Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition - Part 2

R65031
5 years ago
lday

VO: “...unwilling to endorse a theory that… is unsupportable given the evidence currently available.”

People who want the truth known want the evidence publically available.
People who want to cover up the truth restrict the availability of evidence.

Then sophist apologists like you can say: but but but, you have no evidence.
Fancy words, but very shallow.


R65032
5 years ago
Geronimo_Skull

Great movie! Thanks for the link, Ras.


R65034
5 years ago
Shogo

“People who want to cover up the truth restrict the availability of evidence.”

No amount of evidence would convince the conspiracy nutters Larry. As it is we have a great example of why the 707/767 comparison is totally inappropriate, and it has yet to even be acknowledged.

Conspiracy nutters feel overwhelmed by the world, they are dysfunctional. They construct these elaborate theories to deal with their feelings of inadequacy and lack of control over their lives.

If nothing else, GNN is a great place to observe crazy in captivity.


R65041
5 years ago
viaossa

Iday impugns: Then sophist apologists like you can say: but but but, you have no evidence.

It’s true. You have no evidence. I’ve made my position regarding this lack of evidence abundantly clear, using it as one of the reasons I reject the “explosives” theory. In the process, I’ve consistently had that position maligned as “apologetic” by intolerant nitwits such as yourself.

The fact that you cannot even salvage enough plausibility for your fallacious argument to warrant the term “sophistic” is neither my fault, nor my problem.

-VO


R65043
5 years ago
lday

The nuttiest conspiracy theory involves 19 Arab patsies.

Even the starkest of evidence, like the obvious aliveness of many of the
supposed suicide hijackers,
does not dissuade those who hold to the official conspiracy theory.

America is currently more dysfunctional than this GNN group.

If Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice decide the pressure is getting too much
so they will play the ‘blame the Jews’ card and arrest Zackheim, Silverstein, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc etc would that alter your opinion of the official story?


R65044
5 years ago
zark

lday – There were hundreds of eye-witnesses to the jet hitting the Pentagon. There was, in fact, a giant morning traffic jam right next to the fucking thing. A traffic jam that the jet flew over on it’s way to crashing into the building

i was asking Shogo because ve says that ve doesnt trust eyewitness’s unless they are authority figures….

the eyewitness’s to the plane/ufo hitting the pentagon are then out in vis argument.. so ;;;;

what do you think about the pentagon thingy shogo?

There were hundreds of eye-witnesses to the jet hitting the Pentagon. There was, in fact, a giant morning traffic jam right next to the fucking thing. A traffic jam that the jet flew over on it’s way to crashing into the building

you are not being consistant Shogo… you believe the eye-witnesses who say they say a passenger jet.. yet there are witness’s who say they saw a light aircraft.

there is no proof a passenger jet hit the pentagon.. please be consistant

or lets put it in real terms

a ufo travelling at 300mph.. even tho the official line is around 500mph … is 480kmph …

= 133 m/s

and these eye witness’s saw the plane???
from meters away..

dunno about you but thats a streak of white in the air.. not summit you can look at and study..

plus the wind turbulance.. that would clean out your ears a bit

plus not to mention, if someone was that close to a 757 jet.. the wind would lift you up and spit you out.

dont planes have safety ranges for flying because wind turbulance created can be dangerous for other planes in the wake of them??

Post Modified: 06/20/05 15:51:44

R65046
5 years ago
JustLurking

heh… what a train wreck.

So lurky has followed this thread and leaned back in his chair more than a couple of times.

A mess of folks sitting inside their box having access to a couple of peepholes, opening the little hatch, allowing a few digits, and a stream of alphabets to pour in. A mess of connotation occurs. Forget denoting, that would be just too weird. In response, the other peepholes send off more digits, and a slew of alphabetical symbols in the name of a reply.

We call this communicating.

Laugh at my analogy. But at the base level, little else has happened. I thought it might be worth pointing that out, since it’s rather 101. First order of events. In this medium not much else is even possible. Well okay, there’s been pictures.

Now I’m an alphabet hater, right ?... wrong.

Furthermore, this medium must suck IMO. It’s not worth anything considering there isn’t anything else we can do while restricted to the limitations while using the tools and methods forced upon us by.. “an Internet Forum”....

wrong again.

Thought I’d better get that shite out of the way as well before I continue.

There’s been a lot of discussion on how the conclusions ought to be arrived at. What methods should be used, which ones are appropriate. There’s also been a lot of noise. Maybe that’s why so many folks couldn’t hear anything above it.

Anyways, as to Via’s statement…

I’m also not denying the possibility of an inside job, but as is typical throughout this thread, either I swallow your or Continuity or Rasputin’s nauseating logic in its totality, or I’m “defending” the official story. – Via

The first line really doesn’t tell us a whole lot. Deliberately, I assume. Typical of Via’s approach, his truncated statements, contributions… a highly developed, well refined style, that sometimes resembles the stainless personality of a surgical tool. I’m not knockin it. He’s very good at it. And it takes energy to bring something to that level. We can only assume what part of himself he’s invested into it, considering the work that’s gone into it. Hell I’ve even attempted to borrow some of it. Horribly at times. I’ll admit that, because I’ll admit I like some of it. It’s nothing personal, unlike Shogo who wishes to coddle it, admire it… all the contours, it’s weightyness, possibly even it’s faint salty smell. Yes I’m referring to his cock. We all know how much Shogo loves Via’s cock.

That said, Via’s prolly an ok guy. Prolly has a set of ethics. Something that seems to litter his blogs, absent more so when he forums. I’d prolly enjoy chattin with him over a couple cause by test, he’s one of the few guys who’s shown the ability to hear what’s being said as opposed to hearing “the noise” that goes off in the head, which is what most people listen to. By demonstration they only “hear themselves responding” to what you said. Chances are you’re nowhere to be found inside of that rubble. Well maybe somewhere, buried deep in the back. I plan on gettin me one of them cardboard cut outs of myself and a tape recorder. Set it down, “push play” and let them have their own party. Be about as useful. Save me a mess of time. I’m usually all alone in the conversation anyways.

Via causes trouble for some folks by carefully dancin about with non committal responses at times. So.. an unspoken invitation for denotation ?.. maybe. In any case, some folks seems to take this as “cue” to connotate the shit out of it… ( maybe because he left out the part “not to” ?)... who the fuck knows. But it happens a lot. Sometimes I think he likes to even prod and poke it some. Just to see what the thing will do. In any case, the tendency always seems to lean towards a mess of connotations. The easier route maybe. I don’t know. In any case, problems begin popping up all over.

He claims to have no desire to influence anyone here. Which I figure is partially true, and part BS as well. Nobody does that in here, at least for extended periods of time. Unless they are into pure unadulterated mental masturbation. Well ok, there’s Shogo, who’s shown me more brain semen that I thought was possible for one man.

Deliberately driving people mad by refusing to place your latch into their eye hook might even serve a purpose. Hell I’ve done it and I think it’s useful at times. There’s agenda’s to consider. But I think it’s hurt the discussion here, even though I think some of it has been appropriate.

That said there’s been what I believe to be some unwarranted responses to Continuity’s hypothesis. Is anyone hearing that part ? I mean the hypothesis part. Somehow I failed to see the part where Continuity suggested that it wasn’t. Seems to me he made a couple attempts, rather futile ones in suggesting that himself. According to some, for him to continue tossing them up for debate makes him utterly and incredibly st00pid, a crack pot, and many other labels to many list. I see nothing wrong with him sending up any criteria up for question. I’m a bit surprised by the charged emotional content (guess I shouldn’t be) delivered by some of the replies.

Largely…. there are two positions here, polarized to each other. The data and information presented by those in the field, namely structural engineers. (I’ll ignore the WH version for now). And the opposing argument(s) presented by Continuity and others that the data might not satisfactorily explain some of the circumstances. Namely the manner in which all of it occurred in this particular “one of kind” event.

Snark points out a couple of things I thought were quite intelligent and ought to be heard. Albeit with an air of hopelessness suggesting he see’s it falling on deaf ears. Which is odd in itself for reasons I won’t go into here. But I think if his message was actually engaged, it might help to clear a whole lot of un-necessary bullshit.

I’ve looked at a lot of the data. Some of Via’s link’s I believe were helpful to the discussion. Not only was this my old mans area of expertise, but he went on to not only being responsible for inspecting, but passing and or failing the structures, planned and erected by structural engineers. His call could actually trump theirs. I never went on to become a structural engineer myself but God knows I heard enough about the shit, not to mention I’ve been in related areas of the field for parts of my life.

Couple of things to consider. Occams razor. Indeed a useful tool and a method designed to eliminate the infinite explanations that could be created to explain anything. The method does not guarantee it’s conclusions. It’s a quicker path to the most likely conclusion… maybe, but it ends there.

Furthermore, Shogo’s most recent attempt to slag Continuity’s proposition could be seen as a double edged sword. He claims that Continuity is failing to factor in an additional 50 tons, coupled with velocity. I’m not sure whether Continuity is or isn’t. But I will say this. That additional 50 tons plowed into the side of WTC would have made a significant and measurable (given the opportunity) difference. Enough to make all the difference? ... when it comes to crippling the core ? From what I can see, it’s inconclusive. There’s nothing definitive from either side. Not everyone in the field seems to even agree. In other words both of the arguments are speculative. I’ve never counted the percentages as to how many suggest yes… “totally plausible” as opposed to “not fucking likely”.

In a nutshell, I’m inclined to agree with Via, in that there’s been nothing at all “conclusive” to truly support the explosives demolition theory. It’s all pretty speculative. I’d even say reaching, not too mention circumstantial evidence at best, which leaves us grappling with “hypothesis”.

That said I do have some trouble with Via’s approach to Continuity’s investigative approach. If C’s propositions are to be confused with fact and assertion, then we have a problem. I certainly don’t consider C’s propositions to be anything more than hypothesis to be pulled apart for inspection. (is everyone assuming that he’s suggesting otherwise ?) Why is this so difficult. I don’t get it.

As Snark seems to suggest, it might only lead to another dead end road. There’s an inescapable (and frustrating for some) absence of empirical data to be had. Critical elements of this event will never be had. However, who’s to say that by way of parsing through some of C’s propositions an even bigger wrench is found that further disassembles the official story. Small prize maybe, but maybe it’s the one everyone will have to settle for. There’s a gazillion to 1 chance something he presents illuminates some critical piece of data not factored in, or utterly missed by structural data that’s been presented in this thread alone. Something that topples the whole house of cards. I haven’t seen it yet. But time willing I’ll entertain it. I’d much rather do that instead of slagging each and every hypothesis he presents with childish epithets and tangents. That’s the realm of lawyers and semanticists. It’s not science.

I suppose connotations were made over Continuity’s remarks, which were seen as innuendo, suggesting that if you’re unwilling to consider his propositions then you’re a tool for the administration. Whatever, whether he intended that or didn’t is a connotation that concerns me less.

There is one particular bit that bothers me throughout all of the explanations I’ve seen here. One that Continuity has remarked on as well.

WCT 1 and 2.
I’m convinced that the pancake theory is plausible. I mean when I look to some of the links Via provides and others I’ve seen, there’s nothing horribly out of sync there for me. But it all rests on the supposition that the core was badly damaged enough for those buildings to come down the way they did. Even with a little background a person can see that in the video footage. Were these particular airplanes enough to cause the fatal damage to bring them down like that ? Seems uncertain. We don’t know. Continuity doesn’t know, nor does Via, nor do I, nor do the experts even agree on that particular point entirely. Some have suggested, the build should have withstood it. But since I have nothing else to go on I have to heavily entertain the idea they weren’t and that’s how it happened, even though I have some doubts in the back of mind.

And it’s WTC7 that does it for me, which I have some serious problems with. This doesn’t mean I’ve bought the “explosive demolitions theory”. I’m just saying under the circumstances the odds seem astronomical.

The fuel line fire must have been worse than we thought?... That’s it ? Just happened to happen on the very same day the others came down ? I really have some trouble with that. Had I heard that WTC7 literally collapsed to a fuel line fire one day on it’s own, I would have thought, sheeyet, that’s some fire.. that’s some fuel line !

But when that’s the only explanation I’m given in conjunction with all the other mayhem that went down and I’m asked to accept that ?... I find it insulting to my intelligence that I am expected to accept it at face value.

I don’t know what actually did bring *all three* of em down like that in succession. But there’s this thing called reasonable doubt. And if I was on a panel of jurists, and I was asked to accept that line as an explanation, under this particular day and event and was asked to make a definitive conclusion with absolute certainty that’s what happened.. I couldn’t do it. There’s just too much goddamn doubt in my mind just on the odds alone. I’d need better than that.

My doubts don’t explain shit. Certainly doesn’t support the “E D theory”. Not with any real certainty by a long shot. But in my guts, the sequence of events alone and the explanation I’m given tells me something’s just not right in Pleasantville if you know what I mean. It’s not fact, it’s not certainty. The whole thing just doesn’t seem logical or fall to probability. I’d sure like to hear something a little more convincing than that.


R65047
5 years ago
Schneibster

Larry, as far as the Pentagon goes, there are just too many witnesses that saw a large civilian aircraft, from too far away to be confused by its speed, but too close to be deceived as to its size and type. Not to mention holes of the correct size at the correct locations punched by the engines after they detached from the airframe, and a shitload of obfuscation about the pictures of the damage to the Pentagon. Most people don’t know it, but engines are attached to modern aircraft by one or a few large pins that hold their mounting bracket to a corresponding bracket on the wing or fuselage. There are harnesses for electronic/electrical connections, and for fuel, and for pneumatics (in some cases)- but none of these harnesses are particularly strong. It’s the pins that keep the engine on the plane. How do I know this? Well, my grandmother was a cable-and-harness designer for Boeing, and I have personally watched the replacement of the inboard port engine of a 747 from the departure lounge at DFW, a plane that I subsequently flew to Paris in. So no whining about “experts” or other straw-man attacks, please- they’ll just make you look ridiculous.

In a crash, it is quite common to see the engines detach from the plane and go flying off somewhere. And the fact that these engines (at the Pentagon) did precisely that is pretty compelling evidence: the types of missiles that have been suggested don’t have those types of engines, and if they did, the explosive charge would destroy it before it had a chance to punch a hole in a curtain wall. I could google up some crash reports to support it, but I don’t really need to; they’re all over the ‘Net; try googling up the Pan Am crash at LAX from the seventies, in which one of the engines went through three houses and killed some people, or the United crash at DFW in the eighties from wind shear in a thunderstorm, in which the engines were found half a mile from the impact site.

To top it all off, the gas station footage (which contrary to your assertions was publicly posted on the ‘Net, and fuelled many conspiracy theories by the mathematically challenged) clearly shows a large aircraft prior to impact, and it is unquestionably of the size and type that other evidence indicates. The only analysis of the film that concluded otherwise made substantial mathematical errors in attempting to discover the size of the portrayed aircraft- and when I corrected those errors, the size conformed to that indicated by, again, the other evidence. I’m sorry you don’t understand math, and sorry that trigonometry was your downfall, but the evidence is as conclusive as a single frame of an aircraft going several hundred miles an hour can well be.

Last but not least, the evidence presented in Crossing the Rubicon is extensive, and IMO conclusive, on the fact that there were people on those planes with the expertise to fly them in precisely the manner described. I have read it twice cover to cover, the second time stopping to confirm each footnote, where possible (some links were moved, most of which I was able to re-find, and some had been completely removed, but other links were available in most cases that permitted multiple confirmation that they had existed at the time they were researched, and that they contained the material Rupert claims they did). So a simple question: if you’ve got ready-to-die people flying planes and fully prepared to smash them into buildings, what kind of idiot would you have to be to create unnecessary and potentially compromising evidence using explosives that are unnecessary in the first place? Hello, this is a major contradiction in demolition and missile theories. It’s just not reasonable; belt and suspenders, anyone? How about wearing body armor to drive to work in your tank?

On the other hand, 7 WTC obviously didn’t get enough damage from the collapses of 1 and 2 WTC to destroy the inconvenient SEC records, and equally obviously was an easy target after the collapses of 1 and 2 WTC; but why, again, does it have to be all or none? Hey, they tried to get the deed done with a big fire, but it just didn’t spread enough to get the job done; the records weren’t being burned. OK, so “pull it.” ‘Nuff said.


R65052
5 years ago
lday

VO,
Why don’t I have evidence?
Because the U.S. oligarchy controls it and won’t release it.
In fact gags on firemen, FAA operators, Sybil Edmonds, etc,
strongly suggests that they do not want the evidence available.
Where is the ‘swiss cheese’ holey steel sample?
I didn’t take it. Your oligarchs did.

The truth doesn’t need to suppress evidence;
the lie does.

You claim to be a skeptic but historically only demonstrated it
regarding ideas that conflict with whatever is the then current official story.

Isn’t ’19 Arabs’ conspiracy theory
simply conveniently political for your pro-Israel agenda?

You may hope that that conspiracy theory is true,
like Netanyahu said on BBC on 9/11:
“It’s very good for us…”
I saw that on tv.
He blurted it out, then rewound with a more politically sensitive qualification
about Americans understanding the terrorist dangers that Israel faces everyday.

But that also exculpates him as a 9/11 insider since if he’d known in advance
then he would have prepared a less insensitive comment.

However the famous ‘dancing Israeli movers’ filming the WTC collapse also seemed to be celebrating.
hmmm..


R65058
5 years ago
Shogo

“Enough to make all the difference? ... when it comes to crippling the core ?”

The point, simply, is that while the building may have been built to withstand a 707 (though even there, we’re short on crucial specifics such as did they mean a 707 filled with fuel at high speed or a 707 with minimal fuel on a landing approach?) it was not built to withstand a 767. And since we’re talking about planes traveling at very high speed, that’s a huge difference in lateral force those structures are being exposed to.

Going back to Occam’s Razor, that is the simplest and therfore most likely explanation for the collapse of the towers.

