The Kink
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/streamers.jpg
Notice how there is a fault towards the left hand side in this picture. Demo companies do this to keep the sides of a complex/tall building held to the center of the building, it pulls the building together on the way down as gravity is acting on this part first. This would be achieved by blowing one row of columns before the others.
This site has an animation explaining why a “Kink” is evident in many complex demolitions:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm
Here are some with a Kink or use of Gravity to pull in one direction:
http://www.implosionworld.com/robtmeyer.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/robtmeyer.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/PARKLEIGH.gif
http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/PARKLEIGH.gif
http://www.implosionworld.com/schuylkill.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/schuylkill.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/columbus4.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/columbus4.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/columbus8.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/columbus8.html
Charges
Demo Charges clearly go off to the front right and right hand side as the building begins to fall. On the way down smoke pours from the top floors while its descending. Flashes are going off in certain areas. No fire was ever this high. The highest floor a fire was evident on is floor 12.
The Footprint
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc7_pile.jpg
Amazing Job. All destroyed and in a nice pile of rubble. Buildings a few feet away from it remain un-damaged, experiencing just the normal effects of a controlled demolition.
Also notice the walls of the building are on top of the rubble pile:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/b7_3.jpg
Free-Fall Speeds
All 3 World Trade Center towers fell either faster or close to free fall speeds. Freefall is when a building has nothing keeping it from falling. In the case of the Towers, The South Tower fell faster then a brick would fall from the same height. WTC7 fell slightly after the freefall speeds. This indicates there was hardly any resistance to the bottom of the building, freefall is calculated without air resistance, which makes this even more improbable.
The owner is on record saying it was a Controlled Demolition:
The owner used the exact same term that engineers in the same video used to describe WTC6 when it was demolished in December 2001. Many people say it means to discontinue firefighter operations, again, none were ever undertaken in WTC7.
Why is this Important?
Controlled Demolitions are complicated things. It takes weeks to set them up, in the Case of WTC7, this was a textbook perfect drop. First it takes weeks of planning to plan the collapse of the building, every beam must be detonated at the correct time & place and time to facilitate a good drop. Then comes the effort of installing the explosives, this requires more time, this would have been harder in WTC given the complete chaos, the fires and the short notice. Then you have checking and execution.
3 Examples
J.L. Hudson Department Store
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure.CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design.
During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology.CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosionsequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Seattle Kingdom
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030317140323
CDI spent 4-? months designing the demolition and working with TCC to generate implosion preparation and demolition specifications which TCC put out to competitive bid to a short-listed group of demolition contractors. Ultimately, a $9 million demolition contract was awarded to Aman Environmental Construction, Inc. (Aman) of Oakland, California who acted as the Prime Demolition Contractor with CDI?s implosion contract with TCC being assigned to them.
Omega Radio Tower
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030314111623
Aided in the structural analysis and structural design of the project by Tryck Nyman Hayes, Inc. of Kingston, Washington, NSE hydraulically jacked the tower up against the balanced tension of the stays, removed the base insulator, inserted a steel and concrete surrogate insulator and lowered the tower back down. Two (2) weeks earlier, NSE had engaged CDI to design a plan to fell the 1,202?-6? tall structure without damage to the helix house 25? away.
Operating under severe time constraints, CDI was unable to ship U.S.-made linear shaped charges for the project. A CDI representative flew to Buenos Aires where the local explosives supplier had expressed confidence in their ability to melt and pour pentolite explosives in CDI furnished copper sheathing to a density specification provided by CDI
Time Taken To Pull Each Building
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/omega.jpg
2 Weeks – Tiny Radio Tower, “Rushed it”
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/streamers.jpg
8 Hours – 47 Story FEMA Command Center. !!WORLD RECORD!! Why would they Pull WTC7 in such a short time frame even if it was possible?
The building was clearly not damaged enough to warrant a drop, WTC4,5 and 6 all suffered more damage. And Bankers Trust aswell. These buildings were not destroyed that day. The drop of WTC7 Destroyed evidence before the crime scene had been properly examined. It would have further panicked the people of lower Manhattan. One Secret Service agent died in the collapse. Mr. Silverstein is at least guilty of man-slaughter. And the Main FEMA command Center for New York was destroyed. Along with a major substation.
Still Think Fire did it?
World Trade 7 Collapsed on 9/11: Burned unknown 3 hours or more
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104building7.jpg
East tower of Parque Central in Caracas, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004: Burned 17 Hours. No collapse
http://www.triodon.se/lab/img/Fire.gif
One Meridan Plaza, Philadelphia, Feb 23, 1991: Burned for 19 Hours. No collapse.
http://www.triodon.se/lab/img/meridian_plaza.jpg
First Interstate Bank: Burned for 3 Hours, No collapse
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/la_fire_lg_c.jpg
The Windsor Building, Madrid, Spain, Feb 13 2005: Burned for 24 Hours. Did not collapse, suffered only mild failures, core intact.
http://www.triodon.se/lab/img/spain_fire13.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire6.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire11.jpg
The Fires in WTC7 are red (cold) and cover a small percentage of only two floors. The Madrid building fire is white (very hot) and covered everything above the 1/3rd level.
Compare WTC collapse to the collapse of the OSLO building
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV
http://www.demolitiongroup.com/common/oslo.mov
One is perfect, the other is sloppy. WTC7 is the perfect one. Show me 1 demo which falls better then WTC7. You can’t because one does not exist.
Conclusion
The owner says they blew it up on 911. Anyone with any common sense can see from all the evidence that it was blown up. But thats impossible in such a short period of time. The building must have been wired before 911. Larry's Admission must also then apply to both WTC 1 and 2 towers.
Quick Facts about WTC7
World Trade Center 7 was the main FEMA command center for lower Manhattan Island. It contained some very interesting tenants. In 1999 Mayor Giuliani built a “Federal Command Bunker” on the 23rd floor, complete with its own filtered oxygen supply and water supply, and bullet/bomb proof windows.
Department of Defence – 25th floor
Central Intelligence Agency – 25th floor
Inland Revenue Service – 24th & 25th floors
FEMA Office of Emergency Management – 23rd floor
U.S Secret Service – 9th & 10th floors
Securities and Exchange Commission – 11th 13th floor
The building collapsed on 9/11 8+ hours after the attack. Building 7 was not hit by an aircraft, nor did it suffer extensive damage from the collapse of either tower. Building 7 was further away from many buildings which survived the attack including buildings like Bankers Trust, and WTC6 (In-between 7 and the Tower). Building 7 was easily the most engineered building around the complex.
Larry Silverstien took control of the towers two months before 9/11. The towers were built with taxpayer money. He originally only owned WTC7.
The World Trade Center Site
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/pp190104wtc.jpe
World Trade 7 from the Main Towers
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/b7_new.jpe
When the North Tower collapsed it damaged small segments of WTC7 only. Here is the reported damage from the FEMA report, Fires were evident on the 7th and 12th floor, they started several hours after the collapse of 1 & 2, and no reason has been given by the government for this. They failed to spread to other floors in significant amounts or even consume both sides of the floor 7 or 12.
Physical damage to the Structure
This is the only evidence we have off physical damage to the World Trade Center. These are both from Chapter 5 of the FEMA report which deals with WTC7, despite people saying the scratch in the roof is enough to bring down this building from the bottom in a level fashion, it is clearly not to anyone with a partial grip on reality.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wtc7_3.jpe
The Fires
The fires in WTC7 started sometime after the collapse of both buildings. Most people suggest arson, the building was much further away from other buildings which did not catch fire but WTC7 did, in one instance at a completely undamaged side. These mainly burned on floors 7 and 12, and failed to spread any significant distance or grow in intensity, no fire-fighter operations were ever conducted in WTC7, and the building was empty before the collapse of both towers. FEMA says this is due to the heavy damage to WTC7, a laughable suggestion.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wtc7_1.jpe
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104building7.jpg
The World Trade Center Site (Damage & Distance)
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/fig_1_7.jpg
The dark red area surrounding each tower represents the immediate damage field caused by both collapses. World Trade 6, 5 and 4 are both in this section, despite surviving the attack standing until they were demolished. Also noted is Bankers Trust. Below WTC7, this was a large building which bordered on the red zone. It lost an outer column but the building held fast. Other buildings in the orange zone or bordering it include the Verizon building, a few feet away from WTC7. Also note 98 West Street and many others are engulfed by the orange zone. WTC7 is around 33% Covered by this zone. Also notice WTC6, 5 and 4 survived the attack. The only buildings other then WTC1 and 2 to be gutted were WTC3 (Marriott Hotel) & WTC7.
Bankers Trust
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/fig-6-1.jpe
Bankers Trust was the closest large building to the World Trade Center towers. Only across the street. The vast majority of the damage is very light, with one outer column missing, no breech of the inner core has occurred so the building could easily have sustained much more damage and still survived. This was the closest “big” building to the towers, WTC7 was much further away but collapsed.
World Trade 4, 5, and 6 (Commodities Exchange Building)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/b7_nofire.jpe
World Trade 4 was right under the South Tower, The large building in the background is World Trade 7, which fell soon after. Obscuring the lower part of this building is World Trade 5. The damage to World Trade 5 is extremely superficial from all available photographs, Notice in this picture no major breeches of its structure have occurred, and the flagpoles are still intact This building largely engulfed by the red and orange zones in the WTC damage plan.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/im...2001014156a.jpe
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/ca...acks_nyr193.jpe
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/search2.jpe
World Trade 6 was in-between WTC7 and the North Tower. In the damage plan it is 90% in the red zone. Despite that large sections of WTC6 remained standing. Also visible is the Verizon building. This photograph was taken just after the collapse of the North Tower. Almost mint condition, this was next door to WTC7, slightly further away from the tower as it is at the diagonal.
World Trade 4 & 5 were demolished weeks after the attack, World Trade 6 was demolished in December.
Ground Zero Examined
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/80...Cgroundzero.jpe
http://www.physics911.net/WTC_map2.jpg
All of the buildings actually at ground Zero, and to the right were much closer then WTC7, the big black building is Bankers Trust which we examined before. Notice parts of 4 and all of 5 survived the attack with only surface damage. These buildings and the others on the right were not built to the standard that World Trade 7, a substation, was built to. World Trade 5 could be compared to a mouse, while World Trade 7 is an elephant.
World Trade 7 – The Collapse
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/docs/7795.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/docs/7796.jpg
Videos of the collapse are quite numerous. Any video marked DIVX plays in Windows Media Player, but it will require the DIVX Codec to be installed:
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV - Filmed from about 1 Mile away. Shows building up close, same as below. (WMP Average Quality)
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...7_collapse2.mpg - Same Video again.(MPG)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wtc-7-demolition.avi – Same as above but much better quality. Evident is demolition style shape charges, and the classical controlled demolition kink. The area near the kink also has streamers pouring out of it. No fire was anywhere near the top of this 47 story building, the highest fire was floor 12. (DIVX WMP High Quality)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wt...emolition-2.avi - Midway in the collapse close up. Again the building falls like a controlled demolition, again smoke is pouring out the top of the building, where no fires existed at all, and the central kink gives way as it is supposed to in a controlled demolition preventing damage to the Verizon building next door.(DIVX WMP)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wt...emolition-3.avi - Quite far away but shows the progression of the collapse. (DIVX WMP)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wt...emolition-4.avi - Reasonably close, shows the kink progression of the collapse and streamers. (DIVX WMP)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jamie_u512/wt...emolition-5.avi - Far away, shows the Kink. (DIVX WMP)
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...s/wtc_7_cbs.mpg - Shows the Penthouse fall first. The Central Core failed at every single point. A good indication of how the media isn’t so much controlled, just misled and given a teleprompter to read off, as Dan Rather says it looks like it was blown up with explosives. (MPG)
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...c7_collapse.mpg - MPG of Video 4 above (MPG)
The “official” lines on the collapse of World Trade 7
FEMA’s report on WTC7 is chapter 5 of the World Trade Center building performance study. They conclude their report with the following.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
However the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein gave us a much better explanation in the PBS Production “America Rebuilds”.
remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
The exact same phrase is used by a group of engineers in the same Video as they take down building 6 in December.
Hello, oh were getting ready to pull building 6. We had to be very careful how we demolish building 6, we were worried about the building 6 coming down and damaging the red slurry wall so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3 - Larry Silverstein, PBS America Rebuilds MP3
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV - Larry Silverstein, PBS America Rebuilds VIDEO
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3 - Building 6, PBS America Rebuilds MP3
http://madcowpolitics.com/martialaw2.wmv - Martial Law 911 Rise of the Police State PART 2, the only video that I can still find which has both videos, also covers more on WTC7
From these quotes we can establish that the phrase “Pull It” refers to a controlled demolition. WTC6 was destroyed in December. Many people claim it means to “Discontinue fire fighting procedures and/or evacuate the building. The FEMA Report and the local media all stated quite clearly the building was never subject to fire fighter operations, and the mayor had evacuated the building before either tower had collapsed. FEMA in chapter 5 puts it this way.
In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.
Local Radio in NY City also reported that they were planning to demolish building 7, along with the Associated Press who reported the “Red Flag” was raised at 4pm.
Controlled Demolitions
A building can be brought down anyway possible. It all depends on the planning phase and how they decided to drop a building. If a building is to fall straight down, all columns at the bottom are blasted off at the same time, usually with an exception of one group in the middle (to keep the building together), If a building is to fall in separate pieces you simply cut the building with explosives as you would a loaf of bread, if you want to drop a building to the left, explosives on the left columns, just like a logger cuts down a tree.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
First Case – Side to Side: J.L. Hudson Department Store
Info - http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Video - http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/jlhudson.mpg MPG
Hackney Building
Info - http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosi...e/explosive.asp
Video – http://www.demolitiongroup.com/common/hackney.mov QT
The first building is a side-to-side collapse. Charges were detonated at the correct places from one side of the building to the other. This method is much easier to carry out. The second one is the similar but quickly timed to keep the building in its own footprint.
Second Case - Side to Side and Completely Down: Holly Street Developments
Video - http://science.howstuffworks.com/mpeg/implosion01.mpg
The First is another Side-to-side collapse, but the second in the background is one which fell down to one side
Third Case – Unconventional
Video - http://www.demolitiongroup.com/common/phil.mov
Multiples
Video - http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
The first videos destroyed by explosives in an unconventional way, The link to implosion world has lots of different types of implosions ranging from Buildings to Bridges.
Forth Case – Straight Down: Oslo Building
Info - http://www.demolitiongroup.com/web/explosi...p~international
Video – http://www.demolitiongroup.com/common/oslo.mov
Video - http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm (Higher Quality, Top Far Right Icon)
Straight down Implosions are very complicated. Few times are these carried out. Compare this one to WTC7, the roof is nowhere near as smooth on the way down. They also decided not to kink this one to help it reach the bottom in its footprint. I doubt it was required on a small 15 story building like this.
Evidence Suggesting a Controlled Demolition of World Trade 7
Style of Collapse
The building came down in a smooth controlled fashion from the bottom. The penthouse of the building fell first indicating a total failure of ALL the columns first & the same time. Supportive of this is the amazingly level roof as it falls from the bottom, indicating no obstructions were met anywhere on the building, had the left been obstructive the building would have fallen to the right and vice-versa. Any suggestion that the fires in WTC7 took out every single support at the same time on the same floor is a complete joke. Just before the collapse occurred the building swelled out sideways indicating its guts were being blown out. In order to keep the collapse “progressive” each floor would have to fail as it reached the ground level, to not do so would cause the building to crash into the ground and the free-fall speeds observed on that day would be impossible. All columns on a single floor failed at the exact same time, and each floor thereafter continued the trend. To deny this is to deny the style of WTC7’s collapse.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...s/wtc_7_cbs.mpg
Heres how it would have fallen if every column had not failed at the same time:
http://www.implosionworld.com/chriscolum.htm
http://www.implosionworld.com/fischer.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/chrisant1.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/southwark.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/essexhouse.html
The Kink
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/streamers.jpg
Notice how there is a fault towards the left hand side in this picture. Demo companies do this to keep the sides of a complex/tall building held to the center of the building, it pulls the building together on the way down as gravity is acting on this part first. This would be achieved by blowing one row of columns before the others.
This site has an animation explaining why a “Kink” is evident in many complex demolitions:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm
Here are some with a Kink or use of Gravity to pull in one direction:
http://www.implosionworld.com/robtmeyer.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/robtmeyer.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/PARKLEIGH.gif
http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/PARKLEIGH.gif
http://www.implosionworld.com/schuylkill.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/schuylkill.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/columbus4.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/columbus4.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/columbus8.html
http://www.implosionworld.com/columbus8.html
Charges
Demo Charges clearly go off to the front right and right hand side as the building begins to fall. On the way down smoke pours from the top floors while its descending. Flashes are going off in certain areas. No fire was ever this high. The highest floor a fire was evident on is floor 12.
The Footprint
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc7_pile.jpg
Amazing Job. All destroyed and in a nice pile of rubble. Buildings a few feet away from it remain un-damaged, experiencing just the normal effects of a controlled demolition.
Also notice the walls of the building are on top of the rubble pile:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/b7_3.jpg
Free-Fall Speeds
All 3 World Trade Center towers fell either faster or close to free fall speeds. Freefall is when a building has nothing keeping it from falling. In the case of the Towers, The South Tower fell faster then a brick would fall from the same height. WTC7 fell slightly after the freefall speeds. This indicates there was hardly any resistance to the bottom of the building, freefall is calculated without air resistance, which makes this even more improbable.
The owner is on record saying it was a Controlled Demolition:
The owner used the exact same term that engineers in the same video used to describe WTC6 when it was demolished in December 2001. Many people say it means to discontinue firefighter operations, again, none were ever undertaken in WTC7.
Why is this Important?
Controlled Demolitions are complicated things. It takes weeks to set them up, in the Case of WTC7, this was a textbook perfect drop. First it takes weeks of planning to plan the collapse of the building, every beam must be detonated at the correct time & place and time to facilitate a good drop. Then comes the effort of installing the explosives, this requires more time, this would have been harder in WTC given the complete chaos, the fires and the short notice. Then you have checking and execution.
3 Examples
J.L. Hudson Department Store
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure.CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design.
During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology.CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosionsequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Seattle Kingdom
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030317140323
CDI spent 4-? months designing the demolition and working with TCC to generate implosion preparation and demolition specifications which TCC put out to competitive bid to a short-listed group of demolition contractors. Ultimately, a $9 million demolition contract was awarded to Aman Environmental Construction, Inc. (Aman) of Oakland, California who acted as the Prime Demolition Contractor with CDI?s implosion contract with TCC being assigned to them.
Omega Radio Tower
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030314111623
Aided in the structural analysis and structural design of the project by Tryck Nyman Hayes, Inc. of Kingston, Washington, NSE hydraulically jacked the tower up against the balanced tension of the stays, removed the base insulator, inserted a steel and concrete surrogate insulator and lowered the tower back down. Two (2) weeks earlier, NSE had engaged CDI to design a plan to fell the 1,202?-6? tall structure without damage to the helix house 25? away.
Operating under severe time constraints, CDI was unable to ship U.S.-made linear shaped charges for the project. A CDI representative flew to Buenos Aires where the local explosives supplier had expressed confidence in their ability to melt and pour pentolite explosives in CDI furnished copper sheathing to a density specification provided by CDI
Time Taken To Pull Each Building
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/omega.jpg
2 Weeks – Tiny Radio Tower, “Rushed it”
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/streamers.jpg
8 Hours – 47 Story FEMA Command Center. !!WORLD RECORD!! Why would they Pull WTC7 in such a short time frame even if it was possible?
The building was clearly not damaged enough to warrant a drop, WTC4,5 and 6 all suffered more damage. And Bankers Trust aswell. These buildings were not destroyed that day. The drop of WTC7 Destroyed evidence before the crime scene had been properly examined. It would have further panicked the people of lower Manhattan. One Secret Service agent died in the collapse. Mr. Silverstein is at least guilty of man-slaughter. And the Main FEMA command Center for New York was destroyed. Along with a major substation.
Still Think Fire did it?
World Trade 7 Collapsed on 9/11: Burned unknown 3 hours or more
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104building7.jpg
East tower of Parque Central in Caracas, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004: Burned 17 Hours. No collapse
http://www.triodon.se/lab/img/Fire.gif
One Meridan Plaza, Philadelphia, Feb 23, 1991: Burned for 19 Hours. No collapse.
http://www.triodon.se/lab/img/meridian_plaza.jpg
First Interstate Bank: Burned for 3 Hours, No collapse
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/la_fire_lg_c.jpg
The Windsor Building, Madrid, Spain, Feb 13 2005: Burned for 24 Hours. Did not collapse, suffered only mild failures, core intact.
http://www.triodon.se/lab/img/spain_fire13.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire6.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire11.jpg
The Fires in WTC7 are red (cold) and cover a small percentage of only two floors. The Madrid building fire is white (very hot) and covered everything above the 1/3rd level.
Compare WTC collapse to the collapse of the OSLO building
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV
http://www.demolitiongroup.com/common/oslo.mov
One is perfect, the other is sloppy. WTC7 is the perfect one. Show me 1 demo which falls better then WTC7. You can’t because one does not exist.
Conclusion
The owner says they blew it up on 911. Anyone with any common sense can see from all the evidence that it was blown up. But thats impossible in such a short period of time. The building must have been wired before 911. Larry's Admission must also then apply to both WTC 1 and 2 towers.
QUOTE (adouchebag+)
My guess is we will never exactly know what happened at WTC 7 because we don't really know the extent of the damage to the structure. What is OBVIOUS though is no explosives were used.
Pffff......What is OBVIOUS is that you are an idiot.
Pffff......What is OBVIOUS is that you are an idiot.
Quote Schneibster
For the third time.....
For the third time.....
The complexity and efficiency of the physicist's technical apparatus is matched, if not surpassed, by that of the mystic's consciousness - both physical and spiritual - in deep meditation. The scientists and the mystics, then, have developed highly sophisticated methods of observing nature. A page from a journal of modern experimental physics will be as mysterious to the uninitiated as a Tibetan mandala. Both are records of inquiries into the nature of the universe.