While Snark is arguing for agnosticism, I’m arguing that even entertaining a demolitions hypothesis in the absence of any evidence is irresponsible at best. Of course, the nutters like Florence assume that there’s no evidence because it was squirreled away. However, nowhere in the footage of the falling towers are any of the hallmark characteristics of a controlled demolition visible.

It’s fantasy, pure and simple.


R65062
5 years ago
Shogo

“you are not being consistant Shogo… you believe the eye-witnesses who say they say a passenger jet.”

Of course. Because what they saw is consistent with the physical evidence recovered from the Pentagon. You see how that works? There is physical evidence, eyewitness evidence, and a missing plane with a bunch of dead passengers and crewmen.


R65066
5 years ago
JustLurking

The point, simply, is that while the building may have been built to withstand a 707 (though even there, we’re short on crucial specifics such as did they mean a 707 filled with fuel at high speed or a 707 with minimal fuel on a landing approach?) it was not built to withstand a 767. And since we’re talking about planes traveling at very high speed, that’s a huge difference in lateral force those structures are being exposed to.

well I’m assuming they factored in the high speed part.. as opposed to planes that ran out of fuel and.. fell?... from the sky. I’m not in disagreement with the specs given for what the building was meant to sustain. I can hardly argue that. But the argument in itself isn’t so simple. Typically most load bearing trusses, columns, beams, and what have you are “rated” according to the what they will withstand and then some. I’ve never seen or heard of engineers designing shit right up to the sheering / failure threshold points etc. The “codes” don’t even allow for that. So we can “assume”, speculate, that the WTC was designed to take a full on hit by a 707 and sustain it…. and then some. Although in this particular case I’ve no idea what this “then some” was.

It’s pure speculation on my part, but I have trouble accepting that this 50 ton variance ( fuel inc ) was the “critical” difference unless it was under ideal circumstances, as in a “perfect hit” ( angle and velocity) where every ounce of this differential was fully absorbed by the impact and subsequently played havoc with the specs and what the building was designed for. That didn’t seem to be the case here. The closer it nears being a glance as opposed to a full on hit, the more it’s going to lessen the impact of that differential significantly. By how much ?.. I haven’t clue other than for every degree the hit is less than ideal, the closer it’s going to resemble a 707. The variances could add up to a lot, ebnding up insignificant even. Again, who the fuck knows what the exact specs on what actually happened are. Not me, if anyone at this point.

What I’m saying is that I’m inclined to look for other explanations or at least additional ones. Maybe the engineers plain fucked up and under estimated in their design. We had a relatively new Mega Food store in Vancouver literally collapse during open hours. Fortunately someone noticed something odd in the ceiling, said something and everyone got out. It was an engineering fuck up plain and simple.

I dunno.

I’d be much more inclined to accept it a face value if it wasn’t for this pesky little WTC 7 problem. If someone could give me a better explanation other than… all the stars and Venus were lined up perfectly to allow this miraculous event to go down as it did, at the precise moment it did and only then. (the highjackers knew this of course being such being exspurts in teh astrology ) I’d wouldn’t have this reluctance going on.. the motivating factor that makes want to look a little deeper and question the shit in general.

I’m not saying it’s impossible that the differential you bring wasn’t responsible. Might have done it. But the sequence of events, when factoring WTC7 really bugs the hell out of me and makes me less inclined to accept shit at face value. Like I said. I would really like to see something pat on that, that makes me think okay… maybe nuthin fishy here after all. Right now, I’m all ears. Doesn’t mean I buy into any of the edgy shit, but I’m listening to all the angles including those.


R65068
5 years ago
Shogo

“I have trouble accepting that this 50 ton variance ( fuel inc ) was the “critical” difference”

50 tons is merely the weight difference between the planes. In point of fact, we don’t know what the top speed for a 707 is, but I’d be willing to bet that’s far less than the Mach .8 that the 767 is capable of. The WTC was built in the ’60s, and to assume that airplane technology hasn’t advanced in that timeframe would be foolish.

We’re dealing with a plane that is far heavier, likely faster, and possibly more rigidly constructed. All three of which could result in exponentially greater force than a 707 could produce. You’re also leaving out the relationship between mass and velocity. A significantly heavier airplane at higher speed makes a big difference in the net force applied to the building.

“But the sequence of events, when factoring WTC7 really bugs the hell out of me”

That’s a variation of the Gambler’s fallacy.

Believing something in the absence of evidence is the equivalent of religious faith.


R65072
5 years ago
viaossa

Iday writes: You claim to be a skeptic but historically only demonstrated it regarding ideas that conflict with whatever is the then current official story.

I claim to be a skeptic despite your inability to accurately interpret historical data. From your perspective, everyone who disagrees with you is an apologist for the “official” story. I acknowledge this, but I have very little desire to make room for your fanaticism when deciding what to believe.

-VO


R65073
5 years ago
viaossa

JustLurking writes: If C’s propositions are to be confused with fact and assertion, then we have a problem. I certainly don’t consider C’s propositions to be anything more than hypothesis to be pulled apart for inspection. (is everyone assuming that he’s suggesting otherwise ?) Why is this so difficult. I don’t get it.

If? OK… maybe you aren’t reading the same repetitious and biased posts that I am, so let me reproduce a few of Continuity’s past writings so that we’re on the same page.

The only way the towers could “naturally collapse” would be due to non-thermal, physical damage to their super-reinforced cores.

Is this statement phrased in any way that could be considered hypothetical? I don’t believe it is. It is a statement of absolutes. A foregone conclusion. You and I both know that thermal damage to steel occurs at temperatures significantly below its melting point. So it should not be treated as a priori fact that non-thermal damage is the only explanation. Continuity treats it as such.

The WTC buildings could take a direct hit from a fully loaded 707, which was the largest jumbo jet at the time of construction. A 707 looks just as big, or bigger, than the planes which hit the WTC.

Here we have hearsay confused with irrefutable proof. I know the source of this “direct hit by 707” idea originated with quotes from members of the original engineering team and architects, but I also know that there is no way to guarantee, structurally, that a building can withstand such a complex and devastating event.

Unless anyone is inclined to confuse my skepticism for “apologism”, let me reiterate… I am skeptical that these buildings actually could with any degree of certainty, survive an impact with a 707. I think it was in the best interests of the building owners and architects to assure the public that they could, however.

Windsor Building, absolutely gutted by intense fire, and yet its steel beams and reinforced core (very much like the WTC cores) stood strong

Here we have not only a statement of conjecture masquerading as fact (that the central cores of the windsor building were, in fact, much like the WTC cores), but an invalid comparison as well. The WTC was nearly four times as tall, weighed god knows how much more, and its ability to withstand lateral force had been compromised by smashing a jet plane into its outer load bearing walls. It’s not an apples/oranges comparison. It’s an apples/bowling ball comparison.

Therefore, the antenna is our visual marker that the core gives out first. It’s not the outside of the building, not the trusses, or corners. It’s the core pulling everything down

This is conjecture, but phrased as a statement of fact. In the image used, the tower is guyed to the outside walls of the building. Can its collapse be explained by failure of the external structure to which the support cabling was attached. Sure. Is it possible to rule out central column failure? No. Can you rule out any possibility with this piece of “evidence”? Apparently not. So why bother using it to make some conclusive sounding argument?

The Popular Mechanics article was written by the current Homeland Security Secretary’s cousin, Cherto-whatever. Both are Bush-supporting NeoCons.

Here, rather than any refutation of the data presented by the PM article, we have an attempt to invalidate through some bogus “guilt by association” tactic.

The core columns from the impact area to the roof lost cohesion. Which means roughly 20 floors of core just disintegrated nearly all at once in about 1 second.

This is another example of conjecture being phrased as fact.

If there was a demolition, the point would be first and foremost to take the building down reasonably in and around its footprint.

How do we know what the point would be? Never mind that the complexity involved with attempting to achieve this point makes the “covert ops planted explosives” theory even less plausible since the amount of work and preparation involved would increase dramatically.

The fire in WTC2 was less powerful because we visibly saw most of the fuel blow up.

Here is another statement of conjecture masquerading as “fact”.

Also, Marvin Bush’s company, Securocom , was in charge of major amounts of security for the WTC complex. Does anyone find that odd? Or is it just something else to be glossed over in the Coincidence Theory files?

...

An interesting coincidence to add to the overall Co-inky-dink Theory.

This passage is objectionable, not so much for the unsupported nature of the allegations, or the plainly obvious insinuation that Marvin Bush is complicit in the destruction of WTC, but also because the characterization of the opposing viewpoint as “the coincidence theory” makes Continuity’s bias plain. He cannot claim with any credibility whatsoever that he is “hungry to hear” all sides.

The demolition of any external support columns would not be required.

Again, a statement of conjecture masquerading as fact. Since the external support columns were, in fact, the external walls in their entirety, and were load bearing, and were responsible for absorbing the majority of lateral stress, I find it highly unlikely that any plan to demolish these structures would not include them. But that’s my opinion, stated as such.

you know even less than me when it comes to controlled demolition…

Not only a conjecture stated as fact, offered with no attempt whatsoever to ascertain my familiarity with controlled demolition, but an ad hominem attempt to invalidate my position. In other words, Continuity has no idea how much stuff I’ve blown up. But he wants you to believe that it’s less than it is.

It is clear that the plane which hit WTC2 did not deal serious damage to its core, which you call the critical load-bearing structural components.

Can I just say “Conjecture as fact”, and you’ll know what I’m talking about?

We all know that molten steel was found in the lower basements of WTC 1 and 2.

An appeal to common knowledge which is, in fact, not true. I do not know for a fact that molten steel was found at either of the WTC. I do know that Tully reported molten steel, and I have no doubt that some molten or slag metal was found on site… I’ve seen entire engine blocks melted down after car fires which burned with less fuel and less time than the WTC fires did. So it stands to reason that molten metal was found on site. On the other hand, I don’t know for a fact that it was steel. Neither does Continuity.

But that’s typical. Throughout this thread, Continuity has worked from a foregone conclusion and has selectively interpreted or misconstrued all available information to support that conclusion. You call it “investigation”, I call it “bollocks”.

Tomato. Tomato.

-VO


R65074
5 years ago
Continuity

Schneibster,

Good to see you, man. You’re one of the few people I really enjoyed debating when it came to 9/11. You at least took it very seriously and had healthy curiosity. Not sure I believed all your opinions, but vice versa no doubt with me. At least your authentic curiosity about WTC7 is admirable.

I will get back to the Hear-No-See-No-Evil Team in a second. First I must respectively challenge you on something important you wrote. My theory on the Pentagon is still not set. Don’t hate me, but I caught you writing this:

Last but not least, the evidence presented in Crossing the Rubicon is extensive, and IMO conclusive, on the fact that there were people on those planes with the expertise to fly them in precisely the manner described.

Schnieb, I have my copy of Rubicon in front of me. This is what Ruppert actually wrote:

SO WHO WAS FLYING THOSE THINGS ANYWAY? (p 348)

Especially with the case of Flight 77, which was, as 9/11-widow Kristen Breitweiser testified, ‘performing loop de loops” over the Pentagon, some serious flying was done on September 11th. Flight 77 not only flew straight toward the Pentagon from near the Ohio-West Virginia border, it made a sudden U-turn over Washington so that it could hit the Pentagon in a virtually unoccupied wing on the navy side. It also descended several thousand feet in a sharp dive and was able to pull out and approach the Pentagon just feet above the ground, without colliding with anything other than some trees and a streetlight.

Continues (p.349)...

So who was piloting Flight 77? According to ABC you have your choice between our charmed lucky friends, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, or Wail Alshehri. According to multiple sources all three were poor and experienced pilots. Someone made great progress in the summer of 2001. Or maybe it wasn’t necessary.

Page 350:

Experienced military pilots with thousands of hours in all kinds of aircraft, Gary Eitel for example, have told me that the maneuver performed by Flight 77, as described in official reports, was beyond 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world…. Flight 77 boggled his mind.

Ruppert then (p.349+) describes how unlikely it was that any of these Arab men were flying, including the terrible pilot, Hani Hanjour; he describes how the some of so-called hijackers received all kinds of non-flying training at US military bases; how the Flight 77 boys rented a place right next to NSA headquarters; how others lived next to other Intel sites, etc…

It goes on and on. Ruppert lists all the problems with Flight 77, or what he calls the ‘Miracle Plane’. He doesn’t outright dispute that a plane flew over the Pentagon, though he brings up evidence regarding the actual strike and the lack of evidence that it was a 757. Then on Page 351, Ruppert says outright:

I have never believed that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon…. I was now absolutely convinced that some valuable and highly trained assets were among the so-called hijackers and that those assets could NOT have accomplished the flying required on 9/11. Their behavior was more consistent with the creation of a detailed “legend” to make the public believe they had done the deed.

Schnieb: So a simple question: if you’ve got ready-to-die people flying planes and fully prepared to smash them into buildings, what kind of idiot would you have to be to create unnecessary and potentially compromising evidence using explosives that are unnecessary in the first place?

My opinion slants toward Ruppert’s angle. Those supposed hijackers were probably not kamikaze superpilots, but just legends and patsies. It is questionable as to whether the planes could have singlehandedly destroyed the WTC towers, and extremely questionable in regards to WTC7.

There is a fair chance that the planes served as the highly pyrotechnic smokeshow.

Okay, now back to the WTC collapses…

Post Modified: 06/20/05 18:13:29

R65076
5 years ago
Schneibster

Here’s a simple little bit of math that will give everyone an idea of what the extra 50 tons means:

E(k) = 1/2mv^2

It means that kinetic energy is proportional to the mass, and to the square of the velocity; twice as much mass makes twice as much energy, but twice as much velocity makes four times as much energy.

In practical terms, it means that the difference in likely velocity between the projected 707 impact and the actual 767 impact is far more important than the mass difference. So what is that velocity difference?

According to Boeing’s site, the gross takeoff weight of a 707-320 is 336,000 lbs, and it has four turbofans providing 18,000 lbs thrust each, for a total of 72,000 lbs. Its typical cruising speed is just over 600mph. The 767, on the other hand, can carry 450,000 lbs, which is considerably more, almost a third. It has two 63,000 lb engines, for a total thrust of a much more impressive 127,000 lbs (it’s actually 63,500 or 63,300 per engine depending on the model). So if Josh’s 50,000 lbs estimate, based on the fact the plane was not totally loaded, is accurate, then that 767 could carry as much as three or four times (!) the kinetic energy of the 707 on a landing approach that the WTC survival estimate was made on. But Josh, the argument that the 767 can go substantially faster than the 707 is not correct; the 707 had a top speed of about 630 mph, and a cruising speed of just over 600 mph, whereas the 767 cruises at only 530 mph, but can reach a top speed of over 650 mph. On a landing approach, however, the 707 is much more likely to be going 300 mph or less, whereas the fully driven 767 that hit the WTC was apparently going over 500 mph; that’s easily three times the punch of the 707 on approach, and perhaps as much as four times, easily enough to cause the destruction we witnessed; considering that, the really surprising thing is that the towers stood as long as they did, not that they eventually fell.

In regard to rigid construction, however, that is almost certainly incorrect. The 707 was designed at a time when computer simulation was not the norm in aircraft design and when our understanding of materials science was nowhere near what it is now. It was designed to take people from point A to point B, which was a relatively new thing at the time. The 767, on the other hand, was designed to be much more efficient- burn less fuel per passenger-mile, to be blunt. And to do that, it had to be designed much closer to the actual stresses it was designed to experience- less metal, less weight. Thus, the rigidity of the 707 is almost certainly a fair bit greater than that of the 767. But it really doesn’t matter; compared to the concrete and steel of the WTC tower, neither the 707 nor the 767 has a great deal of structural strength; their main effect was certain to be kinetic energy, rather than more direct structural damage.


R65078
5 years ago
Continuity

Viaossa,

Evidence, real legal evidence, from what I understand, is created and accepted in court when a person holds up their hand, swears on the Bible, and tells their story to the court. Certain evidentiary items can be blocked from being on the official record, due to disputes over relevance, etc. The evidence is then pooled, considered, put to the test, etc…

So if one of the experts I’ve listed opens his mouth and gives their educated opinion in court, that’s evidence. For instance, many people have noted that the WTC fires were oxygen-starved, smoking very blackly, fuel-rich, dying in parts, etc… Another might note that the WTC could have survived these fires easily. Another might testify that the WTC cores had suffered lethal damage, and yet this is questionable in the case of WTC2. In court, all these observations would be recorded as articles of official evidence, whether you as a bystander believe them relevant or not.

The trouble is, everyone interested in a major court case in regards to 9/11 criminality & conspiracy has been blocked from launching such a case.

It’s also weird that the people in control of most of the evidence, and its intepretation, are either related in some way to the Bush cartel or part of the fedgov (i.e. FEMA, Pentagon, Dept of Commerce). They are the ones swearing oaths on the Bible.


R65079
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo, I see now that the 707 was lighter. Even if you send this info at me with acid, I still appreciate it. Then again, the maximum fuel loads were more or less the same. The 707 cruised faster as well. And DeMartini said—-a fully loaded 707. On Sept 11, the 767 planes that struck everywhere didn’t have very many passengers. Another source, which I will link for you, says that the planes which hit the WTC were not fully fueled due to their relatively short flight plans, and might have had only 10,000 gallons.

Schnieb, thanks for the 707-767 analysis. I myself won’t immediately imply that a 707 would probably not destroy a tower, but a 767 definitely would. Shogo is kind of doing this. I need more time and info to look into it.

Here is the video quotation again from Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management.

Quote:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door — this intense grid — and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Then we have the computer simulation (using MS software) which I linked on a previous page. It shows the effects of a Boeing 747, which is bigger than a 767 supposedly, violently striking the core of WTC1. End result: the core is still quite viable.

Question to all—— How many people here think that WTC2’s core took a crippling blow, knocking out inner columns and exposing the rest to fire? It was the 2nd plane that hit a corner and popped out the other side in a fireball.

Post Modified: 06/20/05 18:57:06

R65082
5 years ago
neverknwo

What about this Idea ?

TPTB used weaponry that couldn’t be traced.”:http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/Gallery/Images/Full/VMADS-art-03.jpg
A humvee—shown in this artist concept—has been modified to carry Actve Denial Technology, a technology that uses a millimeter wave beam of energy to create an intense heating sensation in an adversary. The sensation causes targeted individuals to repel or retreat.

PULSE-POWER RESEARCH IS CONDUCTED”:http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/Gallery/Images/Full/Shiva.jpg
Named after the Hindu god of destruction, this device called Shiva is allowing the Directorate to conduct pulse-power research and an ability to create plasma projectiles.*

For example the movie “Under siege 2” showed how it’s was possible that spaced based weaponry could Vaporize Solid Objects.
In contrast, the particle-beam weapon (PBW) has been the “sleeper” among directed-energy weapons until very recently. Enshrouded in secrecy, it began as a project sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (now called Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency better known as DARPA) as early as 1958, two years before the first scientific laser demonstration in 1960. Code-named Seesaw, the project was designed to study the possible use of particle beams for ballistic missile defense. Today while its development lags that of the high energy laser, the particle-beam weapon is viewed by some military technicians as the follow-on weapon to the laser, because of its higher potential lethality.

Could the Terrorists they claim flew the planes tie together and have the particle beam weapons too?

Those towers were coming down with or without the help of planes?

SHIVA STAR “:http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/pa/factsheets/shiva.html
“Now I am become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds…” Physicist Robert Oppenheimer – Supervising Scientist Manhattan Project. Pulsed power has been used since the 1950’s for simulation of nuclear weapons effects. Nuclear weapons produce high levels of x-rays, which disrupt or destroy sensitive electronic equipment. Satellites are very susceptible to x-rays since the atmosphere normally absorbs x-rays. To produce a high level of x-rays similar to a nuclear weapon, an electron beam is generated by a pulsed power system and aimed at a heavy metal target, such as tantalum. As the electrons are slowed down or stopped by the heavy metal, x-rays are produced. This techniques produces a short burst of high energy x-rays similar, though at a much lower intensity, to those produced by the detonation of a nuclear device. Shiva has been used to develop the technology to go into simulators to increase the amount of x-rays produced and to improve the quality of those x-rays to better simulate a nuclear weapon.

Post Modified: 06/20/05 19:17:50

R65083
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes: Evidence, real legal evidence, from what I understand, is created and accepted in court when a person holds up their hand, swears on the Bible, and tells their story to the court.

That is a type of evidence called “testimonial” evidence. Much of the testimonial evidence presented to support the demolitions theory would probably be ruled inadmissable in court because it cannot be accurately described as “expert witness testimony”. That which would not be dismissed would no doubt be refuted by equally qualified counterarguments from the opposition. Which is sort of why “physical evidence” is important to the process of establishing a case.

“Physical evidence”, which is any tangible object whose connection to a particular line of inquiry either supports or refutes the premise, is sorely lacking (read: nonexistent) when it comes to supporting the “explosives theory”.

The trouble is, everyone interested in a major court case in regards to 9/11 criminality & conspiracy has been blocked from launching such a case.

Which is less of a surprise considering that those who have the most to lose from an independent investigation can point to any number of marginalized and “whacko” conspiracy theorists with their poor logic and accusatory verbiage and say “what? Are you one of them?”

At some point, it’s going to occur to someone with your crack investigative ability to wonder who’s really pulling the strings at rense and whatyreallyhappened, and construct the whole cointelpro scenario from scratch. That, from my unconcerned perspective, will be insanely funny.

It’s also weird that the people in control of most of the evidence, and its intepretation, are either related in some way to the Bush cartel or part of the fedgov

I’m not sure how anyone could possibly consider this “weird”. It’s an unfortunate circumstance if you want access to information that was not gathered by the USG, but in reality, who do you think was going to take control of the site? The Boy Scouts? It should be considered an a priori that a government agency would be responsible for clean up and investigation, because in this country, that’s who does the job. There’s no right or wrong or weird about it. That’s just the way it is.

-VO


R65085
5 years ago
viaossa

neverknwo writes: For example the movie “Under siege 2” showed how it’s was possible that spaced based weaponry could Vaporize Solid Objects.

Dude. You’re the best. Believe me when I say that vodka out the nose is a painful experience.

-VO


R65088
5 years ago
Continuity

This website has all sorts of math, Schnieb. It claims that the 767 impacts were roughly the same in intensity/energy ouput as a potential 707 impact would have produced.

Disclaimer: I am not subscribing to this website’s calculations or comments. I’m only making them available for others to analyze.

Speed of planes according to the site:

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s. (WTC1)
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s. (WTC2)

An MIT professor gauges the speeds to be lower, but they seem too low to me:
LinK

Flight 11 – 429 mph
Flight 175 – 505 mph
Flight 77 – 345 mph (Pentagon)


R65091
5 years ago
Schneibster

Hey Continuity, good to hear from you too.

First of all, Ruppert is in my eyes far more credible on motive and opportunity than he is on means. Second, his base data are far more reliable than his conclusions. He is one of the better researchers I have seen; thorough, meticulous, and imaginative. However, he is no technical expert, and has the tendency to draw conclusions based on insufficient data. The reason I was and am so interested in his book is to review his sources; they are generally excellent. However, his conclusions are far more questionable; some I agree with, some I do not.

A good example is his description on page 304 of the “microwave attack” in which microwaves created “gamma radiation.” First, under energy conservation, there is no such phenomenon possible; and if there were, anyone who could document it would win a Nobel Prize in physics. I have good reason to know; I am a dedicated physics buff, with considerable experience and knowledge in the field, as anyone who has discussed it with me will verify. Ask Snark, for instance; he actually made a glancing reference to it early in this thread. Secondly, the symptoms of gamma bombardment are far more serious than those of microwave bombardment; severe burns similar to sunburn but internal as well as external, radiation sickness, and death are the results from gamma, whereas according to reliable sources, microwave radiation exposure produces the symptoms Ruppert describes: nausea, confusion, discomfort, and disorientation. Thirdly, neither gamma nor microwave will pass through walls in any great quantity, unless the gamma is extremely high energy; and gamma with that high a frequency is deadly as described above. Fourth, no technology exists that is capable of focusing gamma radiation; it does not react to the presence of matter as light or microwaves do, as waves, but more like particles: each interaction is all-or-nothing, its path cannot be bent. Microwave focussing is, on the other hand, ubiquitous; satellite dishes, waveguides, and a host of horn and dish antennae testify to it. And fifth, and finally, Geiger counters cannot detect microwaves; they are, however, quite sensitive to gamma. Such a mishmash of fact, misunderstood phenomena, violation of conservation of energy, lack of knowledge of basic particle physics, and hysteria is typical when Ruppert becomes involved in highly technical areas. He simply doesn’t have the experience and knowledge to evaluate the evidence accurately, and his highly paranoid mindset has the tendency to set him on the wrong course.

Again, not to take anything away from him; he is an absolute research demon, and has earned my respect in that area time and time again.

In terms of what training the terrorist pilots received, he first recounts how nobody could have done what was done, on page 348 (“performing loop de loops”), but his very next topic is about how Uncle Sam trained them, and in fact how extensive that training was; Jeb Bush is depicted on page 350 spiriting away the records from Huffman Aviation in a C130 in order to hide how much training they had given Atta and his cohorts. So if nobody could do it, what was the need to train them in the first place? And if they did receive the necessary training, how come it is “impossible” that they should have used it? And immediately after presenting how much secrecy went into hiding the training they received, he has another source recounting how incredible the maneuvers were; and in the very next section, beginning on page 351, he advances the idea of remotely piloted aircraft, which would require skills and training far, far in advance of anything that might be required to execute the most unbelievable maneuvers! C’mon, Mike, which is it: they received training and that fact had to be hidden, in which case why all the incredulity, or they didn’t receive any training, in which case what got hidden?

Like I said, he is great on sources (the Huffman files, Atta’s training, Hopsicker’s research results) but lousy on conclusions. Even when he gets to the Summation chapter, he presents many nice pieces of research, but fails to weave them together into a complete picture. There is a great deal of innuendo, concerning the “shell game” with the planes, and Dov Zakheim, and other data, but no complete, compelling picture.

So take what he says about research, and for which he provides references, as gospel; you can put it in the bank. But when he starts theorizing, watch out: his personal bias shines through, and Mike has had some experiences that would, quite frankly, bias me in the same direction he clearly is.

So, once again, I don’t think there’s any question that the highjackers (or at least some of them anyway) took those planes where they are reputed to have gone; but I also don’t think that there’s any question that it was orchestrated by our own government, and that a great deal of machination went on to allow it to happen. In other words, LIHOP. And as far as 7 WTC is concerned, the data are also relatively conclusive: if the SEC took Chase down, Shrub and Cheney and their buddies were in a world of pain, so it got “pulled.”


R65093
5 years ago
Schneibster

“grontium” “litanium” “cool intak”

VO’s right, neverknwo, you are absolutely the best. But be careful… they say that LSD can contaminate your precious bodily fluids. :S


R65094
5 years ago
Continuity

Viaossa, you spent all that time telling me that when you could have sat on the pot instead to get it out. The evidence would be inadmissable? Do tell, why? You’re a lawyer now. Interesting.

Let’s move to the physical aspects then, if expert testimony bother you. Here are some questions for you to wordplay.

1. Did the WTC cores, or did they not, hold the majority of the loads? Did the external floors hold up the core, or vice versa? (And I’m not talking about the lateral swaying effect of floors in the wind, not that kind of limited, independent support)

2. Were the WTC cores available to sight from outside, at any time, particularly during the collapse?

3. Is there real evidence, or merely presumption, from the official powers that they received fatal damage?

4. Have official collapse theories been structured around a preconceived premise which excludes any wrongdoing outside of Al Qaeda’s involvement?

5. Hypothetically, if demolition to the cores occurred, at the base or wherever, could the effects of said demolition be viewed plainly by cameras from the outside?

6. Can structural evidence (i.e. various examples of core girders from throughout the building) which could shed light on the fate of the cores be publically accessed by at least a number of non-partisan experts?

7. Were there any unexplained articles of physical evidence (recorded after being hauled away) that were discovered after the collapses, which introduce the possibility of controlled demolition?

To be less formal, if some highly resourceful org wanted the buildings demolished and yet disguise the fact, they sure as hell aren’t going to show to the world obvious signs of demolition—-like firecracker bombs going up and down the buildings like the 4th of July. It would be outside of plain view.

Covert ops is like that. I still wonder if the WTC collapses were the product of covert ops because we still have all the controversies and coincidences.


R65095
5 years ago
neverknwo

‘Bo’ Gritz wrote in his book on page 348 “Called to Serve” how he trained the Mujahadeen in Unconventional Warfare Tacktics.

These are the same terrorist training camps that were spoken of, where Bin Ladin was training terrorist from what he learned from the CIA.

Back in the 80’s the CIA supplied Stinger missles to them to knock out the Mig’s.
Also they trained suicide flyers to fly ultralight airplanes loaded with explosives into
Russian Bases like depicted in “RAMBO 3”!!!

Post Modified: 06/20/05 20:24:19

R65096
5 years ago
Continuity

Schnieb:

So, once again, I don’t think there’s any question that the highjackers (or at least some of them anyway) took those planes where they are reputed to have gone

I’m not so sure. To be honest, I don’t give a hoot what Ruppert says about all the other stuff (Rubicon is interesting, but full of some junk too). I read the sources officially documenting that the hijackers were shitty pilots before Rubicon came out. This info came from the few flight instructors who sang to the news. Ruppert’s evaluation that they were legends and patsies is sound, however, given the supposed hijacker’s full, questionable histories.

Secondly, Ruppert did not make that stuff up when it came to the plane doing all those wild maneuvers before hitting the Pentagon. It has been generally kept from the public just how insane that flying was. And why would the the idiot flier ram the Pentagon straight on, after all that maneuvering? Far more damage would be produced by an angled dive-bomb into the middle of a wing, where firetrucks could not easily get access.

I’m not saying a plane never hit the Pentagon. I’m only saying its maneuvers were fucking incredible, especially for someone who certainly was no expert.

Last of all, the hijackers received no flight training at military bases. Some got English courses, tactical training, etc.. Some apparently had a few flight hours logged in other countries. Yet they generally acted as novices at the civilian flight schools.


R65098
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes:

Viaossa, you spent all that time telling me that when you could have sat on the pot instead to get it out.

sigh OK. Established. You’re a complete fucking tool. But let us proceed.

Did the WTC cores, or did they not, hold the majority of the loads?

I don’t know what percentage of structural load was handled by the cores as opposed to the external walls. Neither do you. Next?

Did the external floors hold up the core, or vice versa?

If by floors you mean walls, then the answer is a qualified yes. The walls were load bearing, contributing to the structural integrity of the building. Compromise the walls, you compromise the structural integrity. Next?

Were the WTC cores available to sight from outside, at any time, particularly during the collapse

During construction the cores were available to sight. Additionally there are several articles online that detail the construction of the cores. During collapse, the cores, as far as I am aware, were not visible. Next?

Is there real evidence, or merely presumption, from the official powers that they received fatal damage

Considering the buildings are no longer standing? And the “cores” aren’t standing erect and naked, I would say the odds are pretty fucking high that they sustained fatal damage at some point. Next?

Have official collapse theories been structured around a preconceived premise which excludes any wrongdoing outside of Al Qaeda’s involvement?

OMG, is that a loaded question from Continuity? Why, I am so. surprised. Official “collapse” theories include both the involvement of Al Queda, as well as failure of the fire protection materials that were designed to shield and protect the support structure from heat damage. (Though why such protective measures were necessary, given that there is no possible way flame could damage the steel, is really beyond me.) This implicates not one, but at least two potential contributing factors including the building architects for overstating claims regarding “plane resistance”. And all that in the official story. Next?

Hypothetically, if demolition to the cores occurred, at the base or wherever, could the effects of said demolition be viewed plainly by cameras from the outside

Since no explosive demolition of any structure that I am aware of has occured without such visual evidence I would put the odds of such “invisible” demolitions at extremely low. However, I am fully prepared to acknowledge that an unforeseen technology, such as neverknwo’s space based dissolvers may have been employed, but I doubt it. Next?

Can structural evidence (i.e. various examples of core girders from throughout the building) which could shed light on the fate of the cores be publically accessed by at least a number of non-partisan experts

I have no idea. Next?

Were there any unexplained articles of physical evidence (recorded after being hauled away) that were discovered after the collapses, which introduce the possibility of controlled demolition?

I am aware of no articles of physical evidence in existence whose condition can only be explained by controlled demolition. Feel free to provide example of such. Next?

Covert ops is like that.

Really? Presumably this knowledge is gained from something more significant than movies or online articles so… how long have you been a covert operative?

-VO


R65099
5 years ago
neverknwo

“George Bush Appointed CIA Director”:http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/News/1976/January/30-Bush_CIA_Director.asp

“Bush Family Values Photo Album”:http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html

Post Modified: 06/20/05 20:35:18

R65101
5 years ago
Shogo

What a bitchen thread.


R65106
5 years ago
Schneibster

Continuity, that first website makes several errors. First, he assumes that the statement that the towers would stand after the impact of a “fully loaded 707” was a statement that they would stand indefinitely after such an impact; a prospect I find frankly incredible. Converting to metric units makes the calculations considerably easier:
1/2mv^2^ = 1/2 * 179,170 kg * (210.11 m/s) 2
= 3.9548 GJ
On edit: whoa! Fucktile did some weird shit, let’s see if this works…

I took the listed figure for gross weight of the 767 from Boeing’s web site, using the metric figure for the 767-200ER, which is the type of plane that Flight 11 was; I used the link on his site to get there. I used the figure of 470 mph given in multiple sources for Flight 11’s impact velocity, and converted directly to m/s. My answer is quite close to his- it only varies in the third decimal place. I put that down to the conversion factor he used to get Joules.

Now, a kiloton (nuclear equivalent of TNT) is 4.186 TJ. And that is the nuclear equivalent of a million kilograms, a thousand tonnes that is, of TNT- about 2.2 million pounds of TNT. The kinetic energy of impact according to these calculations is equivalent to three orders of magnitude less- more or less. So it’s about equivalent to two thousand pounds of TNT!

Hey, a 2000-pound gravity bomb- which doesn’t even contain anything like 2000 pounds of TNT- will blow down a city block! We’re talking about the equivalent of a couple such bombs! Seriously, do you expect a ton of TNT isn’t going to knock any building in existence down eventually? Do you have any questions about whether the core was compromised or not? We’re talking about kinetic energy that’s sufficient to destroy several city blocks; note also that a fair bit of that energy would be converted to heat; go smack a big rock with a hammer several times, and tell me if it gets hot, it’s a simple experiment and I’m sure the significance of the fact that you’re not expending more than a few Joules doing it will not be lost on you in terms of how hot the rock and hammer get.

So right there, at step one, I have questions about the accuracy of the statement that one of these planes cannot knock the building down. I just don’t see it; I think the original statement that a 707 couldn’t knock one down was hyperbole in the first place.

So, next, he goes on to state that “the fires have been ruled out…” What? Excuse me, I did a calculation of the total heat released by burning that 10,000 gallons of fuel, and the mass of the steel, and its specific heat, and found that the temperature of the steel in those floors was well above 900 C. And that doesn’t even include the heat from the kinetic energy of the plane! Not only that, but I made liberal assumptions about the amount of fuel that was lost in the fireball, and the amount that burned elsewhere because it trickled down the core, and so forth. So that statement is bona-fide handwaving.

To cap off his performance, the site writer states that “other buildings have survived fires like this and not collapsed.” Oh, really? Please cite the “other buildings” that have had fires that were preceded by collision with a 767. What, no citations? Oh he couldn’t be exaggerating could he?