-Franz Capra, physicist and author
Everything is connected. (Including the "Good Guys" and the "Evil-doers".)
QUOTE
Frater, you're on the wrong dang board. This is a physics board.
For the third time.....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Frater, you're on the wrong dang board. This is a physics board. |
For the third time.....
The complexity and efficiency of the physicist's technical apparatus is matched, if not surpassed, by that of the mystic's consciousness - both physical and spiritual - in deep meditation. The scientists and the mystics, then, have developed highly sophisticated methods of observing nature. A page from a journal of modern experimental physics will be as mysterious to the uninitiated as a Tibetan mandala. Both are records of inquiries into the nature of the universe.
-Franz Capra, physicist and author
Everything is connected. (Including the "Good Guys" and the "Evil-doers".)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
This thread deals with 'physics' matters. Schneibster began, and continues to, post 'physics' information. He was personally attacked for it. He responded in kind after being unfairly attacked. He has nevertheless posted more physics info than anyone else here. He supports all his contentions with objective information and explains any personal opinions using logic, common sense and 'occam's razor' arguments. Standard procedure for such discussions as these. I'm only surprised he has had the stamina for it. I know I wouldn't have, given my lung problems.
While I value some of your contributions to the forum...
And while some of them are downright painful to read....
Honestly, many of them make be burst out laughing.
This post is taking a while for reason #3.
DEEP BREATH. CONCENTRATE. SETTLE DOWN
OK...
Since you can fake photographs pretty easily, maybe your little scenario would not convince everybody. Say, e.g., a Schneibster. Or, for that matter, an adoucette.
You forgot to mention that there are even more convincing ways that Atta could have proved that he was still alive on 9/12. E.g.:
He could have appeared on CNN, and said "You see, I'm ALIVE! ALIVE! ALIIIIIIVE!"
He could have run an advertising campaign, with television spots, print ads, press releases, etc.
Why, he could have even run for President of the US! (if he's a citizen; if not, why not the US Senate?) That would pretty much nail it.
Of course, a picture with Paris Hilton at an appropriate birthday party would also nail it, don't you think? All the pappazzi there, for sure it would be recorded for all eternity.
So, what COULD have he been thinking?
Well, let's see: mass murder of Americans ... covert operation ... people running the covert op would likely be furious if their plot was clearly revealed for the fraud it is ... plotters have no problem with mass murder.....therefore wouldn't have a problem with murder of a single indivual.... military style assassinations often involve killing the killers as MO
Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmmm.
Say, do you think that maybe, just maybe, Atta wouldn't WANT his survival known to anybody but his immediate family?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Apparently, Schneibster is following 'standard procedure' for scientific enquiry/debate. Not all here are doing likewise.
Bullshit. You must be Schneibster himself to do that much self-asskissing. You aren't fooling anyone.
________________________________________________________________
Bullshit. You must be Schneibster himself to do that much self-asskissing. You aren't fooling anyone.
________________________________________________________________
QUOTE
Yeah, there was no call.
If Atta WAS ALIVE, all it would take is a simple photo of him holding a Sept 12th newspaper to prove it.
If Atta WAS ALIVE, all it would take is a simple photo of him holding a Sept 12th newspaper to prove it.
While I value some of your contributions to the forum...
And while some of them are downright painful to read....
Honestly, many of them make be burst out laughing.
This post is taking a while for reason #3.
DEEP BREATH. CONCENTRATE. SETTLE DOWN
OK...
Since you can fake photographs pretty easily, maybe your little scenario would not convince everybody. Say, e.g., a Schneibster. Or, for that matter, an adoucette.
You forgot to mention that there are even more convincing ways that Atta could have proved that he was still alive on 9/12. E.g.:
He could have appeared on CNN, and said "You see, I'm ALIVE! ALIVE! ALIIIIIIVE!"
He could have run an advertising campaign, with television spots, print ads, press releases, etc.
Why, he could have even run for President of the US! (if he's a citizen; if not, why not the US Senate?) That would pretty much nail it.
Of course, a picture with Paris Hilton at an appropriate birthday party would also nail it, don't you think? All the pappazzi there, for sure it would be recorded for all eternity.
So, what COULD have he been thinking?
Well, let's see: mass murder of Americans ... covert operation ... people running the covert op would likely be furious if their plot was clearly revealed for the fraud it is ... plotters have no problem with mass murder.....therefore wouldn't have a problem with murder of a single indivual.... military style assassinations often involve killing the killers as MO
Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmmm.
Say, do you think that maybe, just maybe, Atta wouldn't WANT his survival known to anybody but his immediate family?
Ground Zero Hazards
Health and Environmental Impacts of the WTC Bombing
After the Twin Towers were leveled, smoke and dust rose over 1000 feet and moved south over Brooklyn and Staten Island. Many people in the immediate area, and particularly rescue workers, were subjected to an unknown cocktail of gases and airborne particulates. In the days after September 11 the EPA and OSHA took air samples and reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos, lead, or volatile organic compounds in the air, except in or around Ground Zero. Contrary to these reports, dust samples taken from surfaces near Ground Zero did show very high levels of asbestos. Significant quantities of asbestos had remained in the Twin Towers despite asbestos abatement programs.
The WTC towers were built from 1968 to 1972. A slurry mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed on as fireproofing material. But this practice was banned by the New York City Council in 1971. This halted the spraying, but not before hundreds of tons of the material had been applied. Some but not all of it was later removed in an abatement program. Asbestos was also used in other applications that ordinarily do not leave a friable (crumbly) residue, but that can be turned to dust under the extraordinary conditions that existed on Sept. 11. The combustion of building materials and furnishings by jet fuel might also be expected to generate some rather exotic chemicals.
In the days and weeks following the attack the Environmental Protection Agency gave assurances to New Yorkers that the dust permeating Lower Manhattan and the smoke still emanating from Ground Zero did not pose a health risk. The agency issued five press releases within ten days of the attack assuring people that the air was safe to breathe, despite an absence of data to support such assurances. In August of 2003, it was revealed that the EPA had been muzzled by the Bush Administration. EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley issued a report on August 21, 2003, admitting that the reassurances were unfounded, and that the public statements of the agency were being influenced by the National Security Council, under the direction of the White House. The EPA, according to the report, had been influenced to "add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."
Sierra Club Report Details Cover-Up
A 2004 report by the Sierra Club went further than previous reporting in detailing the cover-up of the public heath hazards of Ground Zero. The report's summary indicates gross malfeasance by EPA, FEMA, and OSHA.
The Ground Zero health risk cover-up did not result from a poorly informed government. The World Trade Center attack involved the open, uncontrolled burning and demolition of two huge buildings - conduct that would be illegal in any state of the Union because of the known risks to human health. This report finds that the federal government ignored its own long-standing body of knowledge about pollution from incineration and demolition. The notion that EPA had to wait for test data before telling people that the pollution posed health risks is absurd. EPA should have issued a health warning, based on its own knowledge of pollution, before any test data came in.
EPA failed to investigate and disclose toxic hazards properly. Oddly, EPA's website reports that it found no polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - cancer-causing chemicals generally released by combustion of mixed materials - "in any air samples," although four independent tests found them at elevated levels and even EPA's own research scientists reported in a scientific journal that they found them at levels that Science magazine deemed worthy of "the most serious kind of concern."
The federal government failed to change its safety assurances even after it became clear that people were getting ill, and even after a survey of federal employees of a sister agency in the same building as EPA at 290 Broadway revealed that they were suffering health impacts - a survey that, this report finds, the federal government did not release to the public at the time. It was quietly published in a journal in 2002.
Many Ground Zero workers did not have proper protection, especially in early weeks. This report explains that federal assurances of safety gave workers conflicting messages about the need for respirator masks, which are difficult and exhausting to wear.
OSHA refused to enforce worker safety standards at Ground Zero. It wrongly claimed that it had no authority in national emergencies. It then continued this refusal long after the emergency had passed, and long after it became apparent that serious health and safety risks were occurring despite efforts by OSHA staff to advise safety.
EPA and FEMA, in concert with New York City's own health department, told families that they could clean up the contaminated dust themselves with wet rags. In fact, they actually discouraged area residents from wearing safety masks.
Toxic Emissions Persist for Over Five Months
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) remained a health hazard into 2003. EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) collected air samples from late September 2001 through May 2002 at two locations: at the fence surrounding Ground Zero, and at 290 E. Broadway (about 0.4 miles from Ground Zero). PAH levels recorded at Ground Zero's periphery were much higher and remained elevated for much longer than those recorded at the E. Broadway location, leaving no doubt that Ground Zero was the source of the pollution.
Mean airborne concentration of seven PAHs at Ground Zero and at 290 E. Broadway, Manhattan, September 2001 through April 2002.
Source:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/environment.html
References:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067591/ - Is Ground Zero Safe? New study suggests more asbestos at disaster site than previously revealed, MSNBC News, 10/5/01
http://www.arnoldporter.com/publications_a...lication_id=317 - World Trade Center: Response, Recovery and Reconstruction, New York Law Journal, 10/4/01
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/136350_epa23.html - White House edited EPA's 9/11 reports, seattlepi.com, 8/23/03
http://www.sierraclub.org/groundzero/ - Air Pollution (and Deception) at Ground Zero, sierraclub.org.
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/WTC-Heal...ences1may04.htm - Health and Environmental Consequences of the World Trade Center Disaster, Environmental Health Perspectives, 5/04
Health and Environmental Impacts of the WTC Bombing
After the Twin Towers were leveled, smoke and dust rose over 1000 feet and moved south over Brooklyn and Staten Island. Many people in the immediate area, and particularly rescue workers, were subjected to an unknown cocktail of gases and airborne particulates. In the days after September 11 the EPA and OSHA took air samples and reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos, lead, or volatile organic compounds in the air, except in or around Ground Zero. Contrary to these reports, dust samples taken from surfaces near Ground Zero did show very high levels of asbestos. Significant quantities of asbestos had remained in the Twin Towers despite asbestos abatement programs.
The WTC towers were built from 1968 to 1972. A slurry mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed on as fireproofing material. But this practice was banned by the New York City Council in 1971. This halted the spraying, but not before hundreds of tons of the material had been applied. Some but not all of it was later removed in an abatement program. Asbestos was also used in other applications that ordinarily do not leave a friable (crumbly) residue, but that can be turned to dust under the extraordinary conditions that existed on Sept. 11. The combustion of building materials and furnishings by jet fuel might also be expected to generate some rather exotic chemicals.
In the days and weeks following the attack the Environmental Protection Agency gave assurances to New Yorkers that the dust permeating Lower Manhattan and the smoke still emanating from Ground Zero did not pose a health risk. The agency issued five press releases within ten days of the attack assuring people that the air was safe to breathe, despite an absence of data to support such assurances. In August of 2003, it was revealed that the EPA had been muzzled by the Bush Administration. EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley issued a report on August 21, 2003, admitting that the reassurances were unfounded, and that the public statements of the agency were being influenced by the National Security Council, under the direction of the White House. The EPA, according to the report, had been influenced to "add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."
Sierra Club Report Details Cover-Up
A 2004 report by the Sierra Club went further than previous reporting in detailing the cover-up of the public heath hazards of Ground Zero. The report's summary indicates gross malfeasance by EPA, FEMA, and OSHA.
The Ground Zero health risk cover-up did not result from a poorly informed government. The World Trade Center attack involved the open, uncontrolled burning and demolition of two huge buildings - conduct that would be illegal in any state of the Union because of the known risks to human health. This report finds that the federal government ignored its own long-standing body of knowledge about pollution from incineration and demolition. The notion that EPA had to wait for test data before telling people that the pollution posed health risks is absurd. EPA should have issued a health warning, based on its own knowledge of pollution, before any test data came in.
EPA failed to investigate and disclose toxic hazards properly. Oddly, EPA's website reports that it found no polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - cancer-causing chemicals generally released by combustion of mixed materials - "in any air samples," although four independent tests found them at elevated levels and even EPA's own research scientists reported in a scientific journal that they found them at levels that Science magazine deemed worthy of "the most serious kind of concern."
The federal government failed to change its safety assurances even after it became clear that people were getting ill, and even after a survey of federal employees of a sister agency in the same building as EPA at 290 Broadway revealed that they were suffering health impacts - a survey that, this report finds, the federal government did not release to the public at the time. It was quietly published in a journal in 2002.
Many Ground Zero workers did not have proper protection, especially in early weeks. This report explains that federal assurances of safety gave workers conflicting messages about the need for respirator masks, which are difficult and exhausting to wear.
OSHA refused to enforce worker safety standards at Ground Zero. It wrongly claimed that it had no authority in national emergencies. It then continued this refusal long after the emergency had passed, and long after it became apparent that serious health and safety risks were occurring despite efforts by OSHA staff to advise safety.
EPA and FEMA, in concert with New York City's own health department, told families that they could clean up the contaminated dust themselves with wet rags. In fact, they actually discouraged area residents from wearing safety masks.
Toxic Emissions Persist for Over Five Months
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) remained a health hazard into 2003. EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) collected air samples from late September 2001 through May 2002 at two locations: at the fence surrounding Ground Zero, and at 290 E. Broadway (about 0.4 miles from Ground Zero). PAH levels recorded at Ground Zero's periphery were much higher and remained elevated for much longer than those recorded at the E. Broadway location, leaving no doubt that Ground Zero was the source of the pollution.
Mean airborne concentration of seven PAHs at Ground Zero and at 290 E. Broadway, Manhattan, September 2001 through April 2002.
Source:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/environment.html
References:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067591/ - Is Ground Zero Safe? New study suggests more asbestos at disaster site than previously revealed, MSNBC News, 10/5/01
http://www.arnoldporter.com/publications_a...lication_id=317 - World Trade Center: Response, Recovery and Reconstruction, New York Law Journal, 10/4/01
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/136350_epa23.html - White House edited EPA's 9/11 reports, seattlepi.com, 8/23/03
http://www.sierraclub.org/groundzero/ - Air Pollution (and Deception) at Ground Zero, sierraclub.org.
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/WTC-Heal...ences1may04.htm - Health and Environmental Consequences of the World Trade Center Disaster, Environmental Health Perspectives, 5/04
Total BS.
I refer you to NIST's Appendix L (linked earlier), this is their PRELIMINARY report, but even it has enough info to show this rant is just that.
I refer you to NIST's Appendix L (linked earlier), this is their PRELIMINARY report, but even it has enough info to show this rant is just that.
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 03:34 PM)
The building collapsed on 9/11 8+ hours after the attack. Building 7 was not hit by an aircraft, nor did it suffer extensive damage from the collapse of either tower. Building 7 was further away from many buildings which survived the attack including buildings like Bankers Trust, and WTC6 (In-between 7 and the Tower). Building 7 was easily the most engineered building around the complex.
Refer to pict L-1, note that WTC 7 is NOT protected by anything from the collapse of WTC 1.
Note position of pedestrian walkway, connected to WTC 7.
In the report, they show how the building was "re-engineered" to add the Con-Ed Substation. This will become important later.
Now see pict L-26 - note how the very short building between WTC 1 and WTC 7, WTC 6 is virtually demolished, yet the damage was not from the collapse of WTC 7.
Hardly, while smoke from WTC 1 prevented a clear view of the face of WTC 7, reports of extensive damage are available. The previous picture of WTC 6 gives a good indication that there was in fact substantial damage to its face.
L22a - shows the massive damage to the corner of the building and L23a shows that material was thrown much farther than the face of the building. Take a look at the HEAVY debris in the side street next to WTC 7
Look at L23a and see how the pedestrian bridge has been displaced and it was protected somewhat by WTC 6, see the damage to WTC 7. See the fires burning in the building next to WTC 7. See the massive debris in the street in front of WTC 7.
Look at L23b and see the extensive damage on Vesey st and the raging fires.
Note that two elevator cars were EJECTED from their shafts at the 8th/9th floor lobby.
Hardly, while smoke from WTC 1 prevented a clear view of the face of WTC 7, reports of extensive damage are available. The previous picture of WTC 6 gives a good indication that there was in fact substantial damage to its face.
L22a - shows the massive damage to the corner of the building and L23a shows that material was thrown much farther than the face of the building. Take a look at the HEAVY debris in the side street next to WTC 7
Look at L23a and see how the pedestrian bridge has been displaced and it was protected somewhat by WTC 6, see the damage to WTC 7. See the fires burning in the building next to WTC 7. See the massive debris in the street in front of WTC 7.
Look at L23b and see the extensive damage on Vesey st and the raging fires.
Note that two elevator cars were EJECTED from their shafts at the 8th/9th floor lobby.
The fires in WTC7 started sometime after the collapse of both buildings. Most people suggest arson, the building was much further away from other buildings which did not catch fire but WTC7 did, in one instance at a completely undamaged side. These mainly burned on floors 7 and 12, and failed to spread any significant distance or grow in intensity, no fire-fighter operations were ever conducted in WTC7, and the building was empty before the collapse of both towers. FEMA says this is due to the heavy damage to WTC7, a laughable suggestion.
I won't list them all but fires were reported throughout the building and up to the 20s and 30's. See report for details as well as previous pictures noted.
What you DO leave out is that there was a huge diesel generator of the 5th floor fed by a PRESSURIZED feed from the basement. A working assumption is that this fed the fire at the critical point.
If you look at the videos YOU linked to, you will see EXTENSIVE smoke issuing from the building prior to the collapse.
Having lost hundreds of firefighters in the towers collapse I can understand why they weren't all that interested in going inside to fight fires in another heavily damaged tower, SINCE THEY DID GO IN AND GET ALL THE PEOPLE OUT, AFTER the TOWERS FELL (it wasn't totally evacuated as you suggest).
Your discussion of which buildings were damaged and which were not, is hardly convincing of anything. Where things fell determined damage, so the fact that something was or was not damaged is of little value in discussing the specifics of what happened to WTC 7.
From these quotes we can establish that the phrase “Pull It” refers to a controlled demolition.
Except that the MUCH MORE REASONABLE explanation is he meant pulling the figherfigters away, since he is NOT a person involved with demolition of buildings, like the engineers quoted, that phrase is taken OUT OF CONTEXT.
But just as important, fires were burning all over that building, but SOMEHOW all the explosives survived the fire, and all the detonator cord was still intact, allowing the precise timing needed for a controlled demolition????
Pure Fantasy.
Actually if you look at the NIST document they give several different collapse scenarios, and NONE of them require ALL the columns to fail at the same time.
The difference is theirs are based on the ACTUAL STRUCTURE of the building, while yours are based on your own delusions.
I'd like to see EVIDENCE that the building SWELLED out sideways, I assume this would be concurrent with ALL of the windows blowing out, GOSH, I didn't see THAT on any videos. Wonder how the BUILDING managed to SWELL, but the windows remained intact?
Actually if you look at the NIST document they give several different collapse scenarios, and NONE of them require ALL the columns to fail at the same time.
The difference is theirs are based on the ACTUAL STRUCTURE of the building, while yours are based on your own delusions.
I'd like to see EVIDENCE that the building SWELLED out sideways, I assume this would be concurrent with ALL of the windows blowing out, GOSH, I didn't see THAT on any videos. Wonder how the BUILDING managed to SWELL, but the windows remained intact?
Demo Charges clearly go off to the front right and right hand side as the building begins to fall. On the way down smoke pours from the top floors while its descending. Flashes are going off in certain areas. No fire was ever this high. The highest floor a fire was evident on is floor 12.
Clear to WHO?
I've now watched them many times and nothing you are saying is at ALL evident.
Anyone ELSE see what Bolt sees? If so give video and time mark, so we can all see this.
I guess this last quote pretty much sums up your grasp of physics.
Please, explain how it fell FASTER than free fall speeds?
Arthur
Since you can fake photographs pretty easily, maybe your little scenario would not convince everybody. Say, e.g., a Schneibster. Or, for that matter, an adoucette.
You can MAKE fake photos.
You CAN'T fake a negative.
You CAN'T fake a Poloroid.
Picture shot in a cheap 3 for 1$ passport booth would work as it is a contact print, no faking possible.
Good news about sending the NEGATIVE in is the "assassins" don't need to know where in hell you are hiding.
You could send one in every day for a year.
I would if I wanted to clear MY name.
Arthur
Refer to pict L-1, note that WTC 7 is NOT protected by anything from the collapse of WTC 1.
Note position of pedestrian walkway, connected to WTC 7.
In the report, they show how the building was "re-engineered" to add the Con-Ed Substation. This will become important later.
Now see pict L-26 - note how the very short building between WTC 1 and WTC 7, WTC 6 is virtually demolished, yet the damage was not from the collapse of WTC 7.
QUOTE
When the North Tower collapsed it damaged small segments of WTC7 only. Here is the reported damage from the FEMA report, Fires were evident on the 7th and 12th floor, they started several hours after the collapse of 1 & 2, and no reason has been given by the government for this. They failed to spread to other floors in significant amounts or even consume both sides of the floor 7 or 12.
Hardly, while smoke from WTC 1 prevented a clear view of the face of WTC 7, reports of extensive damage are available. The previous picture of WTC 6 gives a good indication that there was in fact substantial damage to its face.
L22a - shows the massive damage to the corner of the building and L23a shows that material was thrown much farther than the face of the building. Take a look at the HEAVY debris in the side street next to WTC 7
Look at L23a and see how the pedestrian bridge has been displaced and it was protected somewhat by WTC 6, see the damage to WTC 7. See the fires burning in the building next to WTC 7. See the massive debris in the street in front of WTC 7.
Look at L23b and see the extensive damage on Vesey st and the raging fires.
Note that two elevator cars were EJECTED from their shafts at the 8th/9th floor lobby.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When the North Tower collapsed it damaged small segments of WTC7 only. Here is the reported damage from the FEMA report, Fires were evident on the 7th and 12th floor, they started several hours after the collapse of 1 & 2, and no reason has been given by the government for this. They failed to spread to other floors in significant amounts or even consume both sides of the floor 7 or 12. |
Hardly, while smoke from WTC 1 prevented a clear view of the face of WTC 7, reports of extensive damage are available. The previous picture of WTC 6 gives a good indication that there was in fact substantial damage to its face.