As I have stated repeatedly, the amazing thing was not that they fell; the amazing thing was that they did not fall immediately. To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Lestrade, seeking advice which Holmes is loathe to give, asks, “Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes responds, “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Lestrade exclaims, “But the dog did nothing in the night-time!”
and Holmes smiles, and says, “That was the curious incident.”

Doyle was a wise man.

Post Modified: 06/20/05 21:44:36

R65108
5 years ago
Shogo

I wish I had your kind of patience Schneib. I see this stuff and I just want to call everyone a fucking idiot.


R65109
5 years ago
viaossa

Schneibster writes: I think the original statement that a 707 couldn’t knock one down was hyperbole in the first place.

I want to say, in a sarcastic tone, “gee… y’think?” But possibly you’d interpret the sarcasm as being directed at you, rather than the idea itself. So…

Thanks. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks this was more marketing than reality.

-VO


R65110
5 years ago
Schneibster

As far as the people who flew the planes being relatively shitty pilots, I’ll buy it. Go try MS Flight Simulator some time. Landing’s pretty difficult, but you know what? Flying planes into obstacles is amazingly easy. Check out the weird shit you do flying them, too- and remember that modern aircraft have fly-by-wire computers that prevent things like stalls and flat spins and so forth. I’m sure the maneuvers were pretty crazy, and the fliers pretty panicked. I just don’t see that as an obstacle.

And the reason fliers see what was done as so crazy is because none of them think like that! They have no idea any more how a relative novice would behave in the cockpit, because they don’t deal with them much, and don’t remember what it was originally like, and probably never really thought that way because they always wanted to fly and found out everything they could about it before they actually did it. And the ones that do deal with novices, they tend to concentrate on important stuff like landing and handling emergencies and things like that, that someone who is going to fly an airplane into a building doesn’t really care about. No doubt they were shitty pilots; but to an instructor, “shitty pilot” means they can’t land the fucking plane, and who the hell’s landing? You with me here?

And last, if they got no flight training, where did the flight instructors that “sang to the news” come from? And what were the “truckload” of records that had to be carried off from Huffman? You don’t generate a “truckload” of records training five people to fly a plane not even well enough to solo. You’d be hard-pressed to fill a file drawer; you could carry it in a briefcase, which is soooooo much less conspicuous than a whole goddamn C130 military aircraft that has to be accounted for!

C’mon, it’s just not adding up. I’ll buy that some of them didn’t get on the planes, and some of them did, and they got trained with the (at minimum) “look the other way” pass from the neocons. I’ll buy that the neocons blew up 7 WTC to cover their buddies’ tracks with the SEC. I’ll buy that the neocons fucked with the ATC and NORAD tracking systems, and ran an exercise that day to make sure there were no fighters in a position to respond. Why, again for the umpteenth time, does it have to be all-or-nothing?


R65111
5 years ago
neverknwo

R65112
5 years ago
Schneibster

I wish I had your kind of patience Schneib. I see this stuff and I just want to call everyone a fucking idiot.

Thanks, Josh, I take that as a real compliment coming from you. :) Not to mention the earlier comment on it being a bitchin’ thread. Heh.

I want to say, in a sarcastic tone, “gee… y’think?” But possibly you’d interpret the sarcasm as being directed at you, rather than the idea itself.

Hee hee, maybe, maybe not- I can be a little volatile at times. But VO, I can tell your heart’s in the right place, so thanks as well. Thanks for taking the time to think it through, too. ;)


R65114
5 years ago
Shogo

“Why, again for the umpteenth time, does it have to be all-or-nothing?”

Because conspiracy nutters are like religious fanatics, and they lack the critical thinking faculties necessary to separate the plausible from the implausible.


R65137
5 years ago
JustLurking

You’re also leaving out the relationship between mass and velocity. A significantly heavier airplane at higher speed makes a big difference in the net force applied to the building.

uh no I’m not. I’m aware of the relationship. In fact I’d nodded to it. But I’ve also pointed out there’s variables to consider. Some of them can alter the equation significantly. For instance, a 707 plowing head on versus a 767 delivering a glancing blow might have been one of em. I wasn’t editing out speed, mass in the process. I was simply suggesting this could have made differences in how the kinetic energy was released and how this may have effected the subsequent damage. It’s not like the event represented a perfect model. Did I claim to have any specific data on that ? No I did not. Be nice if I did. I was simply pointing out that variables often radically alter the equation. However, some of Schneib’s recent figures did shine additional light on that.

But the sequence of events, when factoring WTC7 really bugs the hell out of me

That’s a variation of the Gambler’s fallacy

I disagree. It’s like this. In any investigation, be it conspiracy nutters, your local cop or district attorney, one of the things kept a look out for is inconsistencies in the story, assumed facts, or testimony. It’s how the US gov, namely the CIA has been busted on far too many occasions. Someone noticed shit didn’t add up, so they dug deeper. False flag operations have been discovered, funding covert ops with drug dealing to name a few examples. I’ll reiterate that I’m perfectly fine to accept data and information suggesting the blow to WTC 1 and 2 was simply too much and there’s no evidence of anything otherwise. (because there isn’t any, just hypothesis ) But think about this, everyone is so damned critical in regards to the facts, figures regarding the structural data versus the facts and figures regarding the type of aircraft and rate of speed etc. in order to keep the debate sane, supported, reasonable and plausible. But ALL THREE of these buildings collapsed in succession and when it comes to WTC7.. it’s ahem, cough… busted gas line. No fucking airplane. The critical analysis on this one ?... Virtually none.

The entire premise, not too mention the laziness in the method seems a little suspect and rather unconvincing. My point is this, the explanations given for WTC 1 and 2 seem plausible enough , if not likely. But if there’s no reasonable explanation as to how “all three” of these buildings collapsed considering that… 1) There was no fucking airplane at WTC7 hence… 2) all the effort gone into explaining 1 and 2 cannot be applied onto WTC7. I naturally begin to wonder about that. Far as I’m concerned the juries still out on WTC7. On that basis alone I feel it’s something that calls for deeper inquiry.

Should inconsistencies be discovered. Ones that cannot be explained satisfactorily ... by a ruptured line and a raging fire, it places an entirely different slant on the whole affair. Did they actually pull the fucker ? And if they didn’t, then how the hell DID all three of them go down in succession. It raises a lot of questions. I think your forced to start testing hypothesis. When that dog don’t hunt as they, it’s no longer just nutter conspiracy. And quite often, shit has proven out by speaking louder to complicity as the tale unravels. WTC7 wasn’t simply gutted or badly damaged. It fucking collapsed. Might not give any real cred to WTC 1 and 2 having been helped along. They’re done, finished. I’m with Snark on that one. Besides we have two mother fuckerin jets to account for. We may as well accept the impact took em out as there’s enough to substantiate it. But I’m certainly not prepared to simply shrug and say .. WTC7 ? .. yea weird huh… oh well.

Like you said, separating the plausible from the implausible. 3 buildings collapse in succession. 2 of em nailed by commercial airliners, those fall over and go boom… plausible. Wait , WTC7 just happened to fall over too !... eh, must of been that pesky gas line…. not so plausible. I see that shit a lot. It’s just not good science IMO. Set aside conspiracy and complicity for the time being, the later part if nothing else just seems like a lame attempt to cook something up, anything !... because well, we gotta say something at least.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 11:29:44

R65140
5 years ago
zark

??Of course. Because what they saw is consistent with the physical evidence recovered from the Pentagon. You see how that works? There is physical evidence, eyewitness evidence, and a missing plane with a bunch of dead passengers and crewmen?? -shogo

physical evidence? where?

show me..

a missing plane is evidence?—— like your argument i guess

there is no evidence, you have no evidence, you have no proof.. you are taking the word of supposed eye-witness’ and the FBI reports.

yet.. you dont take the word of firefighters, reporters, people on the streets and people in the buildings

you are being selective

Post Modified: 06/21/05 01:24:23

R65142
5 years ago
Continuity

Schnieb,

You are no doubt aware that if you follow the WTC7 line of inquiry deeper, you won’t be getting compliments about your patience.

Anyway, I only have a second. Schnieb:

Excuse me, I did a calculation of the total heat released by burning that 10,000 gallons of fuel, and the mass of the steel, and its specific heat, and found that the temperature of the steel in those floors was well above 900 C.

First I am wary of all abstract calculations, for and against natural collapse, just like I put disclaimer on that website’s energy output for the planes. There are more variables involved surely. Take for example these—-

1. 10,000 gallons of kerosene wasn’t burning inside WTC2. Clearly at least half or more ignited and consumed itself outside the building in a fireball. We covered that at GNN v1.0. I’d like to get an expert quote estimating the amount of kerosene near-instantly destroyed outside the building. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were the clear majority.

2. In both towers, especially one of them (WTC1?), the smell of kerosene was very strong. Fuel-rich environment. An unknown amount simply was not igniting, hence the pervasive smell. The fires were choking, not enough oxygen to go mental.

3. Also discussed at GNN v1.0 by us, steel will transfer heat and redistribute it. The energy in an afflicted set of girders will essentially move, widen, disperse, and lose temp as it does so—-as long as there places for it to go. Schnieb is it possible that the affected floors were all 900c evenly?

4. Concrete slab & casing — which the official powers say was knocked at all the right places (pfff, it had to be for their premise to work) — is a superb block against intense heat. I got that from one of your links at GNN 1.0 if you remember.

5. The strike to WTC2 was not a direct hit. At least some people here know that much of the energy was shot through one corner and out the other. Schnieb, you of all people (at least from GNN v1.0) respect that the cores held the majority of the loads. A WTC building was essentially two buildings in one, the strong inner one holding the outer.

What I’m saying is, there is still some question as to whether the strike to WTC2 was a killing blow. It blew through a chunk of non-vital outer floors and exterior. It did not smash through the core, nor rip away its concrete and insulation. If the core was hit, surely anyone visualize a glancing hit by looking at the videos and comparing them to the WTC plans. If we go by the BBC plans, which are wrong, the plane missed WTC2’s core by a huge margin.


R65143
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo:
Because conspiracy nutters are like religious fanatics, and they lack the critical thinking faculties necessary to separate the plausible from the implausible.

Wordplay. You presume or entertain the fair possibility there was some kind of elaborate Let-it-happen conspiracy regarding 9/11, based mostly on bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence and testimony. You’ve mentioned at GNN-2 and -1 it was entirely plausible. In this thread we are exploring bits and pieces to weigh up a similiar, yet more criminal, scenario.

If the WTC events had no controversies, we all wouldn’t be in this thread.


R65145
5 years ago
Schneibster

Continuity, I sensed that this might be a continuation (heh) of that thread. It is too late tonight; I’ll try to answer tomorrow. Otherwise, I’d be up all night, and I got work to do tomorrow.


R65146
5 years ago
zark

Hey, a 2000-pound gravity bomb- which doesn’t even contain anything like 2000 pounds of TNT

schieb… as we all know you are playing with figures

equating a plane with kinetic energy to TNT.. is not correct

TNT is not the same as a plane travelling at 500 mph with fuel

if a plane hits the central columns that aint the same as strapping TNT to the columns.. i dont care if the ‘energy’ is the same or if the plane has more ‘energy’ .. it aint the same

next you will be saying that Concrete has the same physical properties as Steel.


R65147
5 years ago
zark

i mention this because the official theory cant have it both ways

WTC planes destroyed central columns..

pentagon the building was intact upto 20mins after impact

weirdorama


R65154
5 years ago
nark


Remember it’s always to the right never to the left!

Justlurking wrote:

Snark points out a couple of things I thought were quite intelligent and ought to be heard. Albeit with an air of hopelessness suggesting he see’s it falling on deaf ears. Which is odd in itself for reasons I won’t go into here. But I think if his message was actually engaged, it might help to clear a whole lot of un-necessary bullshit.

WHAT like this?

snark
Post erased because I was starting to sound like a broken record. Shaking Rasputin’s certainty isn’t posssible, so I won’t try.
snark

An example of his subconscious trying to communicate to his unconscious.

So the main them from your post is “Hey I’m with all you hip conspiracy folk but G-man might be right, see I’m all analytical an stuff”

Now for ALL you fuckhead indoctrinated quasi“intellectuals.

A gift form Dr. No 700meg. If your on 56k your shit out of luck. Best 911 Doco to date
Loose Change

You better watch it(Especially schnieb and JL), too dismiss all them there kooks out there.

I wouldn’t worry to much about the events that you think you can explain, rather those you can’t

You better watch out, you better not cry,

An He on a war path!

I like the way you see all the debris falling SIDEWAYS in the pictures. It really shows how TOTALLY UNLIKE a controlled demolition / Mr pancake the collapse of those buildings was.

That top photo Joe posted shows exactly why this wasn’t a controlled demolition /*Mr pancake*. The leaning of the entire top of the building is obviously not the result of a controlled demolition / Mr pancake.

Now sit back and watch the war on Terra.

Ooop.. almost forgot about VO.

Love the finger puppets.

I’d stay and try and respond to accusations, but I have a high aversion to retard disease.
This has been a Hit and Run compilation.

C I’m giving you ammo

And where the fuck is Phony isn’t about this time he drops around to exculpate it was all due to Oswald! Or some such shit.

You’d better wake up it’s gonna to be a rough ride.


R65158
5 years ago
Shogo

“physical evidence? where?”

From the PM article:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”

zark: “TNT is not the same as a plane travelling at 500 mph with fuel”

Here is where your self-confessed complete lack of anything approaching knowledge of physics makes you look like the doomed-to-forever-be-working-class dumbfuck you are. Your comment is nothing more than laughable, and debating it would be like debating whether or not the world is round.

Rest assured zark, you are one stupid man.


R65159
5 years ago
Shogo

More examples of Continuity presenting conjecture as fact:

c: “Clearly at least half or more ignited and consumed itself outside the building in a fireball.”

Based on what?

c: “the smell of kerosene was very strong. Fuel-rich environment. An unknown amount simply was not igniting, hence the pervasive smell.”

That assessment might be true of other fuels, but kerosene produces a lot of smoke when burning, and it smells. From a site for fire-performers

“Like other slow fuels, kero gives you a nice, long burn — generally on the order of five minutes, but it can go up to eight with large wicks. Kero’s long burn time is one reason for its popularity; another is its inexpensive price. Kerosene can easily be found in camping and hardware stores, generally for five dollars a gallon, or even less if you can buy it larger increments.

On the down-side, burning kerosene produces a good deal of smoke and soot, which tends to get in your hair and clothes. It’s also got a distinctive odor, which fire performers quickly get used to. “

c: “steel will transfer heat and redistribute it. The energy in an afflicted set of girders will essentially move, widen, disperse, and lose temp as it does so—-as long as there places for it to go.”

Obviously you have never seen the remains of a burned building. Once again, you present conjecture as fact.

c: “Concrete slab & casing—which the official powers say was knocked at all the right places (pfff, it had to be for their premise to work)—is a superb block against intense heat.”

Irrelevant. When there are holes in the sides of the building, and holes in the floors, then a great deal of oxygen is available for the fires. The concrete casing, especially if it was damaged or knocked off the steel, is rendered irrelevant.

c:“The strike to WTC2 was not a direct hit. At least some people here know that much of the energy was shot through one corner and out the other.”

Which would still result in structural and load bearing supports being damaged, and would still result in fires. Not to mention the kinetic energy striking the building from the speeding, massive plane.

c:“It blew through a chunk of non-vital outer floors and exterior.”

Conjecture. And, incorrect – since the skin of the WTC towers was part of what provided it’s structural stability.

c:” It did not smash through the core, nor rip away its concrete and insulation.”

Conjecture. Maybe a new nick is in order for you? Conjectinuity perhaps?

c:“there was some kind of elaborate Let-it-happen conspiracy”

Actually, a “let it happen” scenario is _not_elaborate – which is why it’s far more likely than your FUBAR demolitions fantasy. All that is required is the withholdiing of information from authorities. Far simpler than your brain-dead douchebaggery you’ve been subjecting us all to.

Seriously dude, every one of your “arguments” has been shredded over and over again. Isn’t it time to ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, you’re wrong?


R65160
5 years ago
Shogo

“equating a plane with kinetic energy to TNT.. is not correct”

Because….? Oh right, because you’re an ignoramus who doesn’t know shit about science, and who believed the tsunami was caused by a nuke. Never mind, you’re irrelevant.

TNT is not the same as a plane travelling at 500 mph with fuel”

See above.

“if a plane hits the central columns that aint the same as strapping TNT to the columns.. i dont care if the ‘energy’ is the same or if the plane has more ‘energy’ .. it aint the same”

See above.

“next you will be saying that Concrete has the same physical properties as Steel.”

Why? That would be incorrect. The fact that you don’t understand the difference is why you should see above.

“i mention this because the official theory cant have it both ways”

And it doesn’t, which you would know if you weren’t such a dumbfuck.

WTC planes destroyed central columns..”

It actually DAMAGED them, which is why the buildings remained standing as long as they did.

“pentagon the building was intact upto 20mins after impact”

Heh. The towers stood for over an hour after impact, so I’m not sure what you’re demonstrating here, apart from your lack of intelligence.

I think what you’re driving it is something that’s totally obvious to anybody with half a brain, but since that doesn’t include you, I’ll try and dumb it down for you.

The WTC were very tall, y’see. Very tall and narrow buildings. Damaging the load-bearing structures in the building means the building falls down, ‘kay?

The Pentagon is very wide. Wide, and short. Ergo, a plane damaging one piece of it will not bring down the whole building.

Clear?

I certainly hope so, otherwise life will continue to be hard and embarrassing for you.


R65169
5 years ago
EGisJUICE

You see, you stupid cunt, had you read the Popular Mechanics article you’d have seen the accounts of burning jet fuel that went down the elevator shafts.

Is that the same jet fuel that exploded/burned when the planes hit the buildings?

I know that there were giant fireballs when the planes hit – they showed the planes flying into the buildings hundreds of times on TV in the days and weeks after 9/11.

My physics may be a bit off, but once fuel is burnt (expends it’s energy) I’m pretty sure it can’t reconstitute itself to go down elevator shafts while burning since it burned up when the planes hit (and it burned the 1st time).


R65170
5 years ago
EGisJUICE

Oh, and as regards specialized knowledge, of course it’s required. Can you picture in your head how the crystal structure of steel deforms under heat? Have you ever designed a skyscraper, do you instinctively understand how weight transfers and how the forces interact with each other? Could you teach someone else about it and answer their questions?

What was the occupation of the inventors of the airplane? How about of the person who came up with frequency modulation?

A: Bicycle mechanics, and an actress.

Point being that one doesn’t need to be an expert in a given field or subject nor hold degrees in those fields to have a valid idea or thought that is relevant to the subject at hand.


R65171
5 years ago
Schneibster

equating a plane with kinetic energy to TNT.. is not correct

You’re wrong, it’s as correct as using a DU penetrator rod instead of an explosive projectile against armored vehicles; the effect of the penetrator rod is far in excess of anything that the explosive round might do. Or had you forgotten that the M1A1 Abrams uses DU kinetic energy rounds? Apparently, that’s far more effective than explosives; I appear to be understating the case by equating the kinetic energy of the plane to mere TNT.

TNT is not the same as a plane travelling at 500 mph with fuel

Yeah, you’re right, the kinetic energy of the plane is far more directed than the explosive power of the TNT; the TNT spreads its energy in all directions, whereas the kinetic energy of the plane is all focused in one direction. Much more destructive, as the DU kinetic energy penetrator round shows. But with various inefficiencies, and other considerations to take into account, like furniture, cubicle walls, and those pesky perimeter columns, I guess the destructive potential of the kinetic energy of the plane could be as low as that of TNT.


R65173
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Debunking [Propaganda] Mechanics 03/2005

by Jimmy Walter

Flight 77 Debris

CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage [Lie. All analysts have admitted there was plane wreckage – just not from a 757] at the Pentagon. “In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found [this is true],” claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, “What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?”

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building.[Show us in the pictures. The previous expert said, ““If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building, Sozen tells PM, “it didn’t happen.” It is not in the pictures.] I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings [show them to us!] on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane [the tail section was at least 20 feet tall – he could have held it in his hand], and I found the black box.”[finding something that could have been planted on the plane that actually did hit. Where are the transcripts and recordings from these boxes? Why has it not been released?] Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building [of course there is plane wreckage – but the parts are too small to be from a 757!]. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts, Okay?” [So how did the metal parts all vaporize when he found body parts and clothing? If there was a raging fire at the WTC that destroyed got so hot as to weaken steel, why not here? How would the body parts have survived such a raging fire? Nothing in their story fits together!]

Debunking The Debunkers
By Joel Skousen
Cite source as World Affairs Brief
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com
2-14-5

In every major conspiracy to cover up government criminal activity, agents of change or naïve “experts” have been hired by the establishment media to debunk conspiracy theories and facts. Walter Cronkite was trotted out of retirement to host a PBS documentary debunking the conspiracy facts surrounding the assassination of JFK (which was hardly convincing). In like manner, other programs have been produced at great expense to discredit the charges of government cover-ups in the Vince Foster and Ron Brown murders, the downing of TWA 800 by a missile, and the OKC bombing of the Murrah building.

The professional debunkers use four primary tactics to accomplish their propaganda feats:

1) They refuse to mention, much less attempt to disprove, the most irrefutable and damaging evidence.

2) They take great delight in debunking only those conspiracy theories that are the weakest or that are planted by other government sympathizers to help discredit the more credible conspiracy facts. This is what is referred to as a “straw man” argument, where a weak or false argument is set up so that it can easily be knocked down.

3) They only select “experts” who agree with the official conclusion.

4) They snicker at or mock anyone who believes that government engages in criminal behavior or covers up crimes in collusion with judges, investigators, prosecutors, media heads, and hand-picked commissions. Worse, they label dissenters as unpatriotic or mentally imbalanced.

The complete articles are here.


R65174
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Do you want to start using your common sense? The more that you argue for the official line on WTC 1 & 2, the more you know there is no explanation for WTC 7.

Check out this excerpt from Jim Garrison’s closing statement in the Clay Shaw trial and think about this. 911 is the biggest murder crime in United States history. Where is the trial? Where are the accomplices? In fact, where is the investigation? Where are the witnesses? Where is the physical evidence? Where is the battle of the experts?

“In this particular case, our efforts to look into it — and it was our duty when we found out that part of the assassination planning occurred in New Orleans — massive power was brought to bear to prevent justice from ever coming into this courtroom as it has. The power to make authoritative pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry, the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify in behalf of power, was demonstrated in this case. The American people have yet to see the Zapruder film. Why? The American people have yet to see and hear from witnesses about the assassination. Why? Because today in our Government we have a problem area in which too much emphasis is given to secrecy with regard to the assassination of our President, and not enough emphasis has been given to the question of justice, to the question of humanity.”

Here is the entire statement which is actually short.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 11:49:53

R65175
5 years ago
viaossa

nark writes: Love the finger puppets.

Then why are you only playing with the green one?

-VO


R65177
5 years ago
zark

??Because….? Oh right, because you’re an ignoramus who doesn’t know shit about science, and who believed the tsunami was caused by a nuke. Never mind, you’re irrelevant??

never ever said that… never ever believed that

thanks


R65178
5 years ago
zark

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay

lol… and the iraqi soldiers were taking babies out of incubators and throwing them on the floor in 1990. People said so… it was true..
Powell said that there were tanks lining the saudi border… it was true he said so
iraq have weapons of mass destruction…. its true they said so

Kilsheimer said so.. must be true

actual evidence shogo… real evidence… like the pieces, photos?

“there needs to be a full independant investigation”


R65180
5 years ago
zark

the TNT spreads its energy in all directions, whereas the kinetic energy of the plane is all focused in one direction. Much more destructive, as the DU kinetic energy penetrator round shows

heh.. how about TNT expands from the o2 within the chemical mix… while fuel burns in the o2 of the area surrounding it.
TNT will explode in an o2 deficient environment… fuel will not burn without o2.

now you include DU… so was the plane DU tipped?

The WTC were very tall, y’see. Very tall and narrow buildings. Damaging the load-bearing structures in the building means the building falls down, ‘kay

lol thanks for that… so you are saying that the plane hits the building.. goes into it.. hits the central columns above the 70th floors (cant remember exactly) and that destroys the entire central columns from floor 70 through to the basement.. then the floors collapse because the columns are gone?

also with the top of the tower falling off an hour after… you are saying that the plane damaged the central columns so much that the entire upper section (with central column of the upper portion intact- now you may see where i am going) falls intact yet the column below that floor is entirely destroyed all the way to the ground and thus the floors pancake because there are no central columns left?

shogos explanation

the central columns are there.. i am sure they are…

ahhh so we see.. the plane goes in.. but wait if the floors are connected to the central columns individually in separate arms to the outter wall why the fuck would the floors on the opposite side the plane impact collapse also?
surely they would retain their integrity?
unless the central columns have completely been destroyed all the way down and across.
if not.. the central column below the impact site would have nothing to colapse on top of them.. the weight of the floors above are not the entire upper floors combined because the floors have individual arms attached to different central columns.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 11:23:24

R65181
5 years ago
Snark

“Shogo+Snark+viaossa are energetically denying any possible evidence of an inside job, probably for various reasons, but most likely of which would be that they feel powerful from dumping on people in forums.”

Renwald, cut the shit. You clearly haven’t read a word I’ve posted. My intent is merely to point out that our lack of expertise, experience, and information may preclude the drawing of firm or reliable conclusions. There are certain lines of inquiry that are dead end roads for us- basic fact. I’m all for doing what we can to figure things out- and Schneib and Continuity’s posts are admirably agnostic and analytical and are definitely productive. However, I think a lot of people have already decided where they stand on the issue and are approaching the debate with prejudgements that are preventing them from taking a truly objective view of the issue.

I don’t appreciate being misrepresented. If you’re going to participate in a debate, and be a worthwhile participant, you’d better be able to understand everyone’s positions with all their nuances.


R65182
5 years ago
Snark

Triple post. grrr.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 19:38:17

R65183
5 years ago
Snark

Triple post. Grr.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 19:34:20

R65184
5 years ago
Snark

Triple post. Grr.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 19:32:14

R65187
5 years ago
revolutionary

I think a few of us need to learn to respect our own fuckin’ limitations. There is not a single person here with the information or credentials to hold an opinion on this matter. Maybe Shogo’s right, maybe the rest are. Doesn’t matter. However accurate your conjectures are, none of you are informed enough to make intelligent and definitive statements about this. So quit it.

What you said (2nd page of this thread) was, in my opinion, pretty rude and arrogant, Snark. Now, you have “reformulated” your position and clarified the “misuderstandings,” thank you. Let’s move on now.


R65188
5 years ago
Schneibster

1. 10,000 gallons of kerosene wasn’t burning inside WTC2. Clearly at least half or more ignited and consumed itself outside the building in a fireball. We covered that at GNN v1.0. I’d like to get an expert quote estimating the amount of kerosene near-instantly destroyed outside the building. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were the clear majority.

Well, now I don’t think there’s any evidence to support that. And in fact, there’s a great deal of evidence to deny it.

OK, so let’s see what size fireball results from a single gallon of mixed diesel and gasoline; note as well that the energy content of both diesel fuel and gasoline is comparable to kerosene, at 35 MJ/l and 36.4 MJ/l vs. 33.18 MJ/l for kerosene. In this fairly credible story, a fireball estimated at 40 feet long and 20 feet wide resulted from blowing a gallon of mixed diesel and gasoline out of a compressed-air cannon and igniting it; this can be estimated as a rough cylinder of the given proportions, which gives a volume of 50,000 cubic feet, or 1423.3 m^3^ Now, if we look at the building, the fireball was certainly no more than the size of the building itself, plus that much again outside the building. So if the building is 208 feet square, and a floor is 12 feet tall, then this is about 14701.2 m^3^ and if the fireball is no more than the size of the building, it will be another 254820.8 m^3^ (note that it is not confined to the 12 foot height of the floor, so it is 208×208×208 cubic feet, converted to cubic meters) for a total of 269522 m^3^ Dividing in our 40 by 20 foot fireball, we find that this can be created with as little as 189.35 gallons of mixed diesel and gasoline, or even less kerosene! So it is clear that your seat-of-the-pants estimate is of by several orders of magnitude. Almost none of the kerosene fireballed. Most of it stayed inside the building and participated in a pool fire.

2. In both towers, especially one of them (WTC1?), the smell of kerosene was very strong. Fuel-rich environment. An unknown amount simply was not igniting, hence the pervasive smell. The fires were choking, not enough oxygen to go mental.

First, kerosene is an aromatic, and a strong kerosene smell is no scientific indicator of its concentration, or its burning or lack thereof. A jet engine burns kerosene quite efficiently, better than 85%, yet there remains a strong kerosene smell in jet exhaust; I always have to take a shower to get the kerosene smell off myself after flying. Second, kerosene burns only three ways: in a wick (cube wall fabric, furniture fabric, paper, clothing), when sprayed into the air and ignited, or when heated; when cold, it does not give off enough fumes to burn. But, of course, after the plane hit, there was plenty of heat around, even ignoring the heat of the fireball; so there was plenty of heat to vaporize the kerosene and support pool fires even in the absence of wick material. But it would not burn quickly; it would take a while for it to all burn. Thus, there would be a build-up of heat over time, gradually heating the steel in the core and under the floor platforms of the floors over the impact site until it lost enough elasticity to fail under the static load of the building above it. Again, your conclusion is not supported by your data.

3. Also discussed at GNN v1.0 by us, steel will transfer heat and redistribute it. The energy in an afflicted set of girders will essentially move, widen, disperse, and lose temp as it does so—-as long as there places for it to go. Schnieb is it possible that the affected floors were all 900c evenly?

Only one floor would need to be affected; and while steel certainly does conduct heat, the floor girders were not directly connected to the core girders over their entire width, nor to the perimeter steel either; clips were used. This is not a sufficient conduction path to conduct all the heat, or even a majority of the heat, away from the floor girders. And heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is a quantity of energy, period; temperature is the quantity of energy in a certain volume. Therefore, given the same volume, more heat means higher temperature; but given a smaller volume, the same heat means higher temperature. This was not a static situation, in which all of the heat was released at once; there was a large burst of heat, followed by a relatively gradual build up of a far greater amount of heat. I doubt that all of the kerosene, or even half of it, burned; it would not be necessary. Once enough heat was present, failure of the steel due to loss of elasticity was inevitable, and in 2 WTC where the weight of the floors above was greater because the impact site was lower down, that failure was quicker; despite being hit last, 2 WTC fell first.

4. Concrete slab & casing—which the official powers say was knocked at all the right places (pfff, it had to be for their premise to work)—is a superb block against intense heat. I got that from one of your links at GNN 1.0 if you remember.

You can’t block heat. At most, you can slow it down- and the concrete did slow it down; the buildings lasted quite an amazingly long time. But heat is energy, and energy is conserved, and it has to go somewhere. It always goes somewhere. That’s what “energy conservation” means.

5. The strike to WTC2 was not a direct hit. At least some people here know that much of the energy was shot through one corner and out the other. Schnieb, you of all people (at least from GNN v1.0) respect that the cores held the majority of the loads. A WTC building was essentially two buildings in one, the strong inner one holding the outer.

Which is even more compelling when you consider that 2 WTC fell first, isn’t it? But hang on a minute: you said most of the energy “shot… out.” No, it didn’t. If it had, there would have been things flying out- and I don’t mean little things, I mean multi-ton chunks of concrete and steel. But that’s not what happened, is it? Remember energy conservation? Well, if nothing came out the far side that was massive enough to carry off that kinetic energy, then the kinetic energy had to go somewhere. And, of course, it did- into the building. Specifically, into the core.

The planes didn’t hit one floor; they were too tall to do that. They hit multiple floors; and the floor slabs therefore transferred the kinetic energy to the core; obviously, since they didn’t come flying out the other side. Off-center or not, it didn’t matter; E(k) = 1/2mv^2^ and energy is conserved, and that’s the end of the story.

What I’m saying is, there is still some question as to whether the strike to WTC2 was a killing blow. It blew through a chunk of non-vital outer floors and exterior. It did not smash through the core, nor rip away its concrete and insulation. If the core was hit, surely anyone visualize a glancing hit by looking at the videos and comparing them to the WTC plans. If we go by the BBC plans, which are wrong, the plane missed WTC2’s core by a huge margin.

A glancing hit might actually be more damaging than a direct impact; it would have the opportunity to tear insulating material off of a larger portion of the core, exposing more of its steel. And remember: the bulk of the kinetic energy against the core was exerted by the floor slabs in both impacts, spalling off concrete and insulating material just below the floor slab connections, just at the point where the heat would be the most intense because of convection. Keep that effect in mind as well.

In my mind, there is no question of whether any “help” was needed for the towers to fall; once the planes hit and the kerosene was burning, it was inevitable; and this is precisely what a building demolition expert said. Again, the most surprising thing was that they stood as long as they did.


R65189
5 years ago
Schneibster

Do you want to start using your common sense? The more that you argue for the official line on WTC 1 & 2, the more you know there is no explanation for WTC 7.

And the more you misinterpret the evidence in 1 and 2 WTC, the more anything you say about 7 WTC- where the real crime took place- can be dismissed as “wacky conspiracy theories.”


R65191
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

The point is, as stated by Mike Ruppert, you can argue about the scientific evidence forever, the government is always going to be able to outgun you there. You can always find an expert to support an opinion. Ultimately, it should be up to a jury to decide. Mike Ruppert and others, including Nafeez Ahmed, author of The War on Freedom, try to stick to what is provable. That is what Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, and Jim Garrison did with the JFK investigation. Here is a comment I made recently about the lack of a real investigation of 911.

Unanswered Questions

Why have no persons been arrested for helping the hijackers? Think about it. Then think about the JFK conspiracy. What did Jim Garrison stumble upon, down in New Orleans? He found a network of people, who had been associated with Lee Harvey Oswald, which included Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Bannister. These people, who were connected to the CIA and the FBI, led Garrison to others, like George De Mohrenchildt, who had handled Oswald.

Concerning the Oklahoma bombing, have you ever read Others Unknown, by Steven Jones, who was McVeigh’s lawyer, or have you ever read the transcripts of the trials of McVeigh or Nichols? You will find out about John Doe 2, the people who were with McVeigh at the Dreamland Motel just prior to the Oklahoma attack, and the people who were seen unloading fertilizer from a flatbed trailer, at Geary Lake State Park, where it was parked near a Ryder truck.

Well listen to this. This is taken from The Terror Timeline. “The U.S. government has publicly maintained that there were no U.S. based accomplices who aided the hijackers (with the possible exception of Zacarias Moussaoui). In June 2002, FBI Director Mueller testified, “While here, the hijackers effectively operated without suspicion … As far as we know, they contacted no known terrorist sympathizers in the United States. Privately, however, the FBI had already concluded the opposite. In a November 2001 internal FBI document, they concluded that the lead hijackers “maintained a web of contacts both in the U.S. and abroad ….Some contacts provided legal, logistical, or financial assistance, facilitated U.S. entry and flight school enrollment, or were known from Al Qaeda-related activities or training.” The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry’s final report concluded that some of the hijackers received “substantial assistance” from associates in the U.S., though it is “not known to what extent any of these contacts in the U.S.- were aware of the plot.” The inquiry reported that the hijackers came into contact with at least 14 people who had been investigated by the FBI for terrorist ties prior to 9/11. Evidence of other accomplices exists. For example, a few hours after the attacks, German intelligence intercepted a conversation between two known al-Qaeda followers discussing “the 30 people traveling for the operation.”