L22a - shows the massive damage to the corner of the building and L23a shows that material was thrown much farther than the face of the building. Take a look at the HEAVY debris in the side street next to WTC 7
Look at L23a and see how the pedestrian bridge has been displaced and it was protected somewhat by WTC 6, see the damage to WTC 7. See the fires burning in the building next to WTC 7. See the massive debris in the street in front of WTC 7.
Look at L23b and see the extensive damage on Vesey st and the raging fires.
Note that two elevator cars were EJECTED from their shafts at the 8th/9th floor lobby.
The fires in WTC7 started sometime after the collapse of both buildings. Most people suggest arson, the building was much further away from other buildings which did not catch fire but WTC7 did, in one instance at a completely undamaged side. These mainly burned on floors 7 and 12, and failed to spread any significant distance or grow in intensity, no fire-fighter operations were ever conducted in WTC7, and the building was empty before the collapse of both towers. FEMA says this is due to the heavy damage to WTC7, a laughable suggestion.
I won't list them all but fires were reported throughout the building and up to the 20s and 30's. See report for details as well as previous pictures noted.
What you DO leave out is that there was a huge diesel generator of the 5th floor fed by a PRESSURIZED feed from the basement. A working assumption is that this fed the fire at the critical point.
If you look at the videos YOU linked to, you will see EXTENSIVE smoke issuing from the building prior to the collapse.
Having lost hundreds of firefighters in the towers collapse I can understand why they weren't all that interested in going inside to fight fires in another heavily damaged tower, SINCE THEY DID GO IN AND GET ALL THE PEOPLE OUT, AFTER the TOWERS FELL (it wasn't totally evacuated as you suggest).
Your discussion of which buildings were damaged and which were not, is hardly convincing of anything. Where things fell determined damage, so the fact that something was or was not damaged is of little value in discussing the specifics of what happened to WTC 7.
QUOTE
However the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein gave us a much better explanation in the PBS Production “America Rebuilds”.
remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| However the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein gave us a much better explanation in the PBS Production “America Rebuilds”. remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. |
From these quotes we can establish that the phrase “Pull It” refers to a controlled demolition.
Except that the MUCH MORE REASONABLE explanation is he meant pulling the figherfigters away, since he is NOT a person involved with demolition of buildings, like the engineers quoted, that phrase is taken OUT OF CONTEXT.
But just as important, fires were burning all over that building, but SOMEHOW all the explosives survived the fire, and all the detonator cord was still intact, allowing the precise timing needed for a controlled demolition????
Pure Fantasy.
QUOTE
The building came down in a smooth controlled fashion from the bottom. The penthouse of the building fell first indicating a total failure of ALL the columns first & the same time. Supportive of this is the amazingly level roof as it falls from the bottom, indicating no obstructions were met anywhere on the building, had the left been obstructive the building would have fallen to the right and vice-versa. Any suggestion that the fires in WTC7 took out every single support at the same time on the same floor is a complete joke. Just before the collapse occurred the building swelled out sideways indicating its guts were being blown out. In order to keep the collapse “progressive” each floor would have to fail as it reached the ground level, to not do so would cause the building to crash into the ground and the free-fall speeds observed on that day would be impossible. All columns on a single floor failed at the exact same time, and each floor thereafter continued the trend. To deny this is to deny the style of WTC7’s collapse.
Actually if you look at the NIST document they give several different collapse scenarios, and NONE of them require ALL the columns to fail at the same time.
The difference is theirs are based on the ACTUAL STRUCTURE of the building, while yours are based on your own delusions.
I'd like to see EVIDENCE that the building SWELLED out sideways, I assume this would be concurrent with ALL of the windows blowing out, GOSH, I didn't see THAT on any videos. Wonder how the BUILDING managed to SWELL, but the windows remained intact?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The building came down in a smooth controlled fashion from the bottom. The penthouse of the building fell first indicating a total failure of ALL the columns first & the same time. Supportive of this is the amazingly level roof as it falls from the bottom, indicating no obstructions were met anywhere on the building, had the left been obstructive the building would have fallen to the right and vice-versa. Any suggestion that the fires in WTC7 took out every single support at the same time on the same floor is a complete joke. Just before the collapse occurred the building swelled out sideways indicating its guts were being blown out. In order to keep the collapse “progressive” each floor would have to fail as it reached the ground level, to not do so would cause the building to crash into the ground and the free-fall speeds observed on that day would be impossible. All columns on a single floor failed at the exact same time, and each floor thereafter continued the trend. To deny this is to deny the style of WTC7’s collapse. |
Actually if you look at the NIST document they give several different collapse scenarios, and NONE of them require ALL the columns to fail at the same time.
The difference is theirs are based on the ACTUAL STRUCTURE of the building, while yours are based on your own delusions.
I'd like to see EVIDENCE that the building SWELLED out sideways, I assume this would be concurrent with ALL of the windows blowing out, GOSH, I didn't see THAT on any videos. Wonder how the BUILDING managed to SWELL, but the windows remained intact?
Demo Charges clearly go off to the front right and right hand side as the building begins to fall. On the way down smoke pours from the top floors while its descending. Flashes are going off in certain areas. No fire was ever this high. The highest floor a fire was evident on is floor 12.
Clear to WHO?
I've now watched them many times and nothing you are saying is at ALL evident.
Anyone ELSE see what Bolt sees? If so give video and time mark, so we can all see this.
QUOTE
All 3 World Trade Center towers fell either faster or close to free fall speeds.
I guess this last quote pretty much sums up your grasp of physics.
Please, explain how it fell FASTER than free fall speeds?
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 23 2005, 05:00 PM)
Since you can fake photographs pretty easily, maybe your little scenario would not convince everybody. Say, e.g., a Schneibster. Or, for that matter, an adoucette.
You can MAKE fake photos.
You CAN'T fake a negative.
You CAN'T fake a Poloroid.
Picture shot in a cheap 3 for 1$ passport booth would work as it is a contact print, no faking possible.
Good news about sending the NEGATIVE in is the "assassins" don't need to know where in hell you are hiding.
You could send one in every day for a year.
I would if I wanted to clear MY name.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Please, explain how it fell FASTER than free fall speeds?
First of all, you don't know how to read. The reason being, the post I supplied was something I did NOT write. It was copied and pasted from another message board. All I did was relay it here. I clearly mentioned the author's name at the beginning of that post. You didn't read it.
Second of all, the post read like this:
Notice the author also mentioned "or close"? You clearly excluded that and only focused on the "faster". This goes to show that you cannot read properly as you have missed out on the "close". You could have easily dismissed the "faster" as nothing more than an exaggeration on the author's part (as he clearly meant "close" to the speed of free fall). Otherwise, he wouldn't even have mentioned "or close to the speed of free fall" in the first place.
Notice the author also mentioned "or close"? You clearly excluded that and only focused on the "faster". This goes to show that you cannot read properly as you have missed out on the "close". You could have easily dismissed the "faster" as nothing more than an exaggeration on the author's part (as he clearly meant "close" to the speed of free fall). Otherwise, he wouldn't even have mentioned "or close to the speed of free fall" in the first place.
Anyone ELSE see what Dolt sees? If so give video and time mark, so we can all see this.
Why are you engaging in name-calling? Please have more respect to people who do not share the same opinions as you do. Not everyone agrees with each other. Why do you wish to be condescending in this debate?
First of all, you don't know how to read. The reason being, the post I supplied was something I did NOT write. It was copied and pasted from another message board. All I did was relay it here. I clearly mentioned the author's name at the beginning of that post. You didn't read it.
Second of all, the post read like this:
QUOTE
All 3 World Trade Center towers fell either faster or close to free fall speeds.
Notice the author also mentioned "or close"? You clearly excluded that and only focused on the "faster". This goes to show that you cannot read properly as you have missed out on the "close". You could have easily dismissed the "faster" as nothing more than an exaggeration on the author's part (as he clearly meant "close" to the speed of free fall). Otherwise, he wouldn't even have mentioned "or close to the speed of free fall" in the first place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All 3 World Trade Center towers fell either faster or close to free fall speeds. |
Notice the author also mentioned "or close"? You clearly excluded that and only focused on the "faster". This goes to show that you cannot read properly as you have missed out on the "close". You could have easily dismissed the "faster" as nothing more than an exaggeration on the author's part (as he clearly meant "close" to the speed of free fall). Otherwise, he wouldn't even have mentioned "or close to the speed of free fall" in the first place.
Anyone ELSE see what Dolt sees? If so give video and time mark, so we can all see this.
Why are you engaging in name-calling? Please have more respect to people who do not share the same opinions as you do. Not everyone agrees with each other. Why do you wish to be condescending in this debate?
OK, lets compare a CD to the WTC.
J.L. Hudson Department Store
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Now watching the video, SHARP explosions go off for 13 seconds before the first collapse which is initiated by a large explosion at the base of the left corner.
Now the face doesn't collapse TOP DOWN like WTC onto an intact base, but BOTTOM UP as the building falls down.
The explosions continue, louder than the falling of the structure, to about 20 seconds, as the rest of the building is progressively destroyed.
Now look at the end, notice the "pyroclastic" cloud.
Well gee, even though this building is a FRACTION of the size of the WTC it seems to be making a very similar looking cloud of debris.
Wonder if we figured out the area of this what the same calculations that Hoffman used would generate as the supposed temp of this cloud?
Arthur
J.L. Hudson Department Store
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Now watching the video, SHARP explosions go off for 13 seconds before the first collapse which is initiated by a large explosion at the base of the left corner.
Now the face doesn't collapse TOP DOWN like WTC onto an intact base, but BOTTOM UP as the building falls down.
The explosions continue, louder than the falling of the structure, to about 20 seconds, as the rest of the building is progressively destroyed.
Now look at the end, notice the "pyroclastic" cloud.
Well gee, even though this building is a FRACTION of the size of the WTC it seems to be making a very similar looking cloud of debris.
Wonder if we figured out the area of this what the same calculations that Hoffman used would generate as the supposed temp of this cloud?
Arthur
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 06:48 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Please, explain how it fell FASTER than free fall speeds?
First of all, you don't know how to read. The reason being, the post I supplied was something I did NOT write. It was copied and pasted from another message board. All I did was relay it here. I clearly mentioned the author's name at the beginning of that post. You didn't read it.
Second of all, the post read like this:
Notice the author also mentioned "or close"? You clearly excluded that and only focused on the "faster". This goes to show that you cannot read properly as you have missed out on the "close". You could have easily dismissed the "faster" as nothing more than an exaggeration on the author's part (as he clearly meant "close" to the speed of free fall). Otherwise, he wouldn't even have mentioned "or close to the speed of free fall" in the first place.
Yeah, I missed that this wasn't YOURS.
YOU only posted it.
You didn't NOTE that you disagreed with ANY of it, now did you?
One would assume that if you POST something and don't put in any disclaimers that you two are in synch.
And NO, I don't believe that's what he meant, hence the use of EITHER.
The seismic evidence SHOWS that there were NO explosion prior to collapse.
The video evidence shows that they took a number of seconds longer than free fall times.
The video evidence shows the external debris clearly falling MUCH faster than the towers.
Since things accelerate as they fall, a few seconds is a LOT longer than free fall.
The use of "close" doesn't cut it.
Arthur
First of all, you don't know how to read. The reason being, the post I supplied was something I did NOT write. It was copied and pasted from another message board. All I did was relay it here. I clearly mentioned the author's name at the beginning of that post. You didn't read it.
Second of all, the post read like this:
QUOTE
All 3 World Trade Center towers fell either faster or close to free fall speeds.
Notice the author also mentioned "or close"? You clearly excluded that and only focused on the "faster". This goes to show that you cannot read properly as you have missed out on the "close". You could have easily dismissed the "faster" as nothing more than an exaggeration on the author's part (as he clearly meant "close" to the speed of free fall). Otherwise, he wouldn't even have mentioned "or close to the speed of free fall" in the first place.
Yeah, I missed that this wasn't YOURS.
YOU only posted it.
You didn't NOTE that you disagreed with ANY of it, now did you?
One would assume that if you POST something and don't put in any disclaimers that you two are in synch.
And NO, I don't believe that's what he meant, hence the use of EITHER.
The seismic evidence SHOWS that there were NO explosion prior to collapse.
The video evidence shows that they took a number of seconds longer than free fall times.
The video evidence shows the external debris clearly falling MUCH faster than the towers.
Since things accelerate as they fall, a few seconds is a LOT longer than free fall.
The use of "close" doesn't cut it.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
My guess is we will never exactly know what happened at WTC 7 because we don't really know the extent of the damage to the structure. What is OBVIOUS though is no explosives were used.
Why do you think that it was "obvious" that the WTC 7 was not brought down by explosives? What is it that you "obviously" see that most of us don't, that would cause you to make such an "assured" conclusion?
Why do you think that it was "obvious" that the WTC 7 was not brought down by explosives? What is it that you "obviously" see that most of us don't, that would cause you to make such an "assured" conclusion?
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 06:48 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Anyone ELSE see what Dolt sees? If so give video and time mark, so we can all see this.
Why are you engaging in name-calling? Please have more respect to people who do not share the same opinions as you do. Not everyone agrees with each other. Why do you wish to be condescending in this debate?
No offense intended, it really was a typo, I fixed it.
Arthur
Why are you engaging in name-calling? Please have more respect to people who do not share the same opinions as you do. Not everyone agrees with each other. Why do you wish to be condescending in this debate?
No offense intended, it really was a typo, I fixed it.
Arthur
No problem.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
The video evidence shows the external debris clearly falling MUCH faster than the towers.
But can you explain why a lot of the debris was also being thrust horizontally as the buildings were collapsing?
But can you explain why a lot of the debris was also being thrust horizontally as the buildings were collapsing?
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 07:01 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
My guess is we will never exactly know what happened at WTC 7 because we don't really know the extent of the damage to the structure. What is OBVIOUS though is no explosives were used.
Why do you think that it was "obvious" that the WTC 7 was not brought down by explosives? What is it that you "obviously" see that most of us don't, that would cause you to make such an "assured" conclusion?
Because it takes some pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns.
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
Demolishing a building takes a lot of time and access and destruction of walls/facings etc, stringing miles of detonator cord etc etc
Pulling this off without raising suspicion would be next to impossible.
Having it STILL work after the building has been on fire for hours would take a miracle.
Arthur
Why do you think that it was "obvious" that the WTC 7 was not brought down by explosives? What is it that you "obviously" see that most of us don't, that would cause you to make such an "assured" conclusion?
Because it takes some pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns.
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
Demolishing a building takes a lot of time and access and destruction of walls/facings etc, stringing miles of detonator cord etc etc
Pulling this off without raising suspicion would be next to impossible.
Having it STILL work after the building has been on fire for hours would take a miracle.
Arthur
adoucette, Scheibster,
Can either of you give ONE reasonable explanation for the molten steel/metal and temperatures found below the buildings that would not include some unknown energy source?
Can either of you give ONE reasonable explanation for the molten steel/metal and temperatures found below the buildings that would not include some unknown energy source?
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 07:09 PM)
No problem.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
The video evidence shows the external debris clearly falling MUCH faster than the towers.
But can you explain why a lot of the debris was also being thrust horizontally as the buildings were collapsing?
Sure,
Physics.
Ever seen the comedian Gallager use his Sledge O Matic?
Ever wonder why the front row audience comes dressed in garbage bags?
Arthur
But can you explain why a lot of the debris was also being thrust horizontally as the buildings were collapsing?
Sure,
Physics.
Ever seen the comedian Gallager use his Sledge O Matic?
Ever wonder why the front row audience comes dressed in garbage bags?
Arthur
QUOTE (brian+Nov 23 2005, 07:11 PM)
adoucette, Scheibster,
Can either of you give ONE reasonable explanation for the molten steel/metal and temperatures found below the buildings that would not include some unknown energy source?
Actually, except in threads like these I've not really seen much evidence of same.
Got a link with some factual data about this?
What I don't recall is them pulling out any large chunks of the resultant solidified metal mass.
Arthur
Can either of you give ONE reasonable explanation for the molten steel/metal and temperatures found below the buildings that would not include some unknown energy source?
Actually, except in threads like these I've not really seen much evidence of same.
Got a link with some factual data about this?
What I don't recall is them pulling out any large chunks of the resultant solidified metal mass.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Because it takes some pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns.
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
So if it is not the explosives as you say, then what is your hypothesis on this matter? What would be your best guess as to what caused building 7 to collapse? Do you believe that it was the internal fires? Furthermore, can you also explain what Silverstein meant by "Pull it"?
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
So if it is not the explosives as you say, then what is your hypothesis on this matter? What would be your best guess as to what caused building 7 to collapse? Do you believe that it was the internal fires? Furthermore, can you also explain what Silverstein meant by "Pull it"?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Demolishing a building takes a lot of time and access and destruction of walls/facings etc, stringing miles of detonator cord etc etc
Pulling this off without raising suspicion would be next to impossible.
So you are not going to consider the possibility that the Government might have pre-rigged the building much earlier than September 11? Are you certain that the government is not capable of collaborating such an operation? Are you certain about this? And if you are certain, can you back it up with some credible evidence?
Pulling this off without raising suspicion would be next to impossible.
So you are not going to consider the possibility that the Government might have pre-rigged the building much earlier than September 11? Are you certain that the government is not capable of collaborating such an operation? Are you certain about this? And if you are certain, can you back it up with some credible evidence?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Actually, except in threads like these I've not really seen much evidence of same.
Got a link with some factual data about this?
Got a link with some factual data about this?
Quote Adoucette
If it takes pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns, how is it possible that 2 (two) terrorist-laden hijacked airplanes fueled by a burning hatred for our freedom and values are capable of pulverizing 3 (three) reinforced steel column buildings? (apparently without explosives).
QUOTE
Because it takes some pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns.
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
If it takes pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns, how is it possible that 2 (two) terrorist-laden hijacked airplanes fueled by a burning hatred for our freedom and values are capable of pulverizing 3 (three) reinforced steel column buildings? (apparently without explosives).
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 07:19 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Because it takes some pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns.
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
So if it is not the explosives as you say, then what is your hypothesis on this matter? What would be your best guess as to what caused building 7 to collapse? Do you believe that it was the internal fires? Furthermore, can you also explain what Silverstein meant by "Pull it"?
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
So if it is not the explosives as you say, then what is your hypothesis on this matter? What would be your best guess as to what caused building 7 to collapse? Do you believe that it was the internal fires? Furthermore, can you also explain what Silverstein meant by "Pull it"?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Demolishing a building takes a lot of time and access and destruction of walls/facings etc, stringing miles of detonator cord etc etc
Pulling this off without raising suspicion would be next to impossible.
So you are not going to consider the possibility that the Government might have pre-rigged the building much earlier than September 11? Are you certain that the government is not capable of collaborating such an operation? Are you certain about this?
I'm not qualified to give a hypothesis on its collapse.
I suspect it was a combination of building design (particularly after the changes for the Con-Ed station were made), structural damage from the WTC 1 collapse and given that two elevators were blown out of their shafts, I suspect that some of the same problem at the WTC, i.e. the insulation on the supports being compromised, occurred at WTC 7, and finally the fires, most likely fed by the pressurized Diesel fuel tank in the basement.
Though I will say the preliminary NIST report seems to cover the likely scenarios pretty well.
I'd challenge THEM if I were you.
As to the BUSINESSMAN Silverstein, I think he meant pull the firefighters AWAY from the building to reduce the loss of even more of them to this disaster. The building was toast.
Arthur
Pulling this off without raising suspicion would be next to impossible.
So you are not going to consider the possibility that the Government might have pre-rigged the building much earlier than September 11? Are you certain that the government is not capable of collaborating such an operation? Are you certain about this?
I'm not qualified to give a hypothesis on its collapse.
I suspect it was a combination of building design (particularly after the changes for the Con-Ed station were made), structural damage from the WTC 1 collapse and given that two elevators were blown out of their shafts, I suspect that some of the same problem at the WTC, i.e. the insulation on the supports being compromised, occurred at WTC 7, and finally the fires, most likely fed by the pressurized Diesel fuel tank in the basement.
Though I will say the preliminary NIST report seems to cover the likely scenarios pretty well.
I'd challenge THEM if I were you.
As to the BUSINESSMAN Silverstein, I think he meant pull the firefighters AWAY from the building to reduce the loss of even more of them to this disaster. The building was toast.
Arthur
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Nov 23 2005, 07:26 PM)
Quote Adoucette
If it takes pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns, how is it possible that 2 (two) terrorist-laden hijacked airplanes fueled by a burning hatred for our freedom and values are capable of pulverizing 3 (three) reinforced steel column buildings? (apparently without explosives).
F=ma
Arthur
QUOTE
Because it takes some pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns.
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
They would have been OBVIOUS, as in the Hudson video, they COULD NOT have been subtle.
If it takes pretty BIG explosives to cut reinforced steel columns, how is it possible that 2 (two) terrorist-laden hijacked airplanes fueled by a burning hatred for our freedom and values are capable of pulverizing 3 (three) reinforced steel column buildings? (apparently without explosives).
F=ma
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
As to the BUSINESSMAN Silverstein, I think he meant pull the firefighters AWAY from the building to reduce the loss of even more of them to this disaster. The building was toast.
Then how come this source argues....
according Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study, firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
Silverstein's statement implies a close temporal proximity between "that decision to pull" and "watch[ing] the building collapse," giving no time for the fires to become more severe and do what fires have never before done: cause the total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
Of course there are even greater problems with the implication that Silverstein and the FDNY decided to demolish the building only on the day of 9/11/01:
Rigging a building for controlled demolition normally takes weeks of preparation -- far longer than the at most a few hours between the determination that "they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire," and the 5:20 PM collapse of the building.
The building had several areas of fire -- hardly conditions under which a demolitions team could be expected to lay high explosives.
However, if we imagine that the "decision to pull" had been made before 9/11/01, Silverstein's comment makes sense as an admission that there had been a deliberate decision to demolish the building.