Note: Paul Thompson’s sources for this information include Associated Press 9/26/02, 9/11 Congressional Inquiry 7/24/03, and the New York Times 9/29/01.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 12:58:50

R65192
5 years ago
Schneibster

zark, the only response I could find to your maunderings about oxidizers was to ridicule you, and although I have more respect for you than that, I have to tell you that you cost yourself quite a bit of it with that post.

This is serious discussion about physics. You really need to know how things work in order to participate seriously. I’d recommend that you watch and learn; if you don’t understand why I say something, ask respectfully and I’ll be happy to explain it in great detail, as you well know. Your relative lack of knowledge in this area, combined with the intuitive knowledge of physics that all of us must have in order to live in this world, may lead you to ask a naive yet important question; if it is put respectfully, you may even change the course of the conversation. But if you continue to engage in ridicule of that which you clearly do not understand, you will only earn further diminution of my respect for you, and I will ignore you as a consequence.

You’ll note that I am giving serious, respectful answers to the questions and problems posed by others on this thread, and refusing to respond to those I find disrespectful. Please be one of the former, rather than the latter.


R65195
5 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcaseman, I don’t argue about whether “they did it.” I argue about what was done; the air must be cleared, we must be able to see the what and the why to have any chance of predicting what comes next. Methods and sources, my friend; that is why I respect Ruppert, because he uncovered many sources. Not only that, but knowing that crashing planes into 1 and 2 WTC was intended to create the climate for the “war on terror” and the justification for invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but that the destruction of 7 WTC was intended to destroy evidence of the largest theft in the history of the world, is far more revealing of what’s really going on, don’t you think?

Because of the difference in objectives, it was not necessary that 1 and 2 WTC fall; but it was clear that they would, knowing what we know now. Consider the fact that the people involved may not even have believed they would fall, because one of the designers said they were designed to withstand such an impact (despite the fact that he was obviously wrong) and you may begin to see further into my opinion of their motivations and of the underlying facts. There was no need to use explosives to do further damage to the towers; simply having two planes crash into them was sufficient to their purposes. Just as dropping one of them was not necessary to their purposes in 1993. The exploding van was sufficient. But 7 WTC had to be demolished, because the evidence the SEC was compiling had to be destroyed. It might even have been a contingency plan; the diesel fire from the generator might have been intended to do the trick, but when it became obvious that it was not going to work, then and only then came the decision to “pull it.”

Think carefully about what happened, and why someone would want it to happen. Think about evidence that you wouldn’t want to leave behind if you were doing it. Then look with this new perspective on all that you have seen and consider what exactly you think they were trying to accomplish, and what methods they likely would have used- and what methods they would likely have eschewed.


R65199
5 years ago
Shogo

Schneib is pretty well pwning all the demolitions yahoos, but I wanted to point out that this Jimmy Walter guy is a fiction writer, who is selling his conspiracy theories for money. Which, as far as I’m concerned, seriously damages his credibility. I’m not sure why I should trust a fiction writer who obviously lacks any knowledge of physics, especially when he’s marketing his wares to the foil-hat set.

Also, suitcaseman, Garrison was a loon himself. I don’t believe in the lone gunman theory, or the magic bullet, but Garrison made a lot of outlandish claims about Kennedy’s murder – including classifying it as a homosexual thrill killing.

If your standards are so low that you’ll subscribe unquestioningly to the views of the Jim Garrisons and Jimmy Walters of the world, yours is probably not the most discerning of intellects.


R65200
5 years ago
Shogo

“simply having two planes crash into them was sufficient to their purposes.”

Something I’ve been arguing since day one.


R65203
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Do you mean to tell me that there is no merit to what these people are saying on this website.


R65204
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

“but Garrison made a lot of outlandish claims about Kennedy’s murder – including classifying it as a homosexual thrill killing”

Really, I never heard that one.

Jim Garrison had the credentials. That was proven a long time ago.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 13:32:24

R65208
5 years ago
Shogo

R65210
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I would read about it if I had not read about it years and years ago. The story has been told. We know about the government’s attack on Jim Garrison and none of it was ever proven. Garrison was a straight shooter, a very talented district attorney, who later served on the Louisiana Supreme Court. He survived all those vicious attacks on his character. I refer you to the book “On the Trail of the Assassins”.

BTW,

I think the Guerilla News Network might be the wrong place for a person who still believes that Oswald murdered JFK and 19 HJers with their box-cutters brought down the buildings on 911.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 13:52:45

R65211
5 years ago
Schneibster

That’s nice- another website for the physics-challenged crowd.

1. Whatever happened that caused the collapse didn’t happen at ground level.
2. When an object that weighs some several hundred tons falls onto anything else, what precisely do you expect you would hear?
3. Seismology is irrelevant- if demolition charges were used, they were used on top floors and were not in contact with the ground. But even if they had been, they would not have generated transverse S-waves, but longitudinal P-waves, none of which were seen on the seismograms.
4. The heat content has been discussed extensively. First, there is the kinetic energy contribution of the plane’s impact. Then there is the fuel. Then there is the other material to burn- hundreds of floors of cubicle walls, office furniture, file cabinets, wooden panelling, etc., etc., etc. Then there is the kinetic energy of the falling building material- which was sufficient to create a pyroclastic cloud, which killed several people in and of itself. That’s PYRO clastic, for the physics-challenged. Go look it up. And do the math: we’re talking about energy comparable to a small nuclear weapon, when it’s all said and done.

All of this has been extensively discussed on the thread on the old GNN, and a great deal of it has been rehashed here.

And yet again:
WHY OH WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE ALL OF THEM OR NONE OF THEM??? Why does everything all have to be the same, every time? Why couldn’t someone have used one method for 1 and 2 WTC, and another method for 7 WTC? Have you no imagination?


R65213
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Schneibster,

I think you lost us.


R65214
5 years ago
viaossa

SuitcaseMan writes: I think the Guerilla News Network might be the wrong place for a person who still believes that Oswald murdered JFK and 19 HJers with their box-cutters brought down the buildings on 911

Really? I think anyone that helps prevent GNN from becoming the playground of paranoid yes-men is actually a good thing. But that’s just me.

-VO


R65218
5 years ago
Shogo

“I would read about it if I had not read about it years and years ago.”

Translation: my mind is as shut as Terri Schiavo’s asshole.

Me: “I don’t believe in the lone gunman theory, or the magic bullet.”

Cantreadman: “I think the Guerilla News Network might be the wrong place for a person who still believes that Oswald murdered JFK”

Nice reading comprehension there, guy. You’re obviously a total moron.

It’s always all or nothing with these clowns, Schneib. Any questioning of the groupthink means you’re not a loyal minion.

So you can’t say that Garrison may have been batshit, while still not believing the lone gunman theory. You can’t say that WTC1 and 2 were brought down by planes, while believing that WTC7 may have been destroyed via demolitions.

It’s a shame that these conspiracy nutters have disappeard so far up their own assholes they have no way of seeing just how foolish they look, and how idiotic they sound.

Nutcaseman: Schneibster may have lost you, but that’s because you’re an ignoramus. Have fun with your X Files DVDs.


R65219
5 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcaseman, if I lost you, then you’re not competent to discuss this subject.


R65237
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Shogo,

It is a shame that you cannot argue without insulting people and calling people names. Relax. Find something else to do for a while.

Schneibster,

Shogo wants you to join him in his campaign against the conspiracy nutters. That aside, I don’t think anybody needs to be a scientist to figure out that the government theory of 911 is wrong. As far as motives go, exploding or imploding Buildings 1 & 2 gets rid of a lot of evidence. I don’t think that is a mystery to anybody.

If this case ever gets to trial, then the issue of how buildings 1 and 2 came down will be argued by qualified expert witnesses, but ultimately it will be up to a jury. Have you ever watched a trial with expert witnesses. The jury can hardly stay awake. When I said you lost us, I meant most of us can’t follow it to the extent that you say you can. But pardon me for speaking, next time I’ll get your permission to speak my thoughts.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 15:54:46

R65239
5 years ago
Shogo

“Shogo wants you to join him in his campaign against the conspiracy nutters.”

LOLERCOASTER

“That aside, I don’t think anybody needs to be a scientist to figure out that the government theory of 911 is wrong.”

Woohoo! Another vote for uninformed and baseless speculation as a means of rigorous inquiry!

“issue of how buildings 1 and 2 came down will be argued by qualified expert witnesses, but ultimately it will be up to a jury.”

Um, actually that’s NOT how science works Nutcaseman. A jury, unless it is comprised of structural engineers and/or physicists, lacks the qualifications to reach an informed conclusion about what caused the towers to fall.

I think it’s quite humorous how people like you and zark loudly proclaim your ignorance of physics, yet expect your arguments to be taken seriously. Congratulations, you’ve earned the respect of your fellow conspiracy nutters. That and $74.99 + shipping will get you the complete 1st season of X-Files on DVD.


R65240
5 years ago
lday

snark, yikes! Your computer is stutterring.

Proof in the science sense is more rigourous than in the legal case.
A Prosecutor needs only establish motive, means and opportunity and let the jury decide beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury says guilty, then the case is considered ‘proved’.

schneib,
You wrote: “To top it all off, the gas station footage (which contrary to your assertions was publicly posted on the ‘Net, and fuelled many conspiracy theories by the mathematically challenged) clearly shows a large aircraft prior to impact, and it is unquestionably of the size and type that other evidence indicates.”

This is the point where you are supposed to provide a URL address. Do you have one? Frankly I doubt it. Prove me wrong please.

quoting Ruppert:
“...Especially with the case of Flight 77, which was, as 9/11-widow Kristen Breitweiser testified, ‘performing loop de loops” over the Pentagon, some serious flying was done on September 11th. Flight 77 not only flew straight toward the Pentagon from near the Ohio-West Virginia border, it made a sudden U-turn over Washington so that it could hit the Pentagon in a virtually unoccupied wing on the navy side…”

He missed something here.
1st: the naval intelligence command center (they would have been playing the war games);
2nd: the Army budget records;
3rd: the unoccupied offices were not hit, they flanked the targetted area which had been recently reinforced.

Eye witness testimony is very unreliable here. The MIC knows how to disguise missiles as commercial jets. SPC does that.

re cleaning out the records at Huffman’s Florida office: It does not necessarily mean it was about training air pilots. Dan Hopsicker figures drug smuggling (&of course CIA) are a better lead. The ONI’s lead drug smuggling expert, Otis Tolbert, died on 9/11.

Shogo, replying to Schneib’s ““Why, again for the umpteenth time, does it have to be all-or-nothing?”
you wrote:
“Because conspiracy nutters are like religious fanatics, and they lack the critical thinking faculties necessary to separate the plausible from the implausible.”

Come on Josh, look in the mirror.
That is what you are doing.

Suitcaseman,
Yes, the U.S. legal system has sucked for a long time.
Everything riggable has already been rigged.
Garrison was a hero indeed.


R65241
5 years ago
Shogo

“The MIC knows how to disguise missiles as commercial jets.”

Except that the dimensions are wrong, and they don’t have engines hanging beneath their wings. Oh, and the small matter of what happened to all the missing passengers.

“Garrison was a hero indeed.”

Garrison was a nutter who happened to be right about some things.


R65243
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

“Oh, and the small matter of what happened to all the missing passengers.”

Haven’t you heard. They sent them all home and told them not to say anything.


R65244
5 years ago
Shogo

“They sent them all home and told them not to say anything.”

Eminently reasonable.

Life sure must be entertaining in that li’l head of yours.


R65248
5 years ago
Schneibster

What evidence? That planes crashed into them? Gee, I bet nobody’ll ever figure it out now- they blew up all the evidence!!!

C’mon, you haven’t presented word one of credible evidence yet. Continuity at least has some serious questions, and some serious thought about the evidence; from what I seen so far, you got nothin. All you had was the web site for the physics-challenged. Without anything to back them up, your pronouncements are bombast. And I’m not fond of bombast.

If you got something to show us, bring it; otherwise, you’re a dunsel, spouting long-discredited theories without any new evidence. Promoting groupthink as bad as anything the neocons have dreamed up. Got no time for that.


R65250
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Schneib,

Doesn’t take much to get you going.


R65251
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Schneib,

And by the way, you are not making sense.
Go back and read my posts again.
But I think I know what upset you.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 16:46:28

R65253
5 years ago
Shogo

Nutcaseman.

It really does have a nice ring to it.


R65256
5 years ago
Schneibster

This is the point where you are supposed to provide a URL address. Do you have one? Frankly I doubt it. Prove me wrong please.

Shit, Larry, we argued about it for a freakin week, if you don’t remember it I’m sorry for you but don’t expect me to fall over like you shot me just because you took too many mushrooms in your wilder days.

For starters, perhaps you’ll find this one familiar in an eerie sort of way; trust me, it’s not deja vu.


R65259
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I said it a long time ago. The people in New York are not stupid. It has already been shown in a Zogby poll. They picked the wrong city to pull it off. All this technical stuff is a big diversion. The government conspiracy tale is implausible.

Schneib,

you said “7 WTC- where the real crime took place”
what happened with buildings 1 and 2?
not a real crime?


R65261
5 years ago
lday

Schneib,
baffle-gab aside, you couldn’t provide a URL address for your amazing claim.
I suspect there isn’t one. Prove me wrong please.

Otherwise young gorillas are just going to file you under ‘Establishment Blowhards’.


R65262
5 years ago
lday

Schneib: Your post was demonstrably false.
You lied.
Then you didn’t correct it when you had the opportunity.
Take a 50 point hit on your credibility,
such as it was.


R65263
5 years ago
Schneibster

Yeah, Josh, sorry to say it does seem to have quite a ring to it.

Suitcase, sorry to have disturbed your lockstepped groupthink. I read what you wrote; I don’t see any evidence. You presented one link to one site, which presents “evidence” that the average grade-school physics nerd could debunk, and that’s supposed to be the “definitive word.” In your first post, you presented a link to a site that states,

There is not a single engineering study with a full math analysis proving their wild claims.

This contains links to two simulations of the impacts of the planes on the towers- but of course those aren’t “engineering studies,” nor are they “math analysis.” The writer wouldn’t know what to do with a “full math analysis” if they got it, other than make more specious claims about it that none of their readers save a small portion could contradict, but never mind that. And I’m sure this doesn’t count either; all those calculation sheets with Young moduli and elasticity indices, those aren’t really math fnord fnord.

Next, they say:

Both FEMA and NIST have stated that most of the fuel was consumed by the initial fireball leaving only the contents were mostly fireproofed due to code

Which is another misstatement, because the actual report (please see the end of the post for the URL, it keeps fucking up this post) says merely that the fuel in the fireball was lost to further burning; a relatively obvious statement that the writer has clearly misinterpreted. I’d leave it as just “misinterpreted” and let the reader assume incompetence, except that it seems that every one of the documents they reference have been “misinterpreted” in the same fashion. Gee, I wonder why that could be? What do you suppose the writer is attempting to accomplish?

I’m not going to do an exhaustive rundown, suffice it to say that almost every other statement made by these folks falls down in similar fashion when compared with the actual source documents they purport to reference; to which they rarely provide links, for obvious reasons.

This is unadulterated, pure, 100% horsepucky. Like I said, if you got it, bring it; now’s the time. But I don’t expect it, quite frankly; having had a look at what you had the last time, and looking at what you’ve brought this time, I just can’t see it.

Perhaps when they’re done taking your life savings by running down the housing market using the same tricks that they used on the stock market, you might begin to get the picture. Ever wonder where all that seven trillion dollars came from? Same place all the money in the housing market came from. And BTW, those tricks could have been made plain for everyone to see by the evidence destroyed at 7 WTC; but you’re too busy following all the “clues” put out by agents provocateur to pay any attention to what’s really going on.

On edit, it seems to be cutting off everything after the link to the NIST report, let’s try that again…

Goddamn fucktile, anyway. Trying it as a URL instead of a link.

The NIST report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

Post Modified: 06/21/05 18:27:28

R65267
5 years ago
Schneibster

Larry, it’s right there in black and white; and it’s one among many. I found no less than five sites with that tape in my first google. If you can’t see it, I’m sorry for you; but by accusing me of lying, and being disrespectful, you have earned my contempt yet again. I suppose I’m stupid expecting you to change and start acting like a rational adult, but I keep giving you the opportunity. Perhaps one day you’ll be mature enough to take it. As far as this conversation goes, you are now on ignore. Good bye.


R65270
5 years ago
Schneibster

you said “7 WTC- where the real crime took place” what happened with buildings 1 and 2? not a real crime?

By the time the planes hit 1 and 2, the crime there was already done. But that crime was for political purposes; you can question whether it’s actually malfeasance rather than criminal activity for financial gain. 7 WTC on the other hand is simple criminal activity for financial gain, gangsterism, highway robbery, in this case to prevent the SEC from getting back the money of all the little investors who put that seven trillion dollars into the stock market which Citibank, Chase, and their ilk stole when they took it down in 1999 and 2000.

Follow the money; it always leads to where the real crime is going on. And there’s thirteen trillion dollars in the US housing market. Gee, I wonder what they’ll do next?


R65271
5 years ago
Shogo

“The people in New York are not stupid. It has already been shown in a Zogby poll”

I’d love to see the poll questions.

1) Do you live in New York?

2) Are you stupid?

Something like that perhaps?


R65272
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Schneib,

What I don’t understand is that I never said anything about proving anything. I keep saying the same thing over and over; we will never know what happened, thanks in part to the demolition company that cleaned up the sight, under very heavy security, but common sense tells you that there is a lot of evidence of demolitions. This is an example.