Then how come this source argues....
according Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study, firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
Silverstein's statement implies a close temporal proximity between "that decision to pull" and "watch[ing] the building collapse," giving no time for the fires to become more severe and do what fires have never before done: cause the total collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
Of course there are even greater problems with the implication that Silverstein and the FDNY decided to demolish the building only on the day of 9/11/01:
Rigging a building for controlled demolition normally takes weeks of preparation -- far longer than the at most a few hours between the determination that "they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire," and the 5:20 PM collapse of the building.
The building had several areas of fire -- hardly conditions under which a demolitions team could be expected to lay high explosives.
However, if we imagine that the "decision to pull" had been made before 9/11/01, Silverstein's comment makes sense as an admission that there had been a deliberate decision to demolish the building.
adoucette, I take it you CANNOT give ONE reasonable explanation for the molten steel/metal temperature below the WTC buildings?
At least not off the top of your head or unless you HAVE to?
US govt -
"Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001."
- "Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
"The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to. "
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...very010918.html
At least not off the top of your head or unless you HAVE to?
US govt -
"Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001."
- "Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
"The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to. "
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...very010918.html
QUOTE (adoucette+)
F=ma
So you are saying that the airplanes overall force was enough to bring down the buildings? Then how do you explain the fact that the South Tower proceeded to collapse just 56 minutes after impact (Flight 175 hit the right side of the face indirectly -- missing most of the center face of its wall)? Can you also explain why the North Tower (despite being struck directly) stood standing for about 102 minutes? How does your F=ma formula apply here? Please explain. Thanks.
references:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/impacts.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc2.html
So you are saying that the airplanes overall force was enough to bring down the buildings? Then how do you explain the fact that the South Tower proceeded to collapse just 56 minutes after impact (Flight 175 hit the right side of the face indirectly -- missing most of the center face of its wall)? Can you also explain why the North Tower (despite being struck directly) stood standing for about 102 minutes? How does your F=ma formula apply here? Please explain. Thanks.
references:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/impacts.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc2.html
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Actually, except in threads like these I've not really seen much evidence of same.
Got a link with some factual data about this?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
http://www.zuckerman.com/script.php?page=h...s=1&showevents=
Well that wasn't very helpful.
Only one article had anything about molten metal and it says the source is:
American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn is the source of a story that "molten steel" was found in the foundations of the Twin Towers and Building 7 weeks after the collapses.
It then points out that the evidence is not credible.
So could there have been pools of molten metal?
I'd think that given the temps reported by the thermal imaging and given the massive amount of Aluminum in the towers, that sure, its possible, as long as there is a supply of metal and a heat source, why not?
Arthur
Got a link with some factual data about this?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
http://www.zuckerman.com/script.php?page=h...s=1&showevents=
Well that wasn't very helpful.
Only one article had anything about molten metal and it says the source is:
American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn is the source of a story that "molten steel" was found in the foundations of the Twin Towers and Building 7 weeks after the collapses.
It then points out that the evidence is not credible.
So could there have been pools of molten metal?
I'd think that given the temps reported by the thermal imaging and given the massive amount of Aluminum in the towers, that sure, its possible, as long as there is a supply of metal and a heat source, why not?
Arthur
A mathematical energy analysis of the context will reveal if the airplanes ONLY were responsible for the destruction of the WTC complex.
QUOTE (brian+Nov 23 2005, 07:41 PM)
adoucette, I take it you CANNOT give ONE reasonable explanation for the molten steel/metal temperature below the WTC buildings?
At least not off the top of your head or unless you HAVE to?
US govt -
"Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001."
- "Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
"The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to. "
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...very010918.html
No, I said I haven't seen any credible reports of pools of molten metal.
I did see the temps from the USGS survey and they are well below 2,000 degrees.
Your second link, the one that mentions 2,000 degress doesn't work. I would be curious as to how that temp was determined though.
But, then I'm NOT surprised that there were persistent hot spots. It was a massive pile of rubble, much of it was cumbustible, the rubble pile acts as an insulation blanket trapping heat, so given a long burning, or even smoldering fire, one would expect it would stay hot for some time.
Since Aluminum melts at a fairly low temp, and aluminum is a common metal used both in the structure and within offices, I wouldn't be that surprised to find a pool of melted Aluminum. I would be a bit surprised to find a large pool of melted Steel however.
But like I said, I've yet to see any credible evidence of same.
Arthur
At least not off the top of your head or unless you HAVE to?
US govt -
"Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001."
- "Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
"The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to. "
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...very010918.html
No, I said I haven't seen any credible reports of pools of molten metal.
I did see the temps from the USGS survey and they are well below 2,000 degrees.
Your second link, the one that mentions 2,000 degress doesn't work. I would be curious as to how that temp was determined though.
But, then I'm NOT surprised that there were persistent hot spots. It was a massive pile of rubble, much of it was cumbustible, the rubble pile acts as an insulation blanket trapping heat, so given a long burning, or even smoldering fire, one would expect it would stay hot for some time.
Since Aluminum melts at a fairly low temp, and aluminum is a common metal used both in the structure and within offices, I wouldn't be that surprised to find a pool of melted Aluminum. I would be a bit surprised to find a large pool of melted Steel however.
But like I said, I've yet to see any credible evidence of same.
Arthur
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Nov 23 2005, 08:05 PM)
A mathematical energy analysis of the context will reveal if the airplanes ONLY were responsible for the destruction of the WTC complex.
See the NIST report.
It covers it pretty well.
If you have an issue with what is in the final report, then post it.
I'm NOT going to recreate the NIST arguments here, their report is encrypted and thus does not allow the copy/paste function.
Arthur
See the NIST report.
It covers it pretty well.
If you have an issue with what is in the final report, then post it.
I'm NOT going to recreate the NIST arguments here, their report is encrypted and thus does not allow the copy/paste function.
Arthur
QUOTE
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda".
And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed and continue to claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. See this analysis. Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11.
The 9-11 lies are just as important a grounds for impeachment as lies regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because the administration's false claims about Saddam and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Saddam-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.
Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since that terrible day, the American people have been terrified, and thus irrational, based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues until "we get the bad guys".
Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th.
...
Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.
The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/911-lies-another-basis-for-impeachment.html
And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed and continue to claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. See this analysis. Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11.
The 9-11 lies are just as important a grounds for impeachment as lies regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because the administration's false claims about Saddam and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Saddam-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.
Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since that terrible day, the American people have been terrified, and thus irrational, based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues until "we get the bad guys".
Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th.
...
Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.
The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time.
Adoucette, you still haven't addressed this...
How do you explain (with your F=ma formula) the fact that the South Tower proceeded to collapse just 56 minutes after impact (Flight 175 hit the right side of the face indirectly -- missing most of the center face of its wall)? Can you also explain why the North Tower (despite being struck directly) stood standing for about 102 minutes?
How do you explain (with your F=ma formula) the fact that the South Tower proceeded to collapse just 56 minutes after impact (Flight 175 hit the right side of the face indirectly -- missing most of the center face of its wall)? Can you also explain why the North Tower (despite being struck directly) stood standing for about 102 minutes?
Here is an analysis on the possible use of thermite to melt sections of the steel columns within the towers:
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 08:21 PM)
Adoucette, you still haven't addressed this...
How do you explain (with your F=ma formula) the fact that the South Tower proceeded to collapse just 56 minutes after impact (Flight 175 hit the right side of the face indirectly -- missing most of the center face of its wall)? Can you also explain why the North Tower (despite being struck directly) stood standing for about 102 minutes?
That's all in the NIST document, why don't you read it before asking questions that it answers?
Like I said, I can't cut/paste from the document so for me to give you their answer I'd have to find it and then retype it here.
That is not something I'm prepared to do, not when you can easily read it yourself.
The Cliff Notes version is, the corner strike, because the damage was less symetrical, made the tower more unstable than the center strike.
Arthur
How do you explain (with your F=ma formula) the fact that the South Tower proceeded to collapse just 56 minutes after impact (Flight 175 hit the right side of the face indirectly -- missing most of the center face of its wall)? Can you also explain why the North Tower (despite being struck directly) stood standing for about 102 minutes?
That's all in the NIST document, why don't you read it before asking questions that it answers?
Like I said, I can't cut/paste from the document so for me to give you their answer I'd have to find it and then retype it here.
That is not something I'm prepared to do, not when you can easily read it yourself.
The Cliff Notes version is, the corner strike, because the damage was less symetrical, made the tower more unstable than the center strike.
Arthur
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 08:27 PM)
Here is an analysis on the possible use of thermite to melt sections of the steel columns within the towers:
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 07:40 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
As to the BUSINESSMAN Silverstein, I think he meant pull the firefighters AWAY from the building to reduce the loss of even more of them to this disaster. The building was toast.
Then how come this source argues....
[color=darkblue][i]according Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study, firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
Not having the full FEMA report available (I've never read it, but based on their efforts after Katrina I'm not sure I'd trust them to pour piss out of a boot even if I printed instruction on the sole.)
That said, the key words in that quote are "preliminary" and "manual"
Pulling firefighters away, could well mean "to a safe distance", even if none were INSIDE the building.
Look, this Silverstein guy didn't get to own that much real estate and be an idiot at the same time, and it WOULD take an idiot to admit on national TV that he had destroyed his own building using explosives that were set prior to 9/11.
Arthur
Then how come this source argues....
[color=darkblue][i]according Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study, firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
Not having the full FEMA report available (I've never read it, but based on their efforts after Katrina I'm not sure I'd trust them to pour piss out of a boot even if I printed instruction on the sole.)
That said, the key words in that quote are "preliminary" and "manual"
Pulling firefighters away, could well mean "to a safe distance", even if none were INSIDE the building.
Look, this Silverstein guy didn't get to own that much real estate and be an idiot at the same time, and it WOULD take an idiot to admit on national TV that he had destroyed his own building using explosives that were set prior to 9/11.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
, because the damage was less symetrical, made the tower more unstable than the center strike
So if the damage caused an asymmetrical "unstablility", then can you specify as to how the dynamics of that asymmetrical unstability would have resulted in a symmetrical collapse?
So if the damage caused an asymmetrical "unstablility", then can you specify as to how the dynamics of that asymmetrical unstability would have resulted in a symmetrical collapse?
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 09:08 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
, because the damage was less symetrical, made the tower more unstable than the center strike
So if the damage caused an asymmetrical "unstablility", then can you specify as to how the dynamics of that asymmetrical unstability would have resulted in a symmetrical collapse?
Yeah, its called a Hat Truss.
Read the report.
Arthur
So if the damage caused an asymmetrical "unstablility", then can you specify as to how the dynamics of that asymmetrical unstability would have resulted in a symmetrical collapse?
Yeah, its called a Hat Truss.
Read the report.
Arthur
QUOTE (adouchebag+)
Look, this Silverstein guy didn't get to own that much real estate and be an idiot at the same time, and it WOULD take an idiot to admit on national TV that he had destroyed his own building using explosives that were set prior to 9/11.
It would take an idiot such as yourself to never be able figure out that have been cornered dry in this thread. You have been running around in circles. You're looking really stupid right now, making things up. You are the idiot.
It would take an idiot such as yourself to never be able figure out that have been cornered dry in this thread. You have been running around in circles. You're looking really stupid right now, making things up. You are the idiot.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Yeah, its called a Hat Truss.
But you haven't realized that the "Truss theory" has been long debunked. It's a dead theory. Read.......
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html
You still haven't explained why an asymmetrical unstability would result in the symmetrical collapse of the steel core columns.
But you haven't realized that the "Truss theory" has been long debunked. It's a dead theory. Read.......
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html
You still haven't explained why an asymmetrical unstability would result in the symmetrical collapse of the steel core columns.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 23 2005, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Actually, except in threads like these I've not really seen much evidence of same.
Got a link with some factual data about this?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
http://www.zuckerman.com/script.php?page=h...s=1&showevents=
Well that wasn't very helpful.
Only one article had anything about molten metal and it says the source is:
American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn is the source of a story that "molten steel" was found in the foundations of the Twin Towers and Building 7 weeks after the collapses.
It then points out that the evidence is not credible.
So could there have been pools of molten metal?
I'd think that given the temps reported by the thermal imaging and given the massive amount of Aluminum in the towers, that sure, its possible, as long as there is a supply of metal and a heat source, why not?
Arthur
Little follow up.
Turns out this Bollyn has seen some OTHER strange things as well:
It is not possible that United Air Lines used a windowless plane with a missile pod on its underside for UAL 175 on Sept. 11, 2001, therefore, the plane seen in the videos cannot be UAL Flight 175. [QUOTE]
Arthur
Got a link with some factual data about this?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
http://www.zuckerman.com/script.php?page=h...s=1&showevents=
Well that wasn't very helpful.
Only one article had anything about molten metal and it says the source is:
American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn is the source of a story that "molten steel" was found in the foundations of the Twin Towers and Building 7 weeks after the collapses.
It then points out that the evidence is not credible.
So could there have been pools of molten metal?
I'd think that given the temps reported by the thermal imaging and given the massive amount of Aluminum in the towers, that sure, its possible, as long as there is a supply of metal and a heat source, why not?
Arthur
Little follow up.
Turns out this Bollyn has seen some OTHER strange things as well:
It is not possible that United Air Lines used a windowless plane with a missile pod on its underside for UAL 175 on Sept. 11, 2001, therefore, the plane seen in the videos cannot be UAL Flight 175. [QUOTE]
Arthur
Mel, welcome.
I'm not running a site because Mike Ruppert has the story I'd be running. Not that I buy everything from From The Wilderness; far from it. There's plenty of bad information there. But I have yet to see any DISinformation from it, which is far more than I can say for many another place. Whether you think FTW is worth the subscription or not, I certainly recommend Crossing the Rubicon. Best piece of 9/11 research I've seen, and I've seen a lot. I wouldn't swallow it hook, line, and sinker tho. But you'll find out some things you didn't know, and everything in the whole damn book is sourced meticulously. A fair number of the links might be down by now; it prolly would have been better to get and read it a year ago (or whenever it was it came out). But nevertheless, it's got great stuff.
OK, 'nuff free advertising for Mike.
That should answer your question. And you deserved an answer.
Now, the three questions:
I'm not running a site because Mike Ruppert has the story I'd be running. Not that I buy everything from From The Wilderness; far from it. There's plenty of bad information there. But I have yet to see any DISinformation from it, which is far more than I can say for many another place. Whether you think FTW is worth the subscription or not, I certainly recommend Crossing the Rubicon. Best piece of 9/11 research I've seen, and I've seen a lot. I wouldn't swallow it hook, line, and sinker tho. But you'll find out some things you didn't know, and everything in the whole damn book is sourced meticulously. A fair number of the links might be down by now; it prolly would have been better to get and read it a year ago (or whenever it was it came out). But nevertheless, it's got great stuff.
OK, 'nuff free advertising for Mike.
That should answer your question. And you deserved an answer.
Now, the three questions:
QUOTE (Mel+)
1. What forces came in to play to stop the rotation of the top section of the South Tower after it began its collapse?
The forces caused as the bottom of the top section destroyed itself against the top of the bottom section; but observe carefully and you'll note it never actually stopped rotating until it was gone; its rotation slowed down, more and more, but it never actually STOPPED. That's why more material came out faster from the side it was leaning toward. If you watch the video, you can see that the debris cloud is larger and the bottom edge falls faster than the other side.
QUOTE (Mel+)
2. The pancake theory suggests, and the video footage confirms, that the buildings came straight down onto themselves (stating the obvious, I hope). Given this, and 'cepting of course the notable non-pancake behavior of the top section of the South Tower, IMO it's reasonable to assume that the forces being applied to any given floor were reasonably uniform across the floor as the weight of all the floors above made contact. In other words, whatever combination of forces caused one truss or column to "fail", like forces probably caused other similar trusses/columns on that floor to fail. If this were not the case, I find it hard to imagine how we would get a symmetrical collapse.
I have to stop here and point out that the lean of the top section of 2 WTC makes asymmetric forces; there is more force on the side it's leaning toward. I also have to point out that despite this fact, it still seems to have fallen approximately "straight down." But this is actually not a good description of what happened.
A good description is much more along the lines of, "the floors came apart and the pieces fell down," and if you look at the debris cloud, even though you can't see the entire building, it's more than twice as wide as the building was by the time it gets down to the bottom of the frame; and given its movement, it's relatively obvious it's going to be bigger than that by the time it reaches the ground. It's fairly obvious that the debris is moving out as well as down.
What caused this outward motion? Two things. First, the air being expelled from the building as the floors collapsed; this was sufficient to move smaller debris, paper, and dust. Second, when the connector plates that hold the perimeter column sections together fail (as they will- they cannot be as strong as the perimeter columns themselves), the perimeter columns must bend, go in, or go out. They do all three; and the ones that go out are under compression, so they don't just fall out- steel is flexible. Many people don't know it, but structural steel is actually more elastic than rubber. In other words, you can bend it farther and it will spring back to its original shape. One of the legendary tests of a true sword is that the tip can be bent to meet the hilt, and when the blade is released it will return to its original shape. Imagine the force involved when an inch-thick box column springs back to its original shape; this is the force that throws the perimeter columns outward, taking windows, pieces of the outsides of floor slabs, and whatever else is attached to them with them. The resolution of most of the videos of the collapse isn't high enough to see them clearly, but if you look closely, you'll see them sparkling in the sun as they fly outward, spinning.
A good description is much more along the lines of, "the floors came apart and the pieces fell down," and if you look at the debris cloud, even though you can't see the entire building, it's more than twice as wide as the building was by the time it gets down to the bottom of the frame; and given its movement, it's relatively obvious it's going to be bigger than that by the time it reaches the ground. It's fairly obvious that the debris is moving out as well as down.
What caused this outward motion? Two things. First, the air being expelled from the building as the floors collapsed; this was sufficient to move smaller debris, paper, and dust. Second, when the connector plates that hold the perimeter column sections together fail (as they will- they cannot be as strong as the perimeter columns themselves), the perimeter columns must bend, go in, or go out. They do all three; and the ones that go out are under compression, so they don't just fall out- steel is flexible. Many people don't know it, but structural steel is actually more elastic than rubber. In other words, you can bend it farther and it will spring back to its original shape. One of the legendary tests of a true sword is that the tip can be bent to meet the hilt, and when the blade is released it will return to its original shape. Imagine the force involved when an inch-thick box column springs back to its original shape; this is the force that throws the perimeter columns outward, taking windows, pieces of the outsides of floor slabs, and whatever else is attached to them with them. The resolution of most of the videos of the collapse isn't high enough to see them clearly, but if you look closely, you'll see them sparkling in the sun as they fly outward, spinning.
QUOTE (Mel+)
I make the above observation so that I can ask my next question from the simplified perspective of a single core column (if the answer to this question applies to one column, then by the above-observation, it applies to all columns...?):
As a single core column above the impact point began its journey toward the ground, exactly what forces came in to play that would cause all sections of the same column below it to snap into 30 foot lengths?
As a single core column above the impact point began its journey toward the ground, exactly what forces came in to play that would cause all sections of the same column below it to snap into 30 foot lengths?
The construction apparently was that 30-foot sections of box column were welded together to form the columns, and then concrete was poured around them. So when the column pieces break, they will break at the weakest points: the welds. Remember also the flexibility of steel, and the lack of flexibility of concrete.
The force of a static weight is one thing; the force of a moving weight is quite another. When the weight is falling, the static weight is added to the impulse, which is the force times the time that force is applied. For example, to determine the impulse of a 3kg sledgehammer swung at 14m/s on a spike if the sledgehammer is brought to a stop in 0.02s, we have mv/t = (3kg x 14m/s)/0.02s = 2100kg*m/s^2, or 2100N. Now, a kilogram of mass exerts a static force under the influence of Earth's acceleration of gravity of 1kg x 9.80665m/s^2, or 9.80665N. So that means that by stopping the sledgehammer's head in 0.02s when it was going 14m/s, we have added 2100N of impulse to the 29.41995N it was exerting just by existing within Earth's gravity; so the total force is 2129.41995N, 72.38 times the static force. I'm not doing this the long way; if you want to see the full justification for the use of this particular pair of equations, let me know.
If we take the floor weights from a previous post, and assume that the collapse began at the 78th floor when the perimeter columns gave way, then we have 4285.5t/floor; with 110 floors, (and remembering that it's ABOVE the 78th floor, so we have to subtract one more), that's 31 x 4285.5 = 132,850.5t total mass. If it accelerates at 9.80665m/s^2 for the approximately 3m between floors, we can use Eq. 9 from my prior post: v = a(√(2d/a)). This states the quantity we want, velocity, in terms of the quantities we have, d=3m and a=9.80665m/s^2. Doing the calculations, we get 7.67m/s. Now, if we have 132,850.5t moving at 7.67m/s, the only other thing we need to know is how long the mass takes to apply its full force to the floor. If we assume that it takes as long as a tenth of a second, then the force of the impulse is 10,190,585,949.21N. So how much is that compared to the static load? Well, the static load is 1,302,818,355.825; and remembering that this must be added to the dynamic load (the impulse), we get a total of 11,493,404,305.04N, 8.82 times the static force. Now, one of the things about impulse is you DIVIDE by the time; that means that the faster the force ramps up, the stronger the impulse. But you can already see that the dynamic force using the ridiculously long tenth of a second is on the close order of 10 times the static force. And since it divides, you can also see that if a more realistic hundredth of a second is used, the dynamic force will be 88.2 times the static force; this load simply cannot be supported, being on the close order of a hundred times overloading.
This overloading causes the core box columns to flex, the core concrete to break in tension around them because they flex and break it, and the welds to fail. At this point, the core is a large collection of 30-foot column segments surrounded by rubbled concrete, and it has begun to fall, although since were talking in milliseconds here, it hasn't fallen very far; perhaps only inches. But it's gone; and that's because of its design. Box columns inside concrete cannot flex or bend; if they do, the concrete is destroyed. With the concrete no longer helping support the force, it all comes on the box columns; and they fail, since they were not designed to handle this load.
Concrete generally fails in tension, not in compression. In other words, as the force of the falling top of the building comes on the core, as it must when the perimeter columns no longer hold it up, the box columns flex, and the concrete surrounding them breaks. When they flex far enough, their welds break too.
Because the core was the primary vertical load-bearing structure in the building, it is probable that the wave of flexure moved down the core faster than it moved down the outside of the building; so by the time the perimeter column collapse got there, and the floor slabs started to move together, the core was already broken. Remember, these are longitudinal waves (i.e. compression waves) moving down the core at the speed of sound in concrete and steel, which is up to 3km/s. In other words, the first compression wave would have reached the bottom of the core in under a third of a second. And more waves were coming behind it. The entire core was probably shattered within a second or less.
Now, the collapse is free to continue. The perimeter columns cannot hold the building up; not only are they subject to overloads as a result of the movement of the top of the building, but they are no longer laterally stable because the core is no longer holding the floors from moving side-to-side, and they were never designed to handle simply the static weight in the first place; the function of the perimeter columns is to provide lateral strength to the structure, not vertical strength; the purpose of the core is to provide vertical strength.
Note also that this explains the extreme flexing of the perimeter columns and thus the way they flew outward during the collapse, as I noted above.
The force of a static weight is one thing; the force of a moving weight is quite another. When the weight is falling, the static weight is added to the impulse, which is the force times the time that force is applied. For example, to determine the impulse of a 3kg sledgehammer swung at 14m/s on a spike if the sledgehammer is brought to a stop in 0.02s, we have mv/t = (3kg x 14m/s)/0.02s = 2100kg*m/s^2, or 2100N. Now, a kilogram of mass exerts a static force under the influence of Earth's acceleration of gravity of 1kg x 9.80665m/s^2, or 9.80665N. So that means that by stopping the sledgehammer's head in 0.02s when it was going 14m/s, we have added 2100N of impulse to the 29.41995N it was exerting just by existing within Earth's gravity; so the total force is 2129.41995N, 72.38 times the static force. I'm not doing this the long way; if you want to see the full justification for the use of this particular pair of equations, let me know.
If we take the floor weights from a previous post, and assume that the collapse began at the 78th floor when the perimeter columns gave way, then we have 4285.5t/floor; with 110 floors, (and remembering that it's ABOVE the 78th floor, so we have to subtract one more), that's 31 x 4285.5 = 132,850.5t total mass. If it accelerates at 9.80665m/s^2 for the approximately 3m between floors, we can use Eq. 9 from my prior post: v = a(√(2d/a)). This states the quantity we want, velocity, in terms of the quantities we have, d=3m and a=9.80665m/s^2. Doing the calculations, we get 7.67m/s. Now, if we have 132,850.5t moving at 7.67m/s, the only other thing we need to know is how long the mass takes to apply its full force to the floor. If we assume that it takes as long as a tenth of a second, then the force of the impulse is 10,190,585,949.21N. So how much is that compared to the static load? Well, the static load is 1,302,818,355.825; and remembering that this must be added to the dynamic load (the impulse), we get a total of 11,493,404,305.04N, 8.82 times the static force. Now, one of the things about impulse is you DIVIDE by the time; that means that the faster the force ramps up, the stronger the impulse. But you can already see that the dynamic force using the ridiculously long tenth of a second is on the close order of 10 times the static force. And since it divides, you can also see that if a more realistic hundredth of a second is used, the dynamic force will be 88.2 times the static force; this load simply cannot be supported, being on the close order of a hundred times overloading.
This overloading causes the core box columns to flex, the core concrete to break in tension around them because they flex and break it, and the welds to fail. At this point, the core is a large collection of 30-foot column segments surrounded by rubbled concrete, and it has begun to fall, although since were talking in milliseconds here, it hasn't fallen very far; perhaps only inches. But it's gone; and that's because of its design. Box columns inside concrete cannot flex or bend; if they do, the concrete is destroyed. With the concrete no longer helping support the force, it all comes on the box columns; and they fail, since they were not designed to handle this load.
Concrete generally fails in tension, not in compression. In other words, as the force of the falling top of the building comes on the core, as it must when the perimeter columns no longer hold it up, the box columns flex, and the concrete surrounding them breaks. When they flex far enough, their welds break too.
Because the core was the primary vertical load-bearing structure in the building, it is probable that the wave of flexure moved down the core faster than it moved down the outside of the building; so by the time the perimeter column collapse got there, and the floor slabs started to move together, the core was already broken. Remember, these are longitudinal waves (i.e. compression waves) moving down the core at the speed of sound in concrete and steel, which is up to 3km/s. In other words, the first compression wave would have reached the bottom of the core in under a third of a second. And more waves were coming behind it. The entire core was probably shattered within a second or less.
Now, the collapse is free to continue. The perimeter columns cannot hold the building up; not only are they subject to overloads as a result of the movement of the top of the building, but they are no longer laterally stable because the core is no longer holding the floors from moving side-to-side, and they were never designed to handle simply the static weight in the first place; the function of the perimeter columns is to provide lateral strength to the structure, not vertical strength; the purpose of the core is to provide vertical strength.
Note also that this explains the extreme flexing of the perimeter columns and thus the way they flew outward during the collapse, as I noted above.
QUOTE (Mel+)
Presumably, the column above would pile-drive the column directly below it, so what laws of physics dictate that the section below would always came out the absolute loser in the contest between it and the section above (and thus leaving the above section perfectly intact for the next "hit")?
That's not the way it happened. The core was a rigid structure that was designed to provide resistance to downward (vertical) force. When the perimeter columns failed at the 78th floor, the top of the building tilted, and broke the core at or above that point. Once the core at that point was broken, the top of the building fell- and after only one floor, it exerted a hundred times greater force than the core was designed to handle. Being rigid, the core tried to stop it; this only made matters worse, because the more rigid a thing is, the less time the force is spread out over, and the greater the overload. When that overload grew high enough, the core shattered- all along its height. Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
As the building fell, the broken rubble and broken 30-foot sections of core fell inside it. There was no "pile-driver" force on the core after the top of the building hit the core; one massive blow, a hundred times what it was designed to handle, was sufficient.
As the building fell, the broken rubble and broken 30-foot sections of core fell inside it. There was no "pile-driver" force on the core after the top of the building hit the core; one massive blow, a hundred times what it was designed to handle, was sufficient.
QUOTE (Mel+)
I realize that the falling section brought with it the weight of the floors above,
You have to realize that it brought not just weight, but impulse which must be added to the weight, and which is far greater than the weight ever was.
QUOTE (Mel+)
but since the full weight of the falling section would be distributed more or less evenly across the entire impact area,
In the initial blow, the "entire impact area" was the core, and nothing else. The ENTIRE FORCE of the combined weight of the top 31 stories, and the impulse of them moving at 8m/s, fell on the stub of the core. Remember, the core goes THROUGH the floor slabs, so it would be sticking up.
QUOTE (Mel+)
each pile-driving impact would be made with only the force from a percentage of the weight from above?
First, remember the impulse, which is at best many times the force of the weight, and at worst many hundreds of times. Why would you assume that it would only be a percentage? How are the floors held up? If they are pressed down, will they not press against the core? But this wasn't the failure mode; by the time several floors had collapsed, there wasn't any central core any more. The shock waves from that first, massive blow had shattered it.
QUOTE (Mel+)
Has anyone done a calculation as the the pile-driving force that might be applied to a single section of core column below the impact site as the collapse began?
Above.
One last note: I have repeatedly stated that once the top of either building was moving, the building was doomed. The fact that impulse is almost always many times the static force is the reason; and remember, it had a long way to fall before it hit anything. That's key; in the context of a 400m building, three meters doesn't seem like a lot, but it's sixteen feet; you could break a leg falling that far, and you wouldn't want to be hit with anything that fell that far onto you, even just a small carpenter's hammer. How much more force does the 130,000 tonne top of a building have than that hammer? Think about it.
One last note: I have repeatedly stated that once the top of either building was moving, the building was doomed. The fact that impulse is almost always many times the static force is the reason; and remember, it had a long way to fall before it hit anything. That's key; in the context of a 400m building, three meters doesn't seem like a lot, but it's sixteen feet; you could break a leg falling that far, and you wouldn't want to be hit with anything that fell that far onto you, even just a small carpenter's hammer. How much more force does the 130,000 tonne top of a building have than that hammer? Think about it.
QUOTE (Mel+)
As an upper section of a core column pile-drove (?) and "snapped off" the section below, what forces were at work that ensured the above section remained perfectly lined up for its impact with the next section, instead of perhaps being deflected even several inches in the horizontal plane? Accumulated deflections over several floors would certainly put a stop to the observed recursive nature of each floor's destruction.
Now, I'm going to change assumptions: I'm going to show that even if the core DIDN'T break right away, this scenario doesn't stop it falling either.
Here's the problem you're having: you need to visualize the core in three dimensions. It's a more-or-less square concrete column, with thirty-odd one- or two-foot hollow steel box columns inside, and elevator shafts, and HVAC shafts, and emergency stairway shafts. Now, if you look at two floors' worth of core, you'll see that there's a substantial amount of open space from floor to floor; and inside the core, in the elevator lobby, there's a great big open space, with a floor slab (NOT the main floor slab, but a separate slab that's INSIDE THE CORE ONLY) so people have somewhere to stand going to and from the elevators, which all open into the interior of the core.
So rather than the solid column of concrete and steel you're envisioning, the core was a lot more like a honeycomb of concrete and steel. The strength wasn't that of a massive column of steel-reinforced concrete, like the abutment of a bridge, or the footing of a freeway overpass; it was the strength of good design, the strength of a helicopter blade, the strength of a spider web, the strength of a ski. Remember also, that the less weight there was per floor, the less weight the foundation had to support. That was very important in the design of the towers, because it let them save a lot of money and a lot of time, and it meant that the hammer-blow the foundation was subjected to in 1993 was nowhere near enough to seriously damage the building. It also meant that the building was designed to take up a certain amount of the force of the wind (which is huge for such a large structure) partly by bending; I noted the strength of steel above, and the architect who designed the towers understood this very well indeed.
The hollow steel box columns were welded together with the ones above and below them, and were about 30 feet long between the welds. When force comes on the box columns, if it's beyond their Young modulus, then they will flex. The open space inside the core allows them to break out of the concrete into the open air by shattering the concrete, if they flex too far; but they still haven't broken, or even reached their yield point; you'd have to almost fold them double to do that. If the force continues to grow, they will eventually exceed their yield strength; but before that happens, the welds will fracture. Now, they aren't columns any more; they're separate 30-foot pieces of hollow steel. And there's no more concrete around them; they've shattered it all, flexing and so forth. So what is there to hold them up?
And if we don't assume (as I have above) that a wave of such activity made its way down the core in a second or less and destroyed it all, then what will be the first thing hit as each floor collapses onto the next? The core, of course- and all of the same things as happened the last time will happen again.
So you can see that either way, you get a progressive collapse.
Here's the problem you're having: you need to visualize the core in three dimensions. It's a more-or-less square concrete column, with thirty-odd one- or two-foot hollow steel box columns inside, and elevator shafts, and HVAC shafts, and emergency stairway shafts. Now, if you look at two floors' worth of core, you'll see that there's a substantial amount of open space from floor to floor; and inside the core, in the elevator lobby, there's a great big open space, with a floor slab (NOT the main floor slab, but a separate slab that's INSIDE THE CORE ONLY) so people have somewhere to stand going to and from the elevators, which all open into the interior of the core.
So rather than the solid column of concrete and steel you're envisioning, the core was a lot more like a honeycomb of concrete and steel. The strength wasn't that of a massive column of steel-reinforced concrete, like the abutment of a bridge, or the footing of a freeway overpass; it was the strength of good design, the strength of a helicopter blade, the strength of a spider web, the strength of a ski. Remember also, that the less weight there was per floor, the less weight the foundation had to support. That was very important in the design of the towers, because it let them save a lot of money and a lot of time, and it meant that the hammer-blow the foundation was subjected to in 1993 was nowhere near enough to seriously damage the building. It also meant that the building was designed to take up a certain amount of the force of the wind (which is huge for such a large structure) partly by bending; I noted the strength of steel above, and the architect who designed the towers understood this very well indeed.
The hollow steel box columns were welded together with the ones above and below them, and were about 30 feet long between the welds. When force comes on the box columns, if it's beyond their Young modulus, then they will flex. The open space inside the core allows them to break out of the concrete into the open air by shattering the concrete, if they flex too far; but they still haven't broken, or even reached their yield point; you'd have to almost fold them double to do that. If the force continues to grow, they will eventually exceed their yield strength; but before that happens, the welds will fracture. Now, they aren't columns any more; they're separate 30-foot pieces of hollow steel. And there's no more concrete around them; they've shattered it all, flexing and so forth. So what is there to hold them up?
And if we don't assume (as I have above) that a wave of such activity made its way down the core in a second or less and destroyed it all, then what will be the first thing hit as each floor collapses onto the next? The core, of course- and all of the same things as happened the last time will happen again.
So you can see that either way, you get a progressive collapse.
QUOTE (Mel+)
And how did each break point of a column remain perfectly flat so that the next pile-drive would not be "chamfered" away, thus putting an end to the observed recursive nature of each floor's destruction? If you say it's because the breaks occurred at joints, then what transverse forces caused the joints to fail, but did not also cause a deflection of the section above?
Now this one, I have to object to. The box columns were build from sections that were 30 feet long that were welded together. When the column fails, does it break between the welds? Anyone who's worked with steel will tell you, no, it breaks at the welds.
Second, the core sticks up through the floor slab. To get to the floor slab, you have to get past the core. So the force comes on the core alone, and breaks it, and then hits the floor slab below it. The perimeter columns can't help much; they're designed to hold the building from swaying too much, not to support its weight.
And again, either way, you get a progressive collapse.
Second, the core sticks up through the floor slab. To get to the floor slab, you have to get past the core. So the force comes on the core alone, and breaks it, and then hits the floor slab below it. The perimeter columns can't help much; they're designed to hold the building from swaying too much, not to support its weight.
And again, either way, you get a progressive collapse.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Yeah, its called a Hat Truss.
But you haven't realized that the "Truss theory" has been long debunked. It's a dead theory. Read.......
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html
You still haven't explained why an asymmetrical unstability would result in the symmetrical collapse of the steel core columns. Furthermore, many of the broken steel beams were found to be around the same length. How do you explain such precision?
But you haven't realized that the "Truss theory" has been long debunked. It's a dead theory. Read.......
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html
You still haven't explained why an asymmetrical unstability would result in the symmetrical collapse of the steel core columns. Furthermore, many of the broken steel beams were found to be around the same length. How do you explain such precision?
Schneibster (adouchebag) is a computer programmer. Don't take this douchebag's words as gospel. He says he's the "most experienced" here and claims to be an expert on Structural engineering... yeah whatever.....for me to poop on. He's from GNN....
Schneibster's profile
Profile:
rank: Conscript
points: 21
occupation: Computer Programmer
location: Seattle, US
Schneibster's profile
Profile:
rank: Conscript
points: 21
occupation: Computer Programmer
location: Seattle, US
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 07:26 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Actually, except in threads like these I've not really seen much evidence of same.
Got a link with some factual data about this?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
http://www.zuckerman.com/script.php?page=h...s=1&showevents=
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
"The reports of molten steel are suspect for a number of reasons."
Got a link with some factual data about this?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
http://www.zuckerman.com/script.php?page=h...s=1&showevents=
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
"The reports of molten steel are suspect for a number of reasons."
Any other questions about why I don't post personal information?
Wonder what other sock puppets Faux has going.
Wonder what other sock puppets Faux has going.
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 23 2005, 09:17 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Yeah, its called a Hat Truss.
But you haven't realized that the "Truss theory" has been long debunked. It's a dead theory. Read.......
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html
You still haven't explained why an asymmetrical unstability would result in the symmetrical collapse of the steel core columns.
Numb nuts doesn't know the difference between a floor truss and a hat truss.
SolidSpin, from my experience reading your posts (not just this) I would say you are full of hot air and frankly, every post you have put up has some kind of sarcastic or disrespectful note in it and you generally lack deep understanding. It is like reading the comment of a six years old anal kid.
Yours truely,
Drude
Rescue operation
Tinsley says there are several reasons for the longevity of the fire: "First, this is not a typical fire by any means. The combustible debris is mixed with twisted steel in a mass that covers 17 acres, and may be 50 metres deep. This is the one all future fire scenes will be measured against."
But you haven't realized that the "Truss theory" has been long debunked. It's a dead theory. Read.......
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html
You still haven't explained why an asymmetrical unstability would result in the symmetrical collapse of the steel core columns.
Numb nuts doesn't know the difference between a floor truss and a hat truss.
And apparently he won't read the NIST report either.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE
Please don't tell me to think clearly. I am, despite my anger. You have not addressed my pointing out your flaws in both your physics/chemistry and basic logic.
Please view these videos.
I used the videos to disprove your "times" you derived. Your calculations are theoretically correct, but empirically false, since standard 1-d physics are obeyed in the videos
Please view these videos.
I used the videos to disprove your "times" you derived. Your calculations are theoretically correct, but empirically false, since standard 1-d physics are obeyed in the videos
SolidSpin, from my experience reading your posts (not just this) I would say you are full of hot air and frankly, every post you have put up has some kind of sarcastic or disrespectful note in it and you generally lack deep understanding. It is like reading the comment of a six years old anal kid.
Yours truely,
Drude
QUOTE
Almost 12 weeks after the terrorist atrocity at New York's World Trade Center, there is at least one fire still burning in the rubble - it is the longest-burning structural fire in history.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Almost 12 weeks after the terrorist atrocity at New York's World Trade Center, there is at least one fire still burning in the rubble - it is the longest-burning structural fire in history. |
Rescue operation
Tinsley says there are several reasons for the longevity of the fire: "First, this is not a typical fire by any means. The combustible debris is mixed with twisted steel in a mass that covers 17 acres, and may be 50 metres deep. This is the one all future fire scenes will be measured against."
QUOTE (mickeydoolittle+Nov 23 2005, 09:13 PM)
QUOTE (adouchebag+)
Look, this Silverstein guy didn't get to own that much real estate and be an idiot at the same time, and it WOULD take an idiot to admit on national TV that he had destroyed his own building using explosives that were set prior to 9/11.
It would take an idiot such as yourself to never be able figure out that have been cornered dry in this thread. You have been running around in circles. You're looking really stupid right now, making things up. You are the idiot.
It takes real cahones to insult people on an internet forum.
Wooooo.
BIG MAN
Take it elsewhere if all you are going to do is call people names.
No one's impressed.
I've heard that people who come across as "tough guys" on the internet usually have sub-standard equipment.
So they compensate.
Arthur
(3) Videos of the collapses show that the bases of the Towers remained more or less intact until the demolition wave or collapse zone actually reached the bases
Every video I've seen has the base (street level) obscured by smoke.
If you have a link to a video showing this please post it.
Keep in mind that the actual "base" to the WTC was WAY below street level
Arthur
That is abundantly made apparent in my expose of the false information propagated through the mass media which has lead to the vast majority of the population being misinformed about the true nature of the central core and those 47 Massive Interior Core Columns. The disinformation has served 'officialdom' well in fostering the bs story repeated every day that a local collapse Inevitably leads to Global Collapse. I am sick to death of hearing semi intelligent people repeat this fallacious mantra as if it is Gospel.
That is abundantly made apparent in my expose of the false information propagated through the mass media which has lead to the vast majority of the population being misinformed about the true nature of the central core and those 47 Massive Interior Core Columns. The disinformation has served 'officialdom' well in fostering the bs story repeated every day that a local collapse Inevitably leads to Global Collapse. I am sick to death of hearing semi intelligent people repeat this fallacious mantra as if it is Gospel.
In fact the same "concrete reinforced core" diagram in one of YOUR links is used in Andrew Johnson's report, and I called him on it some pages ago when I reviewed his work. So, it appears people on both sides of the debate were misinformed.
It is shown in my expose to debunk the fallacy and egregious errors reported by the BBC and other hi-profile "respectable" mainstream media.
I may be wrong, however IIRC, that is the same way that AJ referred to it. So don't try to twist it around that we are 'all' fools.
Yes, there was a time when I believed all the mass media hype and diagrams, which fooled me (at that time) into believing that a gravity-driven collapse was 'plausible'.
Once I found out the truth about the structural details of the central core and further details of the WTC towers construction, that 'plausibility' collapsed faster than the towers (for me). There is no way on earth those towers fell at the speed they did through a gravity-driven collapse. It is Impossible.
(Let me correct that statement) - As far as I am concerned... It is utterly and absolutely impossible.
Ehhh??? You don't think he was 'deliberately' WRONG. What kind of nonsense is that? Who goes out of their way to be 'deliberately' WRONG.
The simple fact is the conceited, lying son-of-an-idiot,... (man who knows absolutely everything about everything and has no qualms about stating such with vile & demeaning insults to anyone who should even dare question him... and has no qualms about making up lies and false accusations against his opponents)...
is WRONG... AGAIN !!!
The man is in need of emotional counselling - it is plain to see from his conceited, delusional and insultive behaviour, and his use of alter-egos like 'CHUCKLES'. The guy is 'nuts'.
Can you not see what everyone else sees (simply because he supports your position ?).
If so, I pity your need for such 'allies'.
It would take an idiot such as yourself to never be able figure out that have been cornered dry in this thread. You have been running around in circles. You're looking really stupid right now, making things up. You are the idiot.
It takes real cahones to insult people on an internet forum.
Wooooo.
BIG MAN
Take it elsewhere if all you are going to do is call people names.
No one's impressed.
I've heard that people who come across as "tough guys" on the internet usually have sub-standard equipment.
So they compensate.
Arthur
Arthur, why don´t we get back to the work at hand, the physics analysis of the WTC 7 collapse ?
It´s not particularly hard to condescend or patronize somebody.
It´s not particularly hard to condescend or patronize somebody.
OK, here's a series of questions from an admitted non-scientist (studied science at a good university, but nothing since then). I can provide links if anyone wants them:
(1) The steel cores of the Twin Towers were sunk deep into the bedrock.
(2) The core columns of the towers were much thicker at the base than at the top.
(3) Videos of the collapses show that the bases of the Towers remained more or less intact until the demolition wave or collapse zone actually reached the bases
(4) NIST and FEMA theorize that, variously, either that "tall freestanding portions of the
exterior wall and possibly central core columns" collapsed because of their lack of lateral support (floors held up the columns) or the trusses pulled in the perimeter walls, "column instability", and "structural deterioration" leading to "global collapse"
(5) Aren't both theories refuted by the videos which show that the base of the towers were relatively stable until the collapse zones actually reached them?