Go back to the scene of the crime and talk to the witnesses. Your theory is one theory, and experts can be produced to support any theory in court. I am not trying to prove missile theories, demolitions theories, plane-bomb theories; I would rather focus on other evidence, such as failure of the government to heed multiple and specific warnings, the government’s active roll in protecting the hijackers, the connection of the hijackers to the intelligence agencies, the lack of a proper response by NORAD, America’s ties to Osama Bin Laden, the neo-cons connection to the Saudis, etc., etc.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 18:49:38

R65278
5 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase, sure, that’s all great, but while you’re focusing on that, they’re stealing the crown jewels behind your back. Not only that, but it’s all right down the same line:
1. Take the middle class’ money out of the stock market. (“Stock market ‘crash’” of 1999 and 2000.)
2. Get a pretext to have a war. (WTC 1 and 2.)
3. Destroy the evidence of what you did in the stock market. (WTC 7.)
4. Start a recession. (9/11 in total.)
5. Run down social security by borrowing from it to pay for a war. (War in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
6. Put the US so deeply in debt that there’s no way to fund any social programs. (War in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
7. Make sure you can get cheap oil through a pipeline across Afghanistan, and from Iraq, by threatening Iran and Saudi Arabia both economically and militarily. (Conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, Afghan oil pipeline, US military bases in Iraq.)
8. Screw up the contributions to social security to make sure it can’t be fixed. (Current social security debate.)
9. Take the rest of the middle class’ money out of the housing market. (Watch and learn.)
10. Destroy the evidence of what you did in the housing market. (We haven’t seen how yet, but count on it, there’ll be a means just as dirty as 7 WTC.)
11. Take whatever money remains by running the price of everything out through the roof with an oil shortage, while making sure that the oil companies don’t have to pay too much by the prior machinations in the middle east. (The whole shootin’ match.)
And what’s the goal?
12. Get employees who will work dirt cheap because otherwise they don’t eat.

Bet on it. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. Reagan tried to do it; Poppy tried to finish it; Clinton pushed it back, getting the economy on track, but set up the middle class in the stock market; Shrub presided over the stock market theft and will preside over the housing market theft, if they have the balls to try it after what’s happening to Shrub’s approval rating. Here’s a few other little bons mot to consider:
13. The credit bill that recently passed, making bankruptcy much more difficult and taking more of your assets to pay for it if you get sick and can’t work.
14. The sector of the middle class that was making the most headway in terms of economic strength prior to the stock market takedown was the IT sector. IT professionals could write their own ticket. And now? Well, they got the most money taken away in the stock market; and for every IT job, there’s now three or four desperate applicants. Gee, I wonder how that happened?
15. What’s after the housing market sez you? Well, sez I, how much do you know about insurance? :D

“For a coupla pins,” says Troll and grins,
“I’ll eat thee too and gnaw thy shins.
“A bit of meat will go down sweet;
“I’ve a mind to dine on thee now.”

This shit has been brewing since after the Second World War. It took them until Nixon to take away the money and prosperity that the industrial ramp-up for the war had brought; my Dad tells about people having cash money enough to buy houses and cars after the war. When the electronics revolution took off in the 1970s, it took them again until the year 2000 to fix that one. Now they’re aiming to take care of it as permanently as they can figure out how. This is a fuckin war, and you’re on the front line, but you’re pointing your rifle at the cardboard-cut-out decoys while the real action sneaks up on you. Not only that, but you’re distracting everyone around you by waving and shouting and pointing in the wrong direction.

PAY ATTENTION: IT’S NOT THE MONEY; IT’S THE MONEY. It’s always about the money; but the money is about independence from what they want you to do to make them richer instead of making yourself richer. That way, they can control you so they don’t feel as scared of you. Everything else is bullshit.


R65282
5 years ago
Snark

“I would rather focus on other evidence, such as failure of the government to heed multiple and specific warnings, the government’s active roll in protecting the hijackers, the connection of the hijackers to the intelligence agencies, the lack of a proper response by NORAD, America’s ties to Osama Bin Laden, the neo-cons connection to the Saudis, etc., etc.”

And therein lies the heart of the matter, suitcaseman. To me, it matters less how it happened than why it happened. Because I think it’s clear, even from what little information we’re allowed to have and despite the official spin, that this was not a surprise. Whether the government allowed it to happen through neglect or false flag, or did it themselves with demolition charges, is really sort of immaterial- because the effects, as Schneib so ably detailed above, are the same.

Page 5 ownage!


R65284
5 years ago
Shogo

Some interesting points Schneib. I think the reason the conspiracy nutters don’t pay attention is because they aren’t in a position to buy homes, and are usually dirt poor.

On another note, Southern California is seeing a big boom in the conversion of apartments to condominiums which makes it harder for low income people to find affordable places to live.

Pat Buchanan often makes many of your same arguments. I’m something of a protectionist at heart, so I tend to agree that America is being prepped for a serious downgrading of wages and living standards.


R65285
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Schneib,

I don’t see the logic in what you accuse me of. I am into all of those things. But proving 911 was an inside job is integral to stopping the advance. If you cannot prove 911 was an inside job, you are not going to get very far in terms of stopping the war, for example. Follow the money? HELLO! I have no problem with that.

But, as Professor Chossudovsky says, it all started with Yugoslavia, where the U.S. was supposed to be freeing the Kosovars from the dictatorship of Milosevic. Chossudovsky called it part of a war agenda with several stages, Yogoslavia was one stage. The Balkans was an important corridor for pipelines, a gateway into the middle east, he said. All the wars were part of the same design, eminate form the same military doctrine, the Project for the New American Century. And where did that come from? from President Carter’s boy, Brezinski.

Chossudovsky talked about control of a region that encompasses 70% of the world reserves of oil and natural gas. What did the U.S. do, under Clinton, to get its pipeline routes across the Balkans and the Caucasus? Instigated wars using Al Queda to destabilize Macedonia and other countries. They used Islamic terrorists and integrated them into the KLA. The U.S. and the mujahadeen collaborated.

And what did Chossudovsky say about GWB? He is not the person pulling the strings. Before the 2004 election, Chossudovsky said that he preferred GWB to Wesley Clark, an astute military man, who was responsible for war crimes in the Balkans and ordered the destruction of the civilian infrastructure, schools and hospitals. GWB is just a puppet, Clark is a well-documented war criminal, said Chossudovsky. And who did Clark work for? President Clinton. So I think we differ a little bit there.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 20:21:54

R65287
5 years ago
Continuity

I found an important piece of information.

I knew there was something wrong with Shogo’s claim that a Boeing-707 was 50 tons less than the planes which hit the Twin Towers. The specs he linked compared a 707 with the heavier and more modern Boeing 767-400ER. The 767-400ER was not the right plane type.

Flight 11, which rammed WTC1, was a Boeing 767-223ER, belonging to the 200ER subclass of 767s.

Source

Stats on all the Boeing 200 to 300 variations of 767 here

Flight 11 general info

Flight 175 which hit WTC2 was a Boeing767-222

What does this all mean? It means Flight 11 was in no way 50 tons heavier than a fully loaded 707, as Shogo implies. In fact, many of the stats between the 707 and 767-200-(ER) family are more or less the same.

A 707 cruised faster & used more fuel. Max takeoff weight, max fuel, and max speed were all very similiar.

Also keep in mind that a fully loaded 707 would have near to max fuel onboard, and maybe a full listing as well.

Questions for all. How much fuel did Flight 11 and 175 have, as estimated by a range of authorities? One of gallon of fuel equals how many pounds? What’s the max fuel limit for a 707? The max passenger amount?

Post Modified: 06/21/05 20:27:03

R65293
5 years ago
Shogo

Sorry, Continuity, you are wrong

The max takeoff weight of the 767 is 395,000 lbs.

The gross weight of the 707 is 336,000 lbs. So 59,000 lbs. is still an approximately 30 ton difference. Not insignificant.


R65295
5 years ago
viaossa

Actually, as long as we’re speculating, do you suppose the original “This here building can withstand a 707 crashing into it” claim referred to the 367-80 model? Or the 320B? Because right there is an 80 ton difference depending on which model your architect is bragging about.

Which, though I realize I’m repeating myself once again, is why the “707 proof building” speculation really doesn’t mean anything.

-VO


R65296
5 years ago
Continuity

There’s so many things to reply to, all posted within 24 hours. Guys, I’m on holidays until next week, starting like now. I will make short fast posts, and I hope you do too, because 20 sentence paragraphs take too long to read.

The kerosene…. Flight 175 (WTC2). Can someone find trustworthy sources as to how much fuel this flight really had? On the net, everyone is saying 10,000 gallons. I’ve seen all sorts of shit saying this equals 11 × 11 × 11 cubic feet of kerosene. Anyone know? Well, however much it was, some pics of what it did are here:


1—Huge Fireball. Lots of kerosene blowing up.


2—Notice the physical ejecta: external paneling, office junk, outer floor concrete? Energy is generally going through the building. The energy takes matter with it.

At the angle of impact, could the aluminum left wing of Flight 175 have survived to cut right through the core? Wings are the first things to break up.


R65297
5 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcaseman, OK, now you’re bringing something to the table that’s worth looking at. Good stuff, too.

In regard to the towers, first, who cares if they dynamited ‘em after the planes hit ‘em, if you can prove they were running the “terrorists” who (some actually did and some only reputedly did, but whatever) did the deed? Not to mention screwing around with the fighter aircraft that could have intercepted the highjacked airliners and forced Shrub and Cheney to make the “Big Decision:” “Do I order them to blow a US airliner out of the sky and kill everyone on board, or do I let it hit whatever target the ‘terrorists’ might be aiming at? What are they aiming at, anyway?”

In regard to Carter, Brzezinsky, and so forth, go back, my man. Go back to the New Deal. Find out who Smedley Butler (IMO one of the greatest heros this country has ever seen, he gave his honor and reputation to protect us from the worst internal threat ever in this country: fascists) was, and what he did when Roosevelt had been President for a hundred days. Find out how much cash there was in the hands of the middle class after WWII. Find out what Eisenhower did, and Nixon did, and Reagan did, and Poppy Bush did; and how the economy did while they were running things (“the economy, stupid”). (I’m not insulting you, I’m quoting Clinton’s watchwords during both of his campaigns.)

Find out about Desert One, and why it was that Richard Secord and Ollie North were in the government in the first place: what was it a payoff for? Find out what Poppy was doing when Desert One went down. Find out why they called it the “October Surprise,” and how and why the stupidest man in politics made it into the Oval Office (“Bonzo Goes to Washington”). And remember what year that was: 1984. ‘Nuff said.

In the second place, why have a belt and suspenders? Say you’re Cheney or one of the other undesirables. You already had the airliners flown into the towers. Mission accomplished; we’re goin to war. Why fuck it up? Why take a chance someone will find something? Why not just leave it be? You don’t have to blow anything up; it’s just not necessary. And I’ll guarantee you, there were advisers smart enough to tell the people running this thing that; they certainly had advice from FBI agents, who know damn well that most criminals get caught not doing the main job, but fucking something up they never should have been doing in the first place. Why open that box? Why take that chance? Why take a risk for no return? Why not just leave it be; you got what you wanted. Just go “pull” 7, and you’re done. Mission accomplished; now let’s get to Afghanistan and Iraq. And don’t forget to get your payoff for 7 WTC at the next board meeting.


R65298
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo,

Okay I’m editing this post, because I’m not wrong, but the Boeing PDF file has different stats to the summary link which Shogo listed. Apparently, the one Shogo listed is the highest variation for all the 767-200 models.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 21:21:12

R65300
5 years ago
Schneibster

Look at it this way: you’re cynical; you don’t believe what the gummint tells you. The question to ask yourself is, are you cynical enough? Do you believe that the people running things might even have anticipated that there would be cynical ones, and set up a story for them too??

And if they did, are you sure the right thing to do is buy that undercover setup?

Think about it.


R65301
5 years ago
Shogo

“could the aluminum left wing of Flight 175 have survived to cut right through the core?”

Your continued ignorance of basic physics is wearing thin. As has been pointed out to you time and time again, it’s not a matter of the wing cutting through the core. It’s a matter of the core absorbing the brunt of the force generated by the impact. The kinetic energy of the mass striking the building is absorbed by the load-bearing structures, which results in damage. Damage that is further exacerbated by the fires.

You keep saying the same shit over and over like it’s going to change the laws of physics.

Maybe you should try eating a dick? That might help you.


R65302
5 years ago
Shogo

“That’s what your link says.”

Duhhhh.

I should have known you weren’t bright enough to operate a web page.

Click on the link for the stats on the 200 series aircraft. You’ll see what I’m talking about. The 400 model is 450,000 pounds. The 200 model is 395,000 pounds – still significantly more massive than the heaviest 707.

Of course, via raises an interesting point. Do we even know which model of the 707 this building was allegedly designed for? Based on that, we could be looking at an even larger difference in kinetic energy.

This all assumes that the architect is right, that the building really could withstand that kind of force. I find it funny you put near religious faith in what an architect said back in the ’60s, yet are willing to turn right around and pooh pooh modern expert opinion.

It’s also worth considering what effect roughly 40 years would have on the integrity of the design.


R65303
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo, keep trying. Someone is bound to notice how hard you’re trying. In fact, I’ve never seen anyone try so hard and use so many tricks, going so far as to hump another posters leg if only he agrees with you on 1 thing.

You keep saying the same shit over and over like it’s going to change the laws of physics.

That’s funny. Your whole gameplan is to repeat shit over and over. In fact, whenever something new is introduced, you just repeat your mantra and then conclude with insults. Come on, Ari.

The good thing is that you keep bumping this thread, the one you hate so much.


R65304
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo, if you check out Boeing’s PDF, which I’ve linked, you’ll understand. Of all the sub-models, you inadvertently picked the heaviest.

The lightest of the 767-200ERs listed is 335,000 pounds.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 21:31:44

R65305
5 years ago
Continuity

The interviews with 4 different experts I linked, the ones who talked about the 707, were fairly recent — one immediately before 9/11, and one after.

Post Modified: 06/21/05 21:40:24

R65307
5 years ago
Schneibster

Continuity, estimates are 10,000 gallons each for fuel on the planes. The fuel is partly dependent on the load, but much more dependent on the distance; and both planes were clearly picked because they were going from Logan to LAX, and so would have a lot of fuel on them. (Even half-full is a lot; planes don’t carry any more fuel than they need to get where they’re going, plus safety margin, because you have to carry more fuel to carry the fuel, if you see what I mean.)

I did my calculations using the 767-200ER specs; I also checked them against the 9/11 site I linked (or anyway I think I linked it; let me know if you can’t figure it out and I’ll link it for you, again if I did already). It made little difference, in any case. And since we have the actual speeds the aircraft were going (which I also verified using two sources), we don’t really need the “cruising” speeds of the different aircraft. It’s worth noting that at the time the Towers were build, the 707 was a relatively new aircraft; it’s also worth noting that my father and mother were present at the Seattle Sea Fair on the infamous day on which a 707 (actually, the first 380B) flying out of the Red Barn at Boeing Field was taken through a barrel roll, to the near-myocardial-infarction-causing horror of the President of Boeing who was also present. (I would no doubt have been there as well, since we lived there until much later, but I was not yet born; my sister remembers the day.) Dad still tells the story at the drop of a hat.

Max fuel for a 707 is less than a 767; max passengers are less; and although the cruising speed, that is, the speed at which the plane makes its best mileage, is higher for the 707, the thrust of the engines (a most important question that you forgot to ask) is far less. And it is the thrust of the engines, and the strength of the airframe, that determines the top speed of a jet. The 767, of any model, has nearly twice the thrust of a 707, despite having only two engines to the 707’s four; the thrust of the 707’s engines is 18,000 lbs each, for a total of 72,000 lbs, but each engine of the 767 generates 63,000 lbs, almost the total of all the 707’s engines put together, and there are two of them for a total thrust of 126,000 lbs.

In any case, I argue with VO that the claim that the Towers could withstand an impact by a “fully loaded” 707 is nothing but hyperbole. No one could possibly know that, and a few simple calculations show that although they could be expected to stand for a time, ultimately, they must fall, as they did. But everyone who worked in those buildings knew damn well that they were in the flight paths for La Guardia and JFK. I guess you can do the math there as well as any of us.


R65309
5 years ago
Schneibster

hump another poster’s leg

lol, well, I suppose that’s fair. /me isn’t quite entirely certain it’s funny given that he is the most likely humpee; then again, funny is funny. And compliments on your personal integrity; it’s much more pleasant to talk to someone who has it, whether I agree with you or not.

Josh, be nice; he’s admitting it when he’s wrong. He’s even giving you credit: “inadvertently picked the heaviest.” You can’t ask for much more from someone who’s disagreeing with you. The man is serious; give him a break.

Speaking of which, Suitcase looks a bit more serious than he did at first, too. Let’s see whether what he’s got to say gives some hints of other things that underlie the reality that is being presented to us. /me is always on the lookout for new sources. I once knew a man who regularly introduced himself by stating that he was an information whore. I don’t go that far, certainly not on the first date, but I’ve certainly considered it on occasion.


R65310
5 years ago
Continuity

Schnieb, the max fuel is roughly the same. 23,855 gallons vs 24,140 gallons. Why would you nitpick over 285 gallons, such a tiny difference?

I don’t understand your thrust argument. Both planes were capable of the speeds. The momentum was the same. Similiar planes, both could blast into the WTC in a similiar way.

I won’t hump your leg, as someone is trying to, but I still like you. Keep looking. I have to sign out for holidays. Night.


R65314
5 years ago
Schneibster

Mainly, I’m just interested in keeping the discussion of the alternatives accurate. But my main point is, I don’t think either tower would have survived the impact of a 707 either; I think it was hyperbole on the part of the designers to say it would. I’d like to see the calculations of the person who originally made that claim; I suspect it was a piece of institutional mythology, based on some back-of-the-napkin calculations over drinks at some point between some of the designers.

Have a good time.


R65316
5 years ago
Schneibster

Argh, da Schneib is not necessarily entirely comfortable in Pat Buchanan’s camp- but oh, well.

Another clue to how it works is the fact that “street people,” while not unknown before Reagan’s time, became a much larger problem after what was done to the economy during his administration.