(6) If refuted, wouldn't this:
(A) poke a big hole in FEMA and NIST's entire models; or at least
(B) show that the core columns at their bases should have provided tremendous resistance (since sunk deep in bedrock and – regardless of what else was going on – relatively stable up until the collapse zones reached them) -- thus (1) halting the collapse towards the bottom parts of the buildings or at least (2) slowing the collapse downward from free-fall.
(1) The steel cores of the Twin Towers were sunk deep into the bedrock.
(2) The core columns of the towers were much thicker at the base than at the top.
(3) Videos of the collapses show that the bases of the Towers remained more or less intact until the demolition wave or collapse zone actually reached the bases
(4) NIST and FEMA theorize that, variously, either that "tall freestanding portions of the
exterior wall and possibly central core columns" collapsed because of their lack of lateral support (floors held up the columns) or the trusses pulled in the perimeter walls, "column instability", and "structural deterioration" leading to "global collapse"
(5) Aren't both theories refuted by the videos which show that the base of the towers were relatively stable until the collapse zones actually reached them?
(6) If refuted, wouldn't this:
(A) poke a big hole in FEMA and NIST's entire models; or at least
(B) show that the core columns at their bases should have provided tremendous resistance (since sunk deep in bedrock and – regardless of what else was going on – relatively stable up until the collapse zones reached them) -- thus (1) halting the collapse towards the bottom parts of the buildings or at least (2) slowing the collapse downward from free-fall.
This board moves too fast!
bolt posts
I have never seen any explanation of why the Fed gov't dept's that inhabited WTC 7 makes it likely that the attacks of 9/11 and subsequent destruction of WTC 7 are a US gov't operation. This would mean that they attacked themselves.
bolt posts
QUOTE
Quick Facts about WTC7
World Trade Center 7 was the main FEMA command center for lower Manhattan Island. It contained some very interesting tenants. In 1999 Mayor Giuliani built a “Federal Command Bunker” on the 23rd floor, complete with its own filtered oxygen supply and water supply, and bullet/bomb proof windows.
Department of Defence – 25th floor
Central Intelligence Agency – 25th floor
Inland Revenue Service – 24th & 25th floors
FEMA Office of Emergency Management – 23rd floor
U.S Secret Service – 9th & 10th floors
Securities and Exchange Commission – 11th 13th floor
The building collapsed on 9/11 8+ hours after the attack. Building 7 was not hit by an aircraft, nor did it suffer extensive damage from the collapse of either tower. Building 7 was further away from many buildings which survived the attack including buildings like Bankers Trust, and WTC6 (In-between 7 and the Tower). Building 7 was easily the most engineered building around the complex.
Larry Silverstien took control of the towers two months before 9/11. The towers were built with taxpayer money. He originally only owned WTC7.
World Trade Center 7 was the main FEMA command center for lower Manhattan Island. It contained some very interesting tenants. In 1999 Mayor Giuliani built a “Federal Command Bunker” on the 23rd floor, complete with its own filtered oxygen supply and water supply, and bullet/bomb proof windows.
Department of Defence – 25th floor
Central Intelligence Agency – 25th floor
Inland Revenue Service – 24th & 25th floors
FEMA Office of Emergency Management – 23rd floor
U.S Secret Service – 9th & 10th floors
Securities and Exchange Commission – 11th 13th floor
The building collapsed on 9/11 8+ hours after the attack. Building 7 was not hit by an aircraft, nor did it suffer extensive damage from the collapse of either tower. Building 7 was further away from many buildings which survived the attack including buildings like Bankers Trust, and WTC6 (In-between 7 and the Tower). Building 7 was easily the most engineered building around the complex.
Larry Silverstien took control of the towers two months before 9/11. The towers were built with taxpayer money. He originally only owned WTC7.
I have never seen any explanation of why the Fed gov't dept's that inhabited WTC 7 makes it likely that the attacks of 9/11 and subsequent destruction of WTC 7 are a US gov't operation. This would mean that they attacked themselves.
QUOTE (Heyguys+Nov 24 2005, 12:38 AM)
(3) Videos of the collapses show that the bases of the Towers remained more or less intact until the demolition wave or collapse zone actually reached the bases
Every video I've seen has the base (street level) obscured by smoke.
If you have a link to a video showing this please post it.
Keep in mind that the actual "base" to the WTC was WAY below street level
Arthur
QUOTE (bolt+)
Larry Silverstien took control of the towers two months before 9/11. The towers were built with taxpayer money.
Is the last sentence true? I can't find any evidence that this is so.
Best I can tell it was privately financed, as the NYPA had no taxing authority and the DLMA was also a corporate/private affair. Not sure how much, if any, the Rockefellers had invested.
Apparently the towers didn't turn a profit until 1987.
Arthur
Is the last sentence true? I can't find any evidence that this is so.
Best I can tell it was privately financed, as the NYPA had no taxing authority and the DLMA was also a corporate/private affair. Not sure how much, if any, the Rockefellers had invested.
Apparently the towers didn't turn a profit until 1987.
Arthur
Schneibster I see you keep adding to your false allegations.
Just for your information my dear boy, I do not use 'sock puppets' (such as your 'CHUCKLES' character.
I have no need to.
Although many here have commented that you are arrogant... you are much more than just arrogant. You are conceited beyond belief, and it seems obvious that you have some serious emotional problems. Seek professional help, before you self-destruct.
I (and others) have pointed out time after time, your errors (especially when you begin to speak about structural engineering). Shall I go back and provide a list for you?
You've just done it again, brainiac.
The central core columns of the towers were not supported laterally by concrete. Your whole 'structural engineering' theory about failing columns is complete balderdash. It is worded well enough to fool your sock puppets and brown-nosers, but it certainly doesn't fool me, and I sincerely doubt you are fooling the majority of people here (or in your own personal life either).
Sheesh, for someone who claims to know everything about everything, you sure don't check your facts very well. Once again, you are WRONG.
How many times must I keep pointing out your errors.
Jet fuel errors... ignorance between the differences between dead & live loads (upon which you base great essays on the amount of fuel 'garbage' burnables upon each floor)... Errors about your 'alleged' witnesses to a great gaping hole in the center of the south face of WTC 7. On & on you go.
Regardless of the fawning from your sock-puppets and your few supporters, the only real talent you seem to have is bullshitting those foolish enough to listen to you.
It is obvious to anyone who has studied the WTC towers construction that... to base a stuctural 'explaination' of the failure of the center core columns around the idea that these columns derived lateral support from concrete floors is just one more example of exposing your ignorance on the real structural issues involved.
You should really do some research before exposing your ignorance on the structural aspects of the WTC towers.
My apologies for being too busy the last couple of days to respond to your bs, but I will definately put together another little expose of your structural engineering errors as put forth in your 'fantastic' essay to Mel.
Well that explains everything. A computer programmers fantasy of the structural engineering in the WTC towers.
Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects? Wasn't it you who was claiming that one of the differences between why the Elcesior Madrid central core didn't fail was because those steel columns were encased in concrete ... (or was that some other government apologist)?
Regardless, the WTC central core columns were not 'inside' concrete columns. You are WRONG, (again).
Your 'explaination' is a crock of unsupported speculative make believe. It 'sounds' good - almost 'plausible'. However, reading such sophist nonsense, I begin to see how so many have been duped into the mistaken (provably mistaken) belief that once a local collapse is initiated ... global collapse is 'inevitable'.
Yesitdid
You should be spending your time coming up with some sophistry to respond to my last questions to you about your total nonsense about the NIST photo that you said was of the hole in the center of the south face of WTC 7. As usual, you quickly brush that error under the carpet, ignore it and change topics. I see you haven't changed much.
Just for your information my dear boy, I do not use 'sock puppets' (such as your 'CHUCKLES' character.
I have no need to.
Although many here have commented that you are arrogant... you are much more than just arrogant. You are conceited beyond belief, and it seems obvious that you have some serious emotional problems. Seek professional help, before you self-destruct.
I (and others) have pointed out time after time, your errors (especially when you begin to speak about structural engineering). Shall I go back and provide a list for you?
You've just done it again, brainiac.
The central core columns of the towers were not supported laterally by concrete. Your whole 'structural engineering' theory about failing columns is complete balderdash. It is worded well enough to fool your sock puppets and brown-nosers, but it certainly doesn't fool me, and I sincerely doubt you are fooling the majority of people here (or in your own personal life either).
Sheesh, for someone who claims to know everything about everything, you sure don't check your facts very well. Once again, you are WRONG.
How many times must I keep pointing out your errors.
Jet fuel errors... ignorance between the differences between dead & live loads (upon which you base great essays on the amount of fuel 'garbage' burnables upon each floor)... Errors about your 'alleged' witnesses to a great gaping hole in the center of the south face of WTC 7. On & on you go.
Regardless of the fawning from your sock-puppets and your few supporters, the only real talent you seem to have is bullshitting those foolish enough to listen to you.
It is obvious to anyone who has studied the WTC towers construction that... to base a stuctural 'explaination' of the failure of the center core columns around the idea that these columns derived lateral support from concrete floors is just one more example of exposing your ignorance on the real structural issues involved.
You should really do some research before exposing your ignorance on the structural aspects of the WTC towers.
My apologies for being too busy the last couple of days to respond to your bs, but I will definately put together another little expose of your structural engineering errors as put forth in your 'fantastic' essay to Mel.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Well that explains everything. A computer programmers fantasy of the structural engineering in the WTC towers.
Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects? Wasn't it you who was claiming that one of the differences between why the Elcesior Madrid central core didn't fail was because those steel columns were encased in concrete ... (or was that some other government apologist)?
Regardless, the WTC central core columns were not 'inside' concrete columns. You are WRONG, (again).
Your 'explaination' is a crock of unsupported speculative make believe. It 'sounds' good - almost 'plausible'. However, reading such sophist nonsense, I begin to see how so many have been duped into the mistaken (provably mistaken) belief that once a local collapse is initiated ... global collapse is 'inevitable'.
Yesitdid
You should be spending your time coming up with some sophistry to respond to my last questions to you about your total nonsense about the NIST photo that you said was of the hole in the center of the south face of WTC 7. As usual, you quickly brush that error under the carpet, ignore it and change topics. I see you haven't changed much.
Here is some info on how the world has been duped with misinformation about the construction of the central core of the WTC towers...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled001.html
Here is some info on the transverse beams which provided lateral support between the central core columns.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
Central Core Column with Transverse (lateral support) Beams :-
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled001.html
Here is some info on the transverse beams which provided lateral support between the central core columns.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
Central Core Column with Transverse (lateral support) Beams :-
Faux, I have no idea how you have the cojones to post here again when you have told forty lies (documented for the curious on page 50 of this thread), nor why you would believe that anyone would believe a single thing you say after you lied forty times. If I were you, I'd kill myself. But you have no shame, so I can't hold out hope that the world will be freed from your smell.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 24 2005, 04:30 AM)
Faux, I have no idea how you have the cojones to post here again when you have told forty lies (documented for the curious on page 50 of this thread), nor why you would believe that anyone would believe a single thing you say after you lied forty times. If I were you, I'd kill myself. But you have no shame, so I can't hold out hope that the world will be freed from your smell.
Heh!
That's it, Now you're sounding more like your alter-ego 'CHUCKLES'.
The only liar here is you with your ever-increasing list of my imaginary 'alleged' lies, and imaginary list of my sock-puppets. You are a donkey (as is well realized by all whom you have referred to, or accused of being me in disguise). You, (like FEMA) are a Total Joke... and the vast majority of readers of this thread realize it
However, your quote is what I expected, from someone as delusional as you.
Get a life, and get some help. You have some serious emotional problems.
But before you go, can you answer this...
Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?
Heh!
That's it, Now you're sounding more like your alter-ego 'CHUCKLES'.
The only liar here is you with your ever-increasing list of my imaginary 'alleged' lies, and imaginary list of my sock-puppets. You are a donkey (as is well realized by all whom you have referred to, or accused of being me in disguise). You, (like FEMA) are a Total Joke... and the vast majority of readers of this thread realize it
However, your quote is what I expected, from someone as delusional as you.
Get a life, and get some help. You have some serious emotional problems.
But before you go, can you answer this...
Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?
Faux, why you think that I will respond in any way but abuse after what you have done, and the lies you have told, beats hell out of me.
Smell ya ('cause I sure will before I see ya).
Smell ya ('cause I sure will before I see ya).
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 24 2005, 05:00 AM)
Faux, why you think that I will respond in any way but abuse after what you have done, and the lies you have told, beats hell out of me.
Smell ya ('cause I sure will before I see ya).
Ahhhh...Yes, I see.
I have committed the cardinal sin of pointing out (once again), that you are WRONG!
--------------------------
Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?
Smell ya ('cause I sure will before I see ya).
Ahhhh...Yes, I see.
I have committed the cardinal sin of pointing out (once again), that you are WRONG!
--------------------------
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Remember, this force is being transmitted down a rigid column of concrete with rigid columns of steel inside it; that means that it shatters rather than yielding.
Tell me, Oh great wise one. If the steel columns were inside concrete columns, wouldn't that make them less susceptible to heat effects?
Schneibster, I'm afraid on this point, that the beams were not encased in concrete, is correct.
Foxx, you should ALSO realize that the misinformation that they WERE concrete reinforced has been widespread. In fact, the wrong info seems to be more prevalent than the correct info. In fact the same "concrete reinforced core" diagram in one of YOUR links is used in Andrew Johnson's report, and I called him on it some pages ago when I reviewed his work. So, it appears people on both sides of the debate were misinformed.
In any case, while Schneibster may have been wrong about this one point, I don't think it was deliberate.
The NIST report has it correct, and as your picture shows, they were not concrete reinforced beams.
They really couldn't be, because of the amount of sway the buildings were expected to experience in hurricane force winds.
(somewhere I read that they moved over a meter when hit by the planes that day)
Arthur
Foxx, you should ALSO realize that the misinformation that they WERE concrete reinforced has been widespread. In fact, the wrong info seems to be more prevalent than the correct info. In fact the same "concrete reinforced core" diagram in one of YOUR links is used in Andrew Johnson's report, and I called him on it some pages ago when I reviewed his work. So, it appears people on both sides of the debate were misinformed.
In any case, while Schneibster may have been wrong about this one point, I don't think it was deliberate.
The NIST report has it correct, and as your picture shows, they were not concrete reinforced beams.
They really couldn't be, because of the amount of sway the buildings were expected to experience in hurricane force winds.
(somewhere I read that they moved over a meter when hit by the planes that day)
Arthur
quote yes it did
quick off the mark....
QUOTE
This would mean that they attacked themselves.
quick off the mark....
QUOTE
by Adoucette
Foxx, you should ALSO realize that the misinformation that they WERE concrete reinforced has been widespread. In fact, the wrong info seems to be more prevalent than the correct info.
Foxx, you should ALSO realize that the misinformation that they WERE concrete reinforced has been widespread. In fact, the wrong info seems to be more prevalent than the correct info.
That is abundantly made apparent in my expose of the false information propagated through the mass media which has lead to the vast majority of the population being misinformed about the true nature of the central core and those 47 Massive Interior Core Columns. The disinformation has served 'officialdom' well in fostering the bs story repeated every day that a local collapse Inevitably leads to Global Collapse. I am sick to death of hearing semi intelligent people repeat this fallacious mantra as if it is Gospel.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Adoucette Foxx, you should ALSO realize that the misinformation that they WERE concrete reinforced has been widespread. In fact, the wrong info seems to be more prevalent than the correct info. |
That is abundantly made apparent in my expose of the false information propagated through the mass media which has lead to the vast majority of the population being misinformed about the true nature of the central core and those 47 Massive Interior Core Columns. The disinformation has served 'officialdom' well in fostering the bs story repeated every day that a local collapse Inevitably leads to Global Collapse. I am sick to death of hearing semi intelligent people repeat this fallacious mantra as if it is Gospel.
In fact the same "concrete reinforced core" diagram in one of YOUR links is used in Andrew Johnson's report, and I called him on it some pages ago when I reviewed his work. So, it appears people on both sides of the debate were misinformed.
It is shown in my expose to debunk the fallacy and egregious errors reported by the BBC and other hi-profile "respectable" mainstream media.
I may be wrong, however IIRC, that is the same way that AJ referred to it. So don't try to twist it around that we are 'all' fools.
Yes, there was a time when I believed all the mass media hype and diagrams, which fooled me (at that time) into believing that a gravity-driven collapse was 'plausible'.
Once I found out the truth about the structural details of the central core and further details of the WTC towers construction, that 'plausibility' collapsed faster than the towers (for me). There is no way on earth those towers fell at the speed they did through a gravity-driven collapse. It is Impossible.
(Let me correct that statement) - As far as I am concerned... It is utterly and absolutely impossible.
QUOTE
In any case, while Schneibster may have been wrong about this one point, I don't think it was deliberate.
Ehhh??? You don't think he was 'deliberately' WRONG. What kind of nonsense is that? Who goes out of their way to be 'deliberately' WRONG.
The simple fact is the conceited, lying son-of-an-idiot,... (man who knows absolutely everything about everything and has no qualms about stating such with vile & demeaning insults to anyone who should even dare question him... and has no qualms about making up lies and false accusations against his opponents)...
is WRONG... AGAIN !!!
The man is in need of emotional counselling - it is plain to see from his conceited, delusional and insultive behaviour, and his use of alter-egos like 'CHUCKLES'. The guy is 'nuts'.
Can you not see what everyone else sees (simply because he supports your position ?).
If so, I pity your need for such 'allies'.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Nov 24 2005, 06:02 AM)
quote yes it did
quick off the mark....
Heh...hehehe
ROTFLMAO Good one frater!
Some are a little quicker than others
QUOTE
This would mean that they attacked themselves.
quick off the mark....
Heh...hehehe
ROTFLMAO
Good one frater!Some are a little quicker than others
Quote Foxx
TRUE
Bush whacked 2 video 14mb Quicktime required
To download this file to your desk top (mac)ctrl/click > save to disk (PC)right click > save to disk
download
OPEN QUESTION.
IS THE VIDEO TRUE OR FALSE ?
TRUE
TRUE
Overview: Three Story Class A Office on 14 acres
Address: 33 Knightsbridge Road, Piscataway, NJ
Date Completed: 1981 - renovated 2002
Leasing:
BET Investments, Inc.
Sam Blank
215-938-7300 x111
215-669-1549
TRUE
QUOTE
There is no way on earth those towers fell at the speed they did through a gravity-driven collapse. It is Impossible.
(Let me correct that statement) - As far as I am concerned... It is utterly and absolutely impossible.
(Let me correct that statement) - As far as I am concerned... It is utterly and absolutely impossible.
TRUE
Bush whacked 2 video 14mb Quicktime required
To download this file to your desk top (mac)ctrl/click > save to disk (PC)right click > save to disk
download
OPEN QUESTION.
IS THE VIDEO TRUE OR FALSE ?
TRUE
TRUE
Overview: Three Story Class A Office on 14 acres
Address: 33 Knightsbridge Road, Piscataway, NJ
Date Completed: 1981 - renovated 2002
Leasing:
BET Investments, Inc.
Sam Blank
215-938-7300 x111
215-669-1549
TRUE
AN EXAMPLE OF TEAM 8 PLUS RESEARCH.
..as usual, great job by John Doe II.
Here are some older entries from my 9/11 truth encyclopedia:
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/911Encyclopedia.shtml
Atta-Alomari at Portland
===================
For strange reasons, only one day before the Sep11th-attack, Mohammad Atta decided to fly to Portland. This time not with his "buddy" Marwan al-Shehhi, but with Abdul Aziz Al-Omari.
This disturbing detail in the timeline includes another oddity,
that the flight from Portland to Boston was delayed for 40 minutes on that morning.
How could they know?
And why did they need only 12 minutes from their hotel until they passed through airport security?
From the timeline:
Tuesday, September 11, 2001
5:33 am ATTA and AL-OMARI checked out of the Comfort Inn.
5:40 am The 2001 blue Nissan Altima rental car, bearing Massachusetts license 3335VI, entered Portland International Jetport Airport parking lot. It was parked on the first floor directly across from the airport entrance.
5:43 am ATTA and AL-OMARI checked in at US AIRWAYS counter.
5:45 am ATTA and AL-OMARI passed through airport security.
6:00 am ATTA and AL-OMARI departed on Colgan Air en route to Boston, Massachusetts.
Atta No.2
============
On September 17th, 2001 the Air Force confirmed, that Mohammed Atta trained at a US Air Base.
Or was that Mohammad Atta No.2?:
"...Air Force spokesman Col. Ken McClellan said a man named Mohamed Atta -- which the FBI has identified as one of the five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11 -- had once attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell/Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Ala."
http://www.pressconnects.com/archive/attac...s/091701N1.html
McClellan later denied his own report and came to the conclusion, that this Atta just shared the same name.
Atta No.3
=============
Almost one year later after the attack, the following article turned into a lie:
Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, who piloted a second hijacked jet into the other tower, met on Sep 8th at Harry's Bar at the Helmsley Hotel in Manhattan (East 42nd Street),
a law enforcement official said, "speaking on condition of anonymity".
They sat with two other men and stayed for several hours..."
http://www.nypost.com/apstories/V5201.htm
In reality, this Atta was another Dr. Mohammad Atta, a kidney specialist.
This makes sense, because on September 9th another Atta returned a rental car in Pompono Beach, Florida.
Atta No.4
==============
It was in fact in April 1986, when Jordanian native and naturalized U.S. citizen Mahmoud Atta (not Mohammad!) threw a firebomb at a bus in the West Bank.
Mahmoud Atta was deported to the U.S. where he was arrested by the FBI. Three years later Atta was extradited to Israel where he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Mohammed Atta, was Egyptian and thirteen years younger than Mahmoud Atta.
Another question regarding Atta. As he left all his papers in his car, was it at all possible before September 11th to board a plane without proper identification ?
Or did he posses other id's next to his passport ?
Another 911 'Passport Miracle' !
Greg Szymanski | November 10 2005
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/n...105passport.htm
Besides the passport, numerous other accounts of suspicious evidence have conveniently surfaced linking the alleged hijackers to 9/11, including two of Mohamed Atta's bags also found right after 9/11.
Not only did authorities find the bags but they conveniently contained a handheld electronic flight computer, a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, two videotapes relating to "air tours" of the Boeing 757 and 747 aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, Atta's passport, his will, his international driver's license, a religious cassette tape, airline uniforms, a letter of recommendation, "education related documentation" and a note to other hijackers on how to mentally prepare for the hijacking.
SALUDOS DE ESPAÑA HERMANOS
QUOTE
On this very interesting day Atta did the following:
1. Atta and Al Shehhi returned a rented car in Deerfield Warrick’s “Rent a car”. The paper notes “Day in” 9/9/01 and that the rental had 6 over hours. We don't know the exact time but that doesn't matter.
And that Atta was there is also reported by somebody who should know: Mr. Warrick himself:
When he returned the car on Sept. 9 -- two days before the attacks -- Atta reminded him about the oil light. "The only thing out of the ordinary,'' Warrick said, ``was that he was nice enough to let me know that the car needed an oil change. That was odd since he was planning to die in a matter of days.'
[web.archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20021121125827/...kers-0914.story
This story is widely reported.
2. Undoubted as well is that Atta rented a Nissan in Boston on the late afternoon the very same day. Exactly at 6:08 pm as the FBI affidavit from September 12 tells us.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resour...affidavit12.htm
So in Deerfield Beach in the morning and in Boston in the evening. Well, still possible. Take a flight from Florida to Boston and it's ok.
But now we turn to
3.
“Sunday morning, the 9th, more of the Florida suspects are heading north. At the Panther Motel, the men tell the front desk they're leaving in 20 minutes. Up in Baltimore, Atta, the suspected ringleader, has boarded a MetroJet to Boston where two of the planes will be hijacked.”
(NBC, 9/24/01)
But I thought Atta was in Deerfield Beach. How can he have been in Baltimore as well??
A journalistic mistake.
Well, let's check out the Commission Report:
Atta was still busy coordinating the teams. On September 7, he flew from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore, presumably to meet with the Flight 77 team in Laurel. On September 9, he flew from Baltimore to Boston.
And please tell me how is that possible?
A bit too much for one day and one man, isn't it?
1. Atta and Al Shehhi returned a rented car in Deerfield Warrick’s “Rent a car”. The paper notes “Day in” 9/9/01 and that the rental had 6 over hours. We don't know the exact time but that doesn't matter.
And that Atta was there is also reported by somebody who should know: Mr. Warrick himself:
When he returned the car on Sept. 9 -- two days before the attacks -- Atta reminded him about the oil light. "The only thing out of the ordinary,'' Warrick said, ``was that he was nice enough to let me know that the car needed an oil change. That was odd since he was planning to die in a matter of days.'
[web.archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20021121125827/...kers-0914.story
This story is widely reported.
2. Undoubted as well is that Atta rented a Nissan in Boston on the late afternoon the very same day. Exactly at 6:08 pm as the FBI affidavit from September 12 tells us.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resour...affidavit12.htm
So in Deerfield Beach in the morning and in Boston in the evening. Well, still possible. Take a flight from Florida to Boston and it's ok.
But now we turn to
3.
“Sunday morning, the 9th, more of the Florida suspects are heading north. At the Panther Motel, the men tell the front desk they're leaving in 20 minutes. Up in Baltimore, Atta, the suspected ringleader, has boarded a MetroJet to Boston where two of the planes will be hijacked.”
(NBC, 9/24/01)
But I thought Atta was in Deerfield Beach. How can he have been in Baltimore as well??
A journalistic mistake.
Well, let's check out the Commission Report:
Atta was still busy coordinating the teams. On September 7, he flew from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore, presumably to meet with the Flight 77 team in Laurel. On September 9, he flew from Baltimore to Boston.
And please tell me how is that possible?
A bit too much for one day and one man, isn't it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| On this very interesting day Atta did the following: 1. Atta and Al Shehhi returned a rented car in Deerfield Warrick’s “Rent a car”. The paper notes “Day in” 9/9/01 and that the rental had 6 over hours. We don't know the exact time but that doesn't matter. And that Atta was there is also reported by somebody who should know: Mr. Warrick himself: When he returned the car on Sept. 9 -- two days before the attacks -- Atta reminded him about the oil light. "The only thing out of the ordinary,'' Warrick said, ``was that he was nice enough to let me know that the car needed an oil change. That was odd since he was planning to die in a matter of days.' [web.archive.org] http://web.archive.org/web/20021121125827/...kers-0914.story This story is widely reported. 2. Undoubted as well is that Atta rented a Nissan in Boston on the late afternoon the very same day. Exactly at 6:08 pm as the FBI affidavit from September 12 tells us. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resour...affidavit12.htm So in Deerfield Beach in the morning and in Boston in the evening. Well, still possible. Take a flight from Florida to Boston and it's ok. But now we turn to 3. “Sunday morning, the 9th, more of the Florida suspects are heading north. At the Panther Motel, the men tell the front desk they're leaving in 20 minutes. Up in Baltimore, Atta, the suspected ringleader, has boarded a MetroJet to Boston where two of the planes will be hijacked.” (NBC, 9/24/01) But I thought Atta was in Deerfield Beach. How can he have been in Baltimore as well?? A journalistic mistake. Well, let's check out the Commission Report: Atta was still busy coordinating the teams. On September 7, he flew from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore, presumably to meet with the Flight 77 team in Laurel. On September 9, he flew from Baltimore to Boston. And please tell me how is that possible? A bit too much for one day and one man, isn't it? |
..as usual, great job by John Doe II.
Here are some older entries from my 9/11 truth encyclopedia:
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/911Encyclopedia.shtml
Atta-Alomari at Portland
===================
For strange reasons, only one day before the Sep11th-attack, Mohammad Atta decided to fly to Portland. This time not with his "buddy" Marwan al-Shehhi, but with Abdul Aziz Al-Omari.
This disturbing detail in the timeline includes another oddity,
that the flight from Portland to Boston was delayed for 40 minutes on that morning.
How could they know?
And why did they need only 12 minutes from their hotel until they passed through airport security?
From the timeline:
Tuesday, September 11, 2001
5:33 am ATTA and AL-OMARI checked out of the Comfort Inn.
5:40 am The 2001 blue Nissan Altima rental car, bearing Massachusetts license 3335VI, entered Portland International Jetport Airport parking lot. It was parked on the first floor directly across from the airport entrance.
5:43 am ATTA and AL-OMARI checked in at US AIRWAYS counter.
5:45 am ATTA and AL-OMARI passed through airport security.
6:00 am ATTA and AL-OMARI departed on Colgan Air en route to Boston, Massachusetts.
Atta No.2
============
On September 17th, 2001 the Air Force confirmed, that Mohammed Atta trained at a US Air Base.
Or was that Mohammad Atta No.2?:
"...Air Force spokesman Col. Ken McClellan said a man named Mohamed Atta -- which the FBI has identified as one of the five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11 -- had once attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell/Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Ala."
http://www.pressconnects.com/archive/attac...s/091701N1.html
McClellan later denied his own report and came to the conclusion, that this Atta just shared the same name.
Atta No.3
=============
Almost one year later after the attack, the following article turned into a lie:
Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, who piloted a second hijacked jet into the other tower, met on Sep 8th at Harry's Bar at the Helmsley Hotel in Manhattan (East 42nd Street),
a law enforcement official said, "speaking on condition of anonymity".
They sat with two other men and stayed for several hours..."
http://www.nypost.com/apstories/V5201.htm
In reality, this Atta was another Dr. Mohammad Atta, a kidney specialist.
This makes sense, because on September 9th another Atta returned a rental car in Pompono Beach, Florida.
Atta No.4
==============
It was in fact in April 1986, when Jordanian native and naturalized U.S. citizen Mahmoud Atta (not Mohammad!) threw a firebomb at a bus in the West Bank.
Mahmoud Atta was deported to the U.S. where he was arrested by the FBI. Three years later Atta was extradited to Israel where he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Mohammed Atta, was Egyptian and thirteen years younger than Mahmoud Atta.
QUOTE
A small correction of the original post. The 6 overhours of course say nothing at what time exactly the car was returned. Yet, to manage to come from Pompano Beach in the morning, go back to Baltimore (apparently with the only ambition to talk to alleged hijackers in Laurel, Maryland) and then to fly to Boston in order to rent a car at 6:08 pm seems to be hardly manageable. (Not to mention that this whole odysee – Atta rented a car in Pompano Beach on Sep 6 only to go to Baltimore on Sep 7 and then the mentioned travels – make absolutely no sense and he certainly couldn’t have forseen that he got the connection flight in Baltimore and assure to be in Boston on Sep 9. Please keep in mind that this is the last evening he can talk to other alleged hijackers in Boston cause the next day he while drive at noon to Portland).
But in any case there are even stronger refusals:
from the CR:
Atta was still busy coordinating the teams. On September 7, he flew from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore, presumably to meet with the Flight 77 team in Laurel. On September 9, he flew from Baltimore to Boston. By then, Shehhi had arrived there, and Atta was seen with him at his hotel.
Now there are two problems:
First:
Al Shehhi can't have arrived before Atta on Sep 9 cause he signed on Sep 9 in Pompano Beach the car rental.
In case you might point out that Al Shehhi could have flown directly from Fort Lauderdale to Boston while Atta had to fly back to Baltimore (see original post) here an important contradictions:
“In Deerfield Beach, hotel owner Surma said the men and a visitor who was with them constantly "just disappeared overnight." They were at the motel Sunday night and gone Monday morning, he said.”
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/14/01)
So according to somebody who really should know Al Shehhi was still in his hotel on the late evening of Sep 9 (which then contradicts that Al Shehhi is also seen on Sep 9 in a hotel in Boston with Atta as the CR claims)
Second:
Atta had something else to do on Sep 7 than to be in Baltimore:
It was party in Shuckums in Hollywood (Florida) which is not really around the corner of Baltimore.
There are many sources for that:
Some employees at Shuckums restaurant in Hollywood said that two men, one named Mohamed, partied at the bar and got drunk on Sept. 7.
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/15/01)
(Toronto Star, 9/15/01)
On Friday evening, Amos said Atta and the other man came into the Shuckums. The pair had been in the restaurant several times before, Amos said. This time, they were there from about 4:30 p.m. until about 7 p.m.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...2¬Found=true
Can you really make it from Hollywood 7pm to Baltimore the next day. Is there still any flight you can take? I doubt it.
But in any case there are even stronger refusals:
from the CR:
Atta was still busy coordinating the teams. On September 7, he flew from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore, presumably to meet with the Flight 77 team in Laurel. On September 9, he flew from Baltimore to Boston. By then, Shehhi had arrived there, and Atta was seen with him at his hotel.
Now there are two problems:
First:
Al Shehhi can't have arrived before Atta on Sep 9 cause he signed on Sep 9 in Pompano Beach the car rental.
In case you might point out that Al Shehhi could have flown directly from Fort Lauderdale to Boston while Atta had to fly back to Baltimore (see original post) here an important contradictions:
“In Deerfield Beach, hotel owner Surma said the men and a visitor who was with them constantly "just disappeared overnight." They were at the motel Sunday night and gone Monday morning, he said.”
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/14/01)
So according to somebody who really should know Al Shehhi was still in his hotel on the late evening of Sep 9 (which then contradicts that Al Shehhi is also seen on Sep 9 in a hotel in Boston with Atta as the CR claims)
Second:
Atta had something else to do on Sep 7 than to be in Baltimore:
It was party in Shuckums in Hollywood (Florida) which is not really around the corner of Baltimore.
There are many sources for that:
Some employees at Shuckums restaurant in Hollywood said that two men, one named Mohamed, partied at the bar and got drunk on Sept. 7.
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/15/01)
(Toronto Star, 9/15/01)
On Friday evening, Amos said Atta and the other man came into the Shuckums. The pair had been in the restaurant several times before, Amos said. This time, they were there from about 4:30 p.m. until about 7 p.m.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...2¬Found=true
Can you really make it from Hollywood 7pm to Baltimore the next day. Is there still any flight you can take? I doubt it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A small correction of the original post. The 6 overhours of course say nothing at what time exactly the car was returned. Yet, to manage to come from Pompano Beach in the morning, go back to Baltimore (apparently with the only ambition to talk to alleged hijackers in Laurel, Maryland) and then to fly to Boston in order to rent a car at 6:08 pm seems to be hardly manageable. (Not to mention that this whole odysee – Atta rented a car in Pompano Beach on Sep 6 only to go to Baltimore on Sep 7 and then the mentioned travels – make absolutely no sense and he certainly couldn’t have forseen that he got the connection flight in Baltimore and assure to be in Boston on Sep 9. Please keep in mind that this is the last evening he can talk to other alleged hijackers in Boston cause the next day he while drive at noon to Portland). But in any case there are even stronger refusals: from the CR: Atta was still busy coordinating the teams. On September 7, he flew from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore, presumably to meet with the Flight 77 team in Laurel. On September 9, he flew from Baltimore to Boston. By then, Shehhi had arrived there, and Atta was seen with him at his hotel. Now there are two problems: First: Al Shehhi can't have arrived before Atta on Sep 9 cause he signed on Sep 9 in Pompano Beach the car rental. In case you might point out that Al Shehhi could have flown directly from Fort Lauderdale to Boston while Atta had to fly back to Baltimore (see original post) here an important contradictions: “In Deerfield Beach, hotel owner Surma said the men and a visitor who was with them constantly "just disappeared overnight." They were at the motel Sunday night and gone Monday morning, he said.” (Sun-Sentinel, 9/14/01) So according to somebody who really should know Al Shehhi was still in his hotel on the late evening of Sep 9 (which then contradicts that Al Shehhi is also seen on Sep 9 in a hotel in Boston with Atta as the CR claims) Second: Atta had something else to do on Sep 7 than to be in Baltimore: It was party in Shuckums in Hollywood (Florida) which is not really around the corner of Baltimore. There are many sources for that: Some employees at Shuckums restaurant in Hollywood said that two men, one named Mohamed, partied at the bar and got drunk on Sept. 7. (Sun-Sentinel, 9/15/01) (Toronto Star, 9/15/01) On Friday evening, Amos said Atta and the other man came into the Shuckums. The pair had been in the restaurant several times before, Amos said. This time, they were there from about 4:30 p.m. until about 7 p.m. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...2¬Found=true Can you really make it from Hollywood 7pm to Baltimore the next day. Is there still any flight you can take? I doubt it. |
Another question regarding Atta. As he left all his papers in his car, was it at all possible before September 11th to board a plane without proper identification ?
Or did he posses other id's next to his passport ?
Another 911 'Passport Miracle' !
Greg Szymanski | November 10 2005
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/n...105passport.htm
Besides the passport, numerous other accounts of suspicious evidence have conveniently surfaced linking the alleged hijackers to 9/11, including two of Mohamed Atta's bags also found right after 9/11.
Not only did authorities find the bags but they conveniently contained a handheld electronic flight computer, a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, two videotapes relating to "air tours" of the Boeing 757 and 747 aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, Atta's passport, his will, his international driver's license, a religious cassette tape, airline uniforms, a letter of recommendation, "education related documentation" and a note to other hijackers on how to mentally prepare for the hijacking.
QUOTE
John Doe wrote:
"...why should al Qaeda hire TWO or even THREE Attas??...
Simple and exact point
Also why would an alleged "terror organisation" 'hire' someone for their 'plotline', who is targeted by 16-17 international surveillance operations, not included the U.S. surveillance operations by FBI, CIA and possibly also Pentagon's Able Danger?
Wouldn't they risk the outcome of their own 'operation'?
There is only one logical answer:
The 'multiple' Atta wasn't recruited by a terror organisation
"...why should al Qaeda hire TWO or even THREE Attas??...
Simple and exact point
Also why would an alleged "terror organisation" 'hire' someone for their 'plotline', who is targeted by 16-17 international surveillance operations, not included the U.S. surveillance operations by FBI, CIA and possibly also Pentagon's Able Danger?
Wouldn't they risk the outcome of their own 'operation'?
There is only one logical answer:
The 'multiple' Atta wasn't recruited by a terror organisation
SALUDOS DE ESPAÑA HERMANOS
As everybody knows, Schneibster makes a big deal about being the collapses being "near free fall speed", and accuses Foxx of lying about it:
QUOTE (Faux)
Regarding the time of free-fall. My guess is that due to friction & resistance even a known controlled demolition will not fall at 'free-fall speed', (however it will be close).
QUOTE (Schneibster)
And yet again, you lie: it is nowhere "close," and it never was. There is no evidence to support this, and you have been faced with it time and again, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. It's all there in black and white, and the videos are numerous and detailed.
Please be aware that BYU Physics Professor also describes the collapses as being "near free fall speed"
Please be aware that BYU Physics Professor also describes the collapses as being "near free fall speed"
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
Thus, Schneibster no doubt believes that Professor Jones is also lying.
What's odd about this notion is that Professor Jones gave a talk on the WTC collapses to a group of about 60 faculty and graduate students from BYU and another, nearby college. This group included at least 4 physicists. It's quite clear, from his account, that his talk was well received.
Now, if Schneibster's contention that saying "the buildings fell at near free-fall-speed" is a lie, how come Professor Jones wasn't caught in this lie by the physicists in attendance at his talk?
I don't have a verbatim transcription of that talk, but note well that the Jones quote from above is from his draft paper that will be published, and must pass peer review.
My advice to Schneibster (and Foxx) is to take a chill pill.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Faux)
Regarding the time of free-fall. My guess is that due to friction & resistance even a known controlled demolition will not fall at 'free-fall speed', (however it will be close).
QUOTE (Schneibster)
And yet again, you lie: it is nowhere "close," and it never was. There is no evidence to support this, and you have been faced with it time and again, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. It's all there in black and white, and the videos are numerous and detailed.
Please be aware that BYU Physics Professor also describes the collapses as being "near free fall speed"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (Faux) Regarding the time of free-fall. My guess is that due to friction & resistance even a known controlled demolition will not fall at 'free-fall speed', (however it will be close). QUOTE (Schneibster) And yet again, you lie: it is nowhere "close," and it never was. There is no evidence to support this, and you have been faced with it time and again, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. It's all there in black and white, and the videos are numerous and detailed. |
Please be aware that BYU Physics Professor also describes the collapses as being "near free fall speed"
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
Thus, Schneibster no doubt believes that Professor Jones is also lying.
What's odd about this notion is that Professor Jones gave a talk on the WTC collapses to a group of about 60 faculty and graduate students from BYU and another, nearby college. This group included at least 4 physicists. It's quite clear, from his account, that his talk was well received.
Now, if Schneibster's contention that saying "the buildings fell at near free-fall-speed" is a lie, how come Professor Jones wasn't caught in this lie by the physicists in attendance at his talk?
I don't have a verbatim transcription of that talk, but note well that the Jones quote from above is from his draft paper that will be published, and must pass peer review.
My advice to Schneibster (and Foxx) is to take a chill pill.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Apparently, Schneibster is following 'standard procedure' for scientific enquiry/debate. Not all here are doing likewise.
Schneibshit is following 'standard procedure' for scientific enquiry/debate you say? Look again.......
Schneibshit is following 'standard procedure' for scientific enquiry/debate you say? Look again.......
QUOTE (Schneibshit+)
Faux, why you think that I will respond in any way but abuse after what you have done
You're done crying yet? Shame isn't... that you find yourself sulking in your own tears as you get your @ss completely handed to you in this debate. I don't blame the constant abuse that you receive because you very much deserve it. It's what you get and what you will continue to get for being such an arrogant self righteous lying coward who claims to be an expert on structural engineering (but only later to be found out to be a fatass computer programmer). Apparently you are the one who is in need of a reality check.
I don't like you. Never have, never will. Dipshits like you dishonor the deaths of all 9/11 victims as well as the deaths of all the soldiers who unknowingly fight for your lies. It is because of liars like you that so many soldiers have been tricked into dying for a dishonest objective. Nice life you have, sitting on your sorry @ss all day trying to defend official bullsh*t. Perhaps you should have been the one to have jumped off those Towers on 9/11, not those people. Those people didn't deserve their fate, yet they were pushed to the brink of their human will and were left with no choice but jump.
All the cowards responsible for this and all the liars who continue to defend them, will get what they deserve someday.
___________________________________
You're done crying yet? Shame isn't... that you find yourself sulking in your own tears as you get your @ss completely handed to you in this debate. I don't blame the constant abuse that you receive because you very much deserve it. It's what you get and what you will continue to get for being such an arrogant self righteous lying coward who claims to be an expert on structural engineering (but only later to be found out to be a fatass computer programmer). Apparently you are the one who is in need of a reality check.
I don't like you. Never have, never will. Dipshits like you dishonor the deaths of all 9/11 victims as well as the deaths of all the soldiers who unknowingly fight for your lies. It is because of liars like you that so many soldiers have been tricked into dying for a dishonest objective. Nice life you have, sitting on your sorry @ss all day trying to defend official bullsh*t. Perhaps you should have been the one to have jumped off those Towers on 9/11, not those people. Those people didn't deserve their fate, yet they were pushed to the brink of their human will and were left with no choice but jump.
All the cowards responsible for this and all the liars who continue to defend them, will get what they deserve someday.
___________________________________
Let's see if a defender of the official story can explain why the WTC towers and their steel core columns collapsed on their own footprints due to fires (within 56 minutes to 102 minutes after the impacts), despite the fact that on June 18 - 20, 2002 the Rodeo Chediski Forest Fire burned for days but all the trees (trees are made out of wood) remained standing including many of their branches.
Rodeo Chediski forest Fire
9/11
Rodeo Chediski forest Fire
9/11
Foxx posts
Yesitdid
You should be spending your time coming up with some sophistry to respond to my last questions to you about your total nonsense about the NIST photo that you said was of the hole in the center of the south face of WTC 7. As usual, you quickly brush that error under the carpet, ignore it and change topics. I see you haven't changed much.
Perhaps you should look around before you post idiocy like this. Go back and read my post about the photos.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...780&#entry36165
I edited the post once the NIST site was back and running again and I confirmed the url
WTC 7 was bordered on the north by Barclay , Greenwich runs south and ends at Barclay at about the mid point of the north face of the WTC 7. Vesey runs along the south of WTC 7 and Boyle states he went to Greenwich and to Vesey and also comments on the condition of the east side of WTC 7 so it it patently obvious that he came down Greenwich to Barclay, traveled east to West Broadway, south to Vesey(along the east side of WTC7) and then, on Vesey Street, he observed the south side of WTC 7. This is as simple as it gets yet you twist and contort Boyle's statement to your own ends. The photos of the south side of WTC 7 do indeed show massive damage to the lower floors of the building and they also show a great deal of debris from the towers on W.Broadway and also on the street on the west side of WTC7 so it is not a wonder that debris hit the lower floors of WTC 7.
Perhaps you should look around before you post idiocy like this. Go back and read my post about the photos.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...780&#entry36165
I edited the post once the NIST site was back and running again and I confirmed the url
WTC 7 was bordered on the north by Barclay , Greenwich runs south and ends at Barclay at about the mid point of the north face of the WTC 7. Vesey runs along the south of WTC 7 and Boyle states he went to Greenwich and to Vesey and also comments on the condition of the east side of WTC 7 so it it patently obvious that he came down Greenwich to Barclay, traveled east to West Broadway, south to Vesey(along the east side of WTC7) and then, on Vesey Street, he observed the south side of WTC 7. This is as simple as it gets yet you twist and contort Boyle's statement to your own ends. The photos of the south side of WTC 7 do indeed show massive damage to the lower floors of the building and they also show a great deal of debris from the towers on W.Broadway and also on the street on the west side of WTC7 so it is not a wonder that debris hit the lower floors of WTC 7.
I have not been able to find any photos or videos of the south face of WTC 7, nor any firefighter testimony which supports the idea of massive damage to the center of the south face as purported in the NIST schematic of alleged impact damage.
Yes, there are few photos of the south side of WTC 7. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be the absolute destruction and dangerous condition of the structures to the south of WTC 7 and the smoke and dust from the fires to the south of WTC 7? No, that could not possibly be the reason that there are few photos of the south side of WTC 7 so it must be a conspiracy to suppress any photos of the south side of WTC 7.
Correct?
At any rate your contention that there are no photos of the south side of WTC 7 is shown to be false (or at least there are photos you could not find) and your contention that there are no firefighter descriptions of damage to the south side of WTC is shown to be false.
QUOTE
Yesitdid
You should be spending your time coming up with some sophistry to respond to my last questions to you about your total nonsense about the NIST photo that you said was of the hole in the center of the south face of WTC 7. As usual, you quickly brush that error under the carpet, ignore it and change topics. I see you haven't changed much.
Perhaps you should look around before you post idiocy like this. Go back and read my post about the photos.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...780&#entry36165
I edited the post once the NIST site was back and running again and I confirmed the url
WTC 7 was bordered on the north by Barclay , Greenwich runs south and ends at Barclay at about the mid point of the north face of the WTC 7. Vesey runs along the south of WTC 7 and Boyle states he went to Greenwich and to Vesey and also comments on the condition of the east side of WTC 7 so it it patently obvious that he came down Greenwich to Barclay, traveled east to West Broadway, south to Vesey(along the east side of WTC7) and then, on Vesey Street, he observed the south side of WTC 7. This is as simple as it gets yet you twist and contort Boyle's statement to your own ends. The photos of the south side of WTC 7 do indeed show massive damage to the lower floors of the building and they also show a great deal of debris from the towers on W.Broadway and also on the street on the west side of WTC7 so it is not a wonder that debris hit the lower floors of WTC 7.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Yesitdid You should be spending your time coming up with some sophistry to respond to my last questions to you about your total nonsense about the NIST photo that you said was of the hole in the center of the south face of WTC 7. As usual, you quickly brush that error under the carpet, ignore it and change topics. I see you haven't changed much. |
Perhaps you should look around before you post idiocy like this. Go back and read my post about the photos.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...780&#entry36165
I edited the post once the NIST site was back and running again and I confirmed the url
WTC 7 was bordered on the north by Barclay , Greenwich runs south and ends at Barclay at about the mid point of the north face of the WTC 7. Vesey runs along the south of WTC 7 and Boyle states he went to Greenwich and to Vesey and also comments on the condition of the east side of WTC 7 so it it patently obvious that he came down Greenwich to Barclay, traveled east to West Broadway, south to Vesey(along the east side of WTC7) and then, on Vesey Street, he observed the south side of WTC 7. This is as simple as it gets yet you twist and contort Boyle's statement to your own ends. The photos of the south side of WTC 7 do indeed show massive damage to the lower floors of the building and they also show a great deal of debris from the towers on W.Broadway and also on the street on the west side of WTC7 so it is not a wonder that debris hit the lower floors of WTC 7.
I have not been able to find any photos or videos of the south face of WTC 7, nor any firefighter testimony which supports the idea of massive damage to the center of the south face as purported in the NIST schematic of alleged impact damage.
Yes, there are few photos of the south side of WTC 7. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be the absolute destruction and dangerous condition of the structures to the south of WTC 7 and the smoke and dust from the fires to the south of WTC 7? No, that could not possibly be the reason that there are few photos of the south side of WTC 7 so it must be a conspiracy to suppress any photos of the south side of WTC 7.
Correct?
At any rate your contention that there are no photos of the south side of WTC 7 is shown to be false (or at least there are photos you could not find) and your contention that there are no firefighter descriptions of damage to the south side of WTC is shown to be false.
Bush Caught in a Lie about the 9/11 WTC Attacks
At http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of President Bush's comments regarding the day of the attacks on the World Trade Towers.
Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote. (Note: Some readers are reporting that the version of the CNN transcript they see in some parts of the country has been edited to remove the following comment. George Orwell would be proud!)
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
RealVideo of Bush saying he SAW the first plane hit the WTC
hit the World Trade Towers on TV:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/b...firstplane1.ram
There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
This report taken from: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html
At http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of President Bush's comments regarding the day of the attacks on the World Trade Towers.
Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote. (Note: Some readers are reporting that the version of the CNN transcript they see in some parts of the country has been edited to remove the following comment. George Orwell would be proud!)
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
RealVideo of Bush saying he SAW the first plane hit the WTC
hit the World Trade Towers on TV:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/b...firstplane1.ram
There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
This report taken from: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html
QUOTE (X factor+Nov 24 2005, 03:32 PM)
Let's see if a defender of the official story can explain why the WTC towers and their steel core columns collapsed on their own footprints due to fires (within 56 minutes to 102 minutes after the impacts), despite the fact that on June 18 - 20, 2002 the Rodeo Chediski Forest Fire burned for days but all the trees (trees are made out of wood) remained standing including many of their branches.
That is the worst comparison I have ever seen.
Here's a hint.
Nothing fell on those trees.
That is the worst comparison I have ever seen.
Here's a hint.
Nothing fell on those trees.
QUOTE (bolt+Nov 24 2005, 04:30 PM)
Bush Caught in a Lie about the 9/11 WTC Attacks
..........
........"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
RealVideo of Bush saying he SAW the first plane hit the WTC
hit the World Trade Towers on TV:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/b...firstplane1.ram
There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
This report taken from: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html
Yeah, yeah been through this many times before.
It is no news that GWB is not great at the English language(he speaks Texan apparently )
He meant of course, that he saw that an plane hit the tower.
..........
........"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
RealVideo of Bush saying he SAW the first plane hit the WTC
hit the World Trade Towers on TV:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/b...firstplane1.ram
There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
This report taken from: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html
Yeah, yeah been through this many times before.
It is no news that GWB is not great at the English language(he speaks Texan apparently
)He meant of course, that he saw that an plane hit the tower.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 24 2005, 05:18 AM)
Schneibster, I'm afraid on this point, that the beams were not encased in concrete, is correct.
Foxx, you should ALSO realize that the misinformation that they WERE concrete reinforced has been widespread. In fact, the wrong info seems to be more prevalent than the correct info. In fact the same "concrete reinforced core" diagram in one of YOUR links is used in Andrew Johnson's report, and I called him on it some pages ago when I reviewed his work. So, it appears people on both sides of the debate were misinformed.
In any case, while Schneibster may have been wrong about this one point, I don't think it was deliberate.
The NIST report has it correct, and as your picture shows, they were not concrete reinforced beams.
They really couldn't be, because of the amount of sway the buildings were expected to experience in hurricane force winds.
(somewhere I read that they moved over a meter when hit by the planes that day)
Arthur
Perhaps the confusion regarding concrete around the core columns arises from the way those columns were anchored. They ended at steel beams in the basement that were stacked up somwhat pyramidally. then the whole thing, horizontal beams and the lower few feet of the coulmn were encased in concrete.
The columns did not have concrete any further up than that as far as I know.
It is hilarious to note that Foxx goes to such lengths to correct Schneibster on the very same error that Arthur corrected someone else on.
Foxx, you should ALSO realize that the misinformation that they WERE concrete reinforced has been widespread. In fact, the wrong info seems to be more prevalent than the correct info. In fact the same "concrete reinforced core" diagram in one of YOUR links is used in Andrew Johnson's report, and I called him on it some pages ago when I reviewed his work. So, it appears people on both sides of the debate were misinformed.
In any case, while Schneibster may have been wrong about this one point, I don't think it was deliberate.
The NIST report has it correct, and as your picture shows, they were not concrete reinforced beams.
They really couldn't be, because of the amount of sway the buildings were expected to experience in hurricane force winds.
(somewhere I read that they moved over a meter when hit by the planes that day)
Arthur
Perhaps the confusion regarding concrete around the core columns arises from the way those columns were anchored. They ended at steel beams in the basement that were stacked up somwhat pyramidally. then the whole thing, horizontal beams and the lower few feet of the coulmn were encased in concrete.
The columns did not have concrete any further up than that as far as I know.
It is hilarious to note that Foxx goes to such lengths to correct Schneibster on the very same error that Arthur corrected someone else on.
LMAO..That was a poor comparison. Plus the fact that wood doesn't melt. It can turn to ashes and become brittle. But it doesn't melt. And nothing fell on the trees anyway....Weak Weak Weak.
QUOTE (bolt+)
Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote. (Note: Some readers are reporting that the version of the CNN transcript they see in some parts of the country has been edited to remove the following comment. George Orwell would be proud!)
You know man, the "editing" and "removal" of significant statements is becoming a repetitive pattern associated with many sources that rival the official 9/11 report . This obvious pattern is yet another clue to the defensive behavior that the government is conducting. If they were not guilty and not complicit, then why are all these things being edited out? In fact, the 9/11 commission report had originally included testimony of Guiliani's accidental mention of Operation Tripod 2. But they soon removed his statement because it would have revealed too much information about the government's involvement. This behavior is also consistent with the fact that they cleaned up all the steel debris from ground zero as soon as possible (same with the Pentagon debris).
You know man, the "editing" and "removal" of significant statements is becoming a repetitive pattern associated with many sources that rival the official 9/11 report . This obvious pattern is yet another clue to the defensive behavior that the government is conducting. If they were not guilty and not complicit, then why are all these things being edited out? In fact, the 9/11 commission report had originally included testimony of Guiliani's accidental mention of Operation Tripod 2. But they soon removed his statement because it would have revealed too much information about the government's involvement. This behavior is also consistent with the fact that they cleaned up all the steel debris from ground zero as soon as possible (same with the Pentagon debris).
QUOTE (yesitdid+)
He meant of course, that he saw that an plane hit the tower.
Oh I see, so you're psychic now? Or are you just making a guess? Stop spewing conjectures. There is not enough information about the subject regarding GWB's take on the first plane that he saw. Don't jump to conclusions (that goes for both sides of this issue). Perhaps you were being sarcastic?
Oh I see, so you're psychic now? Or are you just making a guess? Stop spewing conjectures. There is not enough information about the subject regarding GWB's take on the first plane that he saw. Don't jump to conclusions (that goes for both sides of this issue). Perhaps you were being sarcastic?
Below is a huge list of omissions from the official 9/11 Commission Report:
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of 1.) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and 2.) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call “the Kean-Zelikow Report” by writing that it, “far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?” (291)
Source:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchi...22-571pglie.php
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of 1.) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and 2.) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call “the Kean-Zelikow Report” by writing that it, “far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?” (291)
Source:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchi...22-571pglie.php
QUOTE
Sweet little lies.... and crimes against humanity
Why were Americans surprised at the attack of 9/11? The Neocons have convinced many Americans that our nation was an innocent victim of attacks of "evil terrorists". How naive can a person be? America, in its supreme arrogance and imperialistic endeavors, has been enraging people in foreign nations for years. If the terrorists did actually carry out these attacks autonomously, America was far from innocent. Was it tragic? Yes. Do the perpetrators deserve to be punished severely? Yes. However, America has been provoking people and nations for many years. Those who died in the World Trade Center that day were certainly innocent victims, but America as a nation was not.
In saying "if the terrorists did actually carry out" 9/11, I intentionally left the culpability ambiguous. While there is little doubt that Bush, the Neocons, and other members of the obscenely wealthy Oligarchy see http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Miller0517.htm knew that the strikes were going to occur and chose to allow them to happen, there is also compelling evidence that they actually orchestrated and perpetrated 9/11. David Ray Griffin advances that theory with clarity in 9/11 and the American Empire at http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/47. The deaths of 3,000 American civilians in an attack that appeared to be carried out by terrorist representatives of the Middle East (with its coveted oil reserves) provided the Neocons and Oligarchs with a golden opportunity to mobilize the American people to engage in the invasion of Iraq, yet another scapegoat in this sick scenario. Given much of the world's justifiable hatred of America, it is unlikely that the terrorists needed much prompting by our leadership to carry out the attacks. Careful scrutiny of the evidence presented by Griffin, including the actions of our government before and after the strike, the nature of the strike on the Pentagon, and the collapse of the WTC towers, lends significant credibility to the idea that the Neocons and the Oligarchs were directly involved in the perpetration of the WTC tragedy.
Whether one believes the terrorists acted autonomously, or that the Neocons and Oligarchs sponsored the attacks, Bush, the Neocons and our other Oligarch leaders bear the responsibility for the deaths of the 3,000 Americans in the World Trade Center. Foreknowledge of the attacks and subsequent failure to defend our nation are crimes against the American people. Direct responsibility for the attacks represents an even more substantial crime. Both are grounds for impeachment, removal from office, and criminal prosecution.
Hope on the horizon
I still believe in the inherent decency of many of the people in the United States. Our Constitution is an unparalleled contract between citizens and government upon which to build a republic that fosters individual rights and freedom. A capitalistic economic system which includes government restraints and social welfare programs for the poor has proven to be beneficial to a majority of the American population in the past. Despite the ugly stains on our history, Americans made great evolutionary strides in the 20th Century toward realizing our tremendous potential for economic and social justice. However, under the Neocons, the Religious Right, and the Oligarchs, much of that progress is eroding. America is a nation comprised of millions of people and dynamics, and to expect it to live up to the idealized notions of truth, justice, and the American way would be unrealistic. Yet, the fact that the ideal is unattainable does not give us license to abandon the principles of our Constitution to the extent that we have. Americans have a choice. If enough people are willing to take an introspective look into the soul of our nation, and into our own souls, it is not too late to peaceably end the reign of the corrupt and restore America to a place of sanity, and dignity. People of conscience and critical thought need to stand up and say "enough" to the Oligarchs and Neocons. Together we can reclaim our nation and make it a true beacon of liberty!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/05/26/howTheMightyAreFalling.htmlWhy were Americans surprised at the attack of 9/11? The Neocons have convinced many Americans that our nation was an innocent victim of attacks of "evil terrorists". How naive can a person be? America, in its supreme arrogance and imperialistic endeavors, has been enraging people in foreign nations for years. If the terrorists did actually carry out these attacks autonomously, America was far from innocent. Was it tragic? Yes. Do the perpetrators deserve to be punished severely? Yes. However, America has been provoking people and nations for many years. Those who died in the World Trade Center that day were certainly innocent victims, but America as a nation was not.
In saying "if the terrorists did actually carry out" 9/11, I intentionally left the culpability ambiguous. While there is little doubt that Bush, the Neocons, and other members of the obscenely wealthy Oligarchy see http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Miller0517.htm knew that the strikes were going to occur and chose to allow them to happen, there is also compelling evidence that they actually orchestrated and perpetrated 9/11. David Ray Griffin advances that theory with clarity in 9/11 and the American Empire at http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/47. The deaths of 3,000 American civilians in an attack that appeared to be carried out by terrorist representatives of the Middle East (with its coveted oil reserves) provided the Neocons and Oligarchs with a golden opportunity to mobilize the American people to engage in the invasion of Iraq, yet another scapegoat in this sick scenario. Given much of the world's justifiable hatred of America, it is unlikely that the terrorists needed much prompting by our leadership to carry out the attacks. Careful scrutiny of the evidence presented by Griffin, including the actions of our government before and after the strike, the nature of the strike on the Pentagon, and the collapse of the WTC towers, lends significant credibility to the idea that the Neocons and the Oligarchs were directly involved in the perpetration of the WTC tragedy.
Whether one believes the terrorists acted autonomously, or that the Neocons and Oligarchs sponsored the attacks, Bush, the Neocons and our other Oligarch leaders bear the responsibility for the deaths of the 3,000 Americans in the World Trade Center. Foreknowledge of the attacks and subsequent failure to defend our nation are crimes against the American people. Direct responsibility for the attacks represents an even more substantial crime. Both are grounds for impeachment, removal from office, and criminal prosecution.
Hope on the horizon
I still believe in the inherent decency of many of the people in the United States. Our Constitution is an unparalleled contract between citizens and government upon which to build a republic that fosters individual rights and freedom. A capitalistic economic system which includes government restraints and social welfare programs for the poor has proven to be beneficial to a majority of the American population in the past. Despite the ugly stains on our history, Americans made great evolutionary strides in the 20th Century toward realizing our tremendous potential for economic and social justice. However, under the Neocons, the Religious Right, and the Oligarchs, much of that progress is eroding. America is a nation comprised of millions of people and dynamics, and to expect it to live up to the idealized notions of truth, justice, and the American way would be unrealistic. Yet, the fact that the ideal is unattainable does not give us license to abandon the principles of our Constitution to the extent that we have. Americans have a choice. If enough people are willing to take an introspective look into the soul of our nation, and into our own souls, it is not too late to peaceably end the reign of the corrupt and restore America to a place of sanity, and dignity. People of conscience and critical thought need to stand up and say "enough" to the Oligarchs and Neocons. Together we can reclaim our nation and make it a true beacon of liberty!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sweet little lies.... and crimes against humanity Why were Americans surprised at the attack of 9/11? The Neocons have convinced many Americans that our nation was an innocent victim of attacks of "evil terrorists". How naive can a person be? America, in its supreme arrogance and imperialistic endeavors, has been enraging people in foreign nations for years. If the terrorists did actually carry out these attacks autonomously, America was far from innocent. Was it tragic? Yes. Do the perpetrators deserve to be punished severely? Yes. However, America has been provoking people and nations for many years. Those who died in the World Trade Center that day were certainly innocent victims, but America as a nation was not. In saying "if the terrorists did actually carry out" 9/11, I intentionally left the culpability ambiguous. While there is little doubt that Bush, the Neocons, and other members of the obscenely wealthy Oligarchy see http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Miller0517.htm knew that the strikes were going to occur and chose to allow them to happen, there is also compelling evidence that they actually orchestrated and perpetrated 9/11. David Ray Griffin advances that theory with clarity in 9/11 and the American Empire at http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/47. The deaths of 3,000 American civilians in an attack that appeared to be carried out by terrorist representatives of the Middle East (with its coveted oil reserves) provided the Neocons and Oligarchs with a golden opportunity to mobilize the American people to engage in the invasion of Iraq, yet another scapegoat in this sick scenario. Given much of the world's justifiable hatred of America, it is unlikely that the terrorists needed much prompting by our leadership to carry out the attacks. Careful scrutiny of the evidence presented by Griffin, including the actions of our government before and after the strike, the nature of the strike on the Pentagon, and the collapse of the WTC towers, lends significant credibility to the idea that the Neocons and the Oligarchs were directly involved in the perpetration of the WTC tragedy. Whether one believes the terrorists acted autonomously, or that the Neocons and Oligarchs sponsored the attacks, Bush, the Neocons and our other Oligarch leaders bear the responsibility for the deaths of the 3,000 Americans in the World Trade Center. Foreknowledge of the attacks and subsequent failure to defend our nation are crimes against the American people. Direct responsibility for the attacks represents an even more substantial crime. Both are grounds for impeachment, removal from office, and criminal prosecution. Hope on the horizon I still believe in the inherent decency of many of the people in the United States. Our Constitution is an unparalleled contract between citizens and government upon which to build a republic that fosters individual rights and freedom. A capitalistic economic system which includes government restraints and social welfare programs for the poor has proven to be beneficial to a majority of the American population in the past. Despite the ugly stains on our history, Americans made great evolutionary strides in the 20th Century toward realizing our tremendous potential for economic and social justice. However, under the Neocons, the Religious Right, and the Oligarchs, much of that progress is eroding. America is a nation comprised of millions of people and dynamics, and to expect it to live up to the idealized notions of truth, justice, and the American way would be unrealistic. Yet, the fact that the ideal is unattainable does not give us license to abandon the principles of our Constitution to the extent that we have. Americans have a choice. If enough people are willing to take an introspective look into the soul of our nation, and into our own souls, it is not too late to peaceably end the reign of the corrupt and restore America to a place of sanity, and dignity. People of conscience and critical thought need to stand up and say "enough" to the Oligarchs and Neocons. Together we can reclaim our nation and make it a true beacon of liberty! |
http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/05/26/howTheMightyAreFalling.html
'Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be
maintained by violence. Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as their
method is inevitably forced to take the lie as their principle.'
'Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be
maintained by violence. Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as their
method is inevitably forced to take the lie as their principle.'
Alexander
Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn
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.