And yet another: Ike was relatively smart, and so was Tricky Dicky, but Reagan and both Bushes clearly aren’t mental giants; Poppy was no pushover, but Shrub is clearly not entirely aware of what’s happening, and we have all heard the stories about Ronnie. Dan Quail never got past “Mr. Potatoehead,” and the stories about Ford, while less than entirely accurate, captured the fact that he was never really quite with it either. So the question is, who’s really running things here, if none of these guys were entirely doin it?


R65317
5 years ago
cortez

Since this thread is somewhat about possible implosions, I thought I might watch some again for reference, or for no better reason than to relieve some internal tension. Implotion World:Cinema Explosif is the site, I recommend watching the Combined Bachelor’s Quarters go down, as well as the Southwark towers.

I did though initially watch to compare to this information at 911 Research

—-

“High-Velocity “Demolition Squibs” Are Visible in the Twin Towers’ Collapses”:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html

In the terminology of demolition, ‘squibs’ are puffs or jets of smoke and dust that emerge from the facade of a building as demolition charges shatter the structure. Several such squibs can be seen in videos and photographs capturing the collapses of the North and South Towers.

It has been suggested that the evident squibs could have been added to the photographs and videos after the fact, given that much of this evidence has found its way onto the web via undocumented routes. However, the squibs show up in many diverse videos and photographs, and we have not been able to find any showing the squibs to be absent. A conspiracy of incredible proportions would be required to forge such convincing evidence of squibs in such diverse sources.

—-

Those puffs look odd, but I’d like to see/hear/read some other opinions on it. I’m not sure whyI didn’t catch this being mentioned 3 yrs ago, right after 9/11. Maybe it’s already been discussed elsewhere?

Post Modified: 06/21/05 22:35:49

R65318
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Schneib,

What makes you think I don’t know about the Roosevelt administration, I was a history and english major. What makes you think I don’t know about the Iran-Contra scandal, the October Surprise, and the Reagan administration, in general, and what they did to the economy, eight years of record setting deficits, what is it that makes you think you know these things and I don’t?


R65319
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

And please, the Nixon administration? I lived through it, I know, and I also know that you’d better check out Tarpley when it comes to Watergate.

And Bob Woodward, whose side was he on?


R65320
5 years ago
Shogo

“Of all the sub-models, you inadvertently picked the heaviest.”

It wasn’t inadvertent. On the webpage for the 767, that’s the weight listed for the 200ER model. After reviewing the PDF, I see what you’re talking about. Without knowing the options chosen for that particular plane, it’s purely speculation to presume that it’s the heaviest model, or the lightest model.


R65325
5 years ago
zark

shogo… you ignored my post.. thanks page 4

schneib… how do you explain the time of drop? i am not arguing against the force of impact. the drop of the building hinges on the central columns and the lack of resistance on the way down.

i asked shogo

with the resistance of each floor below, we will find that the collapse takes 30 seconds… ummm no wait… how long it the collapse take from first floor failing to the end of collapse

he replied with
You’ve already said more than once you have no expertise in science. Please don’t throw around words like resistance when you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

so hows about you helping out on this one…

drop time 12 seconds? how?


R65326
5 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase, why the ‘tude, dude? Who said you didn’t know about it? Just pointing it out. I see all this stuff about the towers, makes me think people ain’t watchin the ball, and that makes me testy. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.

That was a pretty good Watergate link. I hadn’t seen it pulled together that way before; I’ve seen the pieces, but not all together in one place.


R65327
5 years ago
Schneibster

drop time 12 seconds? how?

From Wikipedia, the heights of the towers were 417 and 415 m. At 9.8 m/s^2^ which is the acceleration of gravity, the fall time is

d = 1/2at^2^
rearranging,
t = (2d/a)^1/2^
so,
t = ((2 × 417)/9.8)^1/2^
= 9.225s
and that’s worst case. That 9.8 is very, very close for the latitude of New York, as well; at the poles, it’s 9.780, and at the equator, 9.832; you can see that at some 40 degrees North latitude, it’s going to be about halfway between those two, just a hair over the 9.8 I’ve used; which means it actually might be just a touch faster, maybe as low as 9.220 seconds or so.

As you can see, there is an additional two or three seconds to play with; and that represents perhaps twenty-five percent of the total. Statements that the towers fell “at free fall” are simply inaccurate.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the bulk of the time would be spent at the top; near the bottom, it’s really moving. Most of the falling gets done in the last few seconds; at the beginning, it doesn’t fall very fast compared to the end.


R65329
5 years ago
sisyphus

Okay, I am building a scale model of the WTC out of popsicle sticks and tin foil. Once I get my model aircraft license we are going to have a dramatic re-enactment of the attacks. I’ll keep you fools posted.


R65331
5 years ago
cortez

I have to thank nark for the link to the Loose Change documentary


R65332
5 years ago
lday

Back in my younger days I did once fall for a bait and switch scam. It was in a street market in Soho London. I purchased a very nice leather purse for my wife for Christmas. The demonstration model was leather but the item bought, wrapped in a clear plastic bag, was made of plastic. Once bitten, twice shy.

So Schneibster, your link takes me to:
“3d perspective mapping image base modeling & rendering (TDI 3Design maya) precision near collapsed area <>

This is NOT the footage from the gas station or hotel security cameras.
Either you were confused, which is forgivable since some very intelligent powers are trying to confuse us all, or else you are attempting to spread confusion,
another matter entirely, maya.

As for your point that it doesn’t have to be all or nothing, that is interesting.
Perhaps the first strike actually was Al Qaida. “Let one happen Stop the rest!!!” as per Vreeland’s memo. Such an opportunity to solve the problems of WTC asbestos removal and annoyingly incriminating Pentagon books etc was a golden opportunity for ruthless minds.


R65338
5 years ago
lday

Oh Schneib I notice you have me on ignore. I guess that means you won’t be providing links to all the ‘other sites’ you claim exist with the CITGO and Sheraton footage.

Frankly I agree with suitcaseman: you lost us. You lost me right away after one sentence in this post:
SCH: 1. Whatever happened that caused the collapse didn’t happen at ground level…

Despite the seismographs? the jiggling of tripod mounted cameras just BEFORE the collapse? The witness testimony of both firemen and civilian survivors about what happened at ground level just BEFORE the collapse?

If you had followed suitcaseman’s link you would know what caused that particular investigator to check out other NYers experience of the pre-collapse rumble:

“...Seconds before the South Tower crumbled to its doom, I heard/felt a series of explosions. Same with the North Tower. There was no denying it, I could FEEL the vibrations of them like a small earthquake…”

The earth shook. Face facts. Earthquakes collapse buildings. Earthquakes happen at ground level.


R65345
5 years ago
Shogo

Meanwhile, the NIST has released a report about 9/11 urging changes in skyscraper design

Some relevant snippets:

“Dr. Sunder says that is a mistaken reading of the investigation. The agency, he said, does not suggest that buildings should be able to stand up to airplane impacts. “It is more cost effective to keep terrorists away from airplanes, and airplanes away from buildings,” he said.

The trade center was built by the Port Authority, which is not subject to any building codes. Despite promises by the Port Authority to “meet or exceed” the New York City code, the federal investigation found that the trade center had fewer exit staircases than required and that the Port Authority never tested the fire resistance of the floors. It also found no evidence that a rigorous engineering study supported the authority’s repeated public assertion that the towers could stand up to the impact of a fully loaded commercial airliner.


R65352
5 years ago
cicero

Why did the “All we need is a new Pearl Harbour” gang choose the WTC towers.
The obvious answer is that it is a symbol for the American Capitalist hegemony and supression of the third world. The less obvious answer is because a: it was a major financial problem for the Port Authorities, b: it needed several 100 millions of repairs to meet the required standards for current rental rates, c: Bush familly members are responsible for the security, d: The Controlled Demolition from WTC7 was already in place.

The following article speculates around the first two claims and was posted in another thread. But if you stop to think about it the boogie man Bin Laden really helped the NY Port Authority big time. Instead of choosing f.ex the Statue of Liberty or all faour planes attacking the White House just to make sure the target was hit.

:::

Earlier in this series, I speculated that the World Trade Center towers had very likely outlived their usefulness, if in fact they ever had any. As it turns out, Business Week Online covered that same ground shortly after the attacks, on October 5, 2001, when the editors ran an excerpt from a 1999 book by Eric Darton (Divided We Stand, Basic Books):
Is it possible to imagine the World Trade Center as a ruin? ...
A structure begins to fall into a state of ruin when it is no longer supported by the productive relations that created it. But its transformation is complete when it is no longer physically viable and the social imagination that gave it purpose has fled or been banished. Once a building is abandoned at the level of meaning, it is only a matter of time before physical decay upholds its end of the bargain.
In this sense, the World Trade Center came prepackaged as a ruin … From an economic standpoint, the trade center—subsidized since its inception—has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. And in the thirty years since it was built, the social forces of which it remains so highly visible an artifact have definitively realigned.
Relationships among banks and developers, public corporations, the city government, the statehouses of New York and New Jersey, and even the federal government have all been transformed to a point where it is inconceivable that the World Trade Center could be built today—or even for a moment considered a workable or desirable project … Viewed as a crowning ruin, the towers take on a new symbolic power—they become eloquent in transmitting the drama of their own vanished moment.
[...]
When the World Trade Center was bombed in February, 1993, at the age of twenty, it had finally begun generating profits to offset the chronic losses the PA [Port Authority] sustained running the PATH commuter line. But it was already passing its prime as office space, overtaken by a generation of more recent, cybernetically “smart” buildings with higher ceilings and greater built-in electrical capacity. To maintain the trade center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the PA would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding its electrical, electronic communications, and cooling systems.
[...]
The adversary faced by the PA was not a cabal of terrorists. The threat originated in a realignment of social powers represented by a triumvirate of officials elected in the early 1990s: George Pataki, Christie Todd Whitman, and Rudolph Giuliani [Editor’s note: if that’s not “a cabal of terrorists,” then I don’t know what is], respectively the governors of New York and New Jersey and the mayor of New York City. Although differing on many issues, all three vigorously pursued policies of cutting social services while consolidating and privatizing public agencies. At its most ideologically distilled, their shared doctrine—popularly associated with Republican conservatives but espoused by many Democrats—sought to re-create the public sector as a function of the marketplace …
Viewed from this perspective, the Port Authority ceases to exist as a public institution created to address the New York region’s economic and social needs and becomes instead an assemblage of assets, to be broken up according to the dictates of the market. But “capturing” the value of such assets, of course, is predicated upon the dismemberment of the whole.
(BW Online | October 5, 2001 | “The Process of Creating a Ruin”)
As will be recalled, a major “dismemberment of the whole” just happened to occur – purely by chance, I’m sure – in July 2001, when ownership of the World Trade Center transferred from the Port Authority to Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, as reported by the Financial Times (September 14, 2001):
The owners of the demolished World Trade Center in lower Manhattan acquired the buildings just two months ago under a 99-year lease allowing them to walk away from their investment in the event of “an act of terrorism.” The owners, Silverstein Properties and Westfield America – a shopping mall specialist – purchased the buildings from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for $3.2bn in July and completed the financing just two weeks ago … It is understood that the buildings are insured for more than $3bn, enough to cover rebuilding costs.
Apparently the best way to capture the value of these particular assets, after separating them from the whole, was to destroy them.
While revisiting Darton’s book, Business Week Online also posted a short Q&A session with the author. Some of the more intriguing dialogue from that interview is reproduced here:
Q: Why is this terrible attack so hard to comprehend?
A: Whoever did this thing really got us where we live: [The World Trade Center] was a tremendous psychic landmark, as well as a physical landmark. [The attack] really undermined our sense of even what Newtonian physics is. It’s hard for most of us to imagine that something so solid could be pulverized so quickly and so completely. I think it’s spooky for people, on a deep level.
Q: Why did the World Trade Center become so important to us?
A: When I was looking around for its emblematic content, I realized by itself it didn’t have emblematic content. It was, in a sense, empty. The Trade Center really appeared, if anything, to be a gateway, a gateway through which we passed as a culture from an Industrial Age into the Information Age, this New World we live in.
So I came to see it as a gateway, for New York specifically because it coincided with the eclipse of New York’s port. New York, prior to the WTC moment, was a city that could finance, make, and transport things. Now, it’s largely a symbolic economy, based on real estate and finance. My feeling is that, now that [the towers] are physically gone…we have crossed another threshold.
Q: Do you think there will be a move toward the suburbs and less densely populated areas? Or do you think Manhattan and other cities will remain vibrant?
A: There has been, for years, pressure from different sources to decentralize the major cites. There was kind of a war going on between the various factions of the ruling class in this country over whether to get out of cities or to concentrate in cities … There has been a large-scale movement to decentralize, and I can’t but imagine that [the terrorist attacks] won’t help but fuel that somehow.
(BW Online | October 5, 2001 | What the Twin Towers Stood For) Two years before Darton published his book, and four years before the events of September 11, 2001, Scientific American pondered whether all skyscrapers had become obsolete (William Mitchell “Do We Still Need Skyscrapers?,” December 1997). The magazine’s expressed opinion was that the need for centralization of the workforce was quickly becoming a thing of the past: “The burgeoning Digital Revolution has been reducing the need to bring office workers together, face-to-face, in expensive downtown locations,” wrote Mitchell. “Efficient telecommunications have diminished the importance of centrality and correspondingly increased the attractiveness of less expensive suburban sites that are more convenient to the labor force.”
Not to mention the even more attractive option (from the point of view of our corporate masters) of bypassing the suburbs in favor of ‘outsourcing’ office work to ‘Third World’ labor markets …
Could the era of towering downtown skylines be headed the way of the horse-and-buggy? And if so, could hastening the decentralization of major cities be yet another hidden motive for carrying out the attacks of September 11? As has been frequently noted on this website, one of the overriding goals of our fearless leaders is the complete atomization of society—the shredding of all social, cultural and familial bonds. The reason for that, of course, is that a population set adrift, each individual in his or her own little cybersphere of existence, is much easier to deceive, much easier to control, and, lest we forget, much easier to thin. It certainly makes sense then that there would be, at this time, a covert push to decentralize large population centers.
By the way, I should probably add here that decentralization seems to be – coincidentally, I’m sure – the very same agenda that the ‘Peak Oil’ crowd is pitching. Hmmm …



If we are now bearing witness to the early stages of the death of the modern era of centralization, then it seems only fitting that we pause here to take a fond look back at the events surrounding the birth of that era.
It all began, as is so frequently the case with major re-weavings of the social fabric, with an unnatural disaster that traumatized the nation. On the night of October 8, 1871, a fire began to sweep through the very heart of Chicago’s financial district. By the time it burned out, on the morning of October 10, it had blazed a path some 4 miles long and 3/4 of a mile wide through the city.
Fully 1/3 of Chicago’s buildings were destroyed in the blaze, including virtually all of those in the city’s financial district. Hundreds of businesses were reduced to smoldering heaps, including some of the Windy City’s top hotels, restaurants, stores, banks, museums, and theaters. There was a human cost as well; three hundred people lost their lives and tens of thousands more were left homeless. In the aftermath, amid wildly exaggerated reports of violence and looting, martial law was declared; quicker than you can say “USA PATRIOT Act,” federal troops were dispatched.
To the American people, it was a national tragedy roughly on par with the World Trade Center disaster. But to the ruling elite, it was, by any honest analysis, a very conveniently timed gift.
Chicago, you see, had a bit of a problem. Due to it’s central location and its rail and waterway connections, it was a natural hub of commerce for the North American continent. As such, it was one of America’s fastest growing cities, and all indications were that it was going to continue its rapid growth. Indeed, it would ultimately grow up to become the nation’s third largest city. But before that could happen, Chicago needed a fresh start.
It was a young city – incorporated just 34 years before the Great Fire – and it had, by necessity, grown up quickly. Much of the city was, therefore, quite shabbily constructed. Even the city’s most prestigious buildings were in need of constant maintenance and renovation; some had been deemed unsafe by the local press. And space for new buildings was quickly running out.
Virtually all buildings in those days were, at most, four or five stories tall, owing both to the limitations of brick, mortar and wood construction, and to the reluctance of most people to climb endless flights of stairs. But by the time of the Great Fire in 1871, all of that was about to change, thanks in no small part to the development and refinement of the elevator by various members of the Otis family. The invention of the elevator, combined with a revolutionary new steel-framed building design that would be dubbed the “Chicago Skeleton,” was about to render all of Chicago’s business district obsolete. And all of those obsolete buildings were sitting on prime real estate.
The problem, in a nutshell, was that the only direction to build in Chicago was straight up. And the only way to do that was to clear away all the shoddily constructed brick-and-mortar buildings standing in the way. But that, of course, was going to be a tough-sell with the people of Chicago, just as demolishing a section of Lower Manhattan would have been a tough-sell with the people of New York.
Luckily then, the Great Chicago Fire roared through town at just about the right time. Just as a forest can be cleansed and rejuvenated through fire, so too was the city of Chicago. Soon, great buildings began to grow from the ashes of what had come before. The first was the ten-story Home Insurance Building, considered to be the world’s first “skyscraper.” It was soon eclipsed by much taller edifices, including the imposing, 302-foot-tall Masonic Temple that stood, for a time, as the world’s tallest building.
By the early 1990s, Chicago’s downtown was littered with skyscrapers. From 1880 to 1890, the city’s population had more than doubled and land value had increased by some 700%. Like a Phoenix, Chicago had risen from the ashes, and it would continue to rise, although its skyscrapers would soon be eclipsed by the even more ostentatious monoliths that began to grow in New York City.
As with the September 11 attacks, the primary beneficiaries of the Chicago Fire were the moneyed elite. But who were the perpetrators? Who was to blame for the cost paid by the American people?
According to the authoritative sources that I have consulted, the fire was started by … (uhmm, wait a minute here, this doesn’t sound quite right … let me just check my notes real quickly and … yeah, that’s what I have down here, so I’ll guess I’ll go with it) ... so, like I was saying, the Great Chicago Fire was started by, uhh, Mrs. O’ Leary’s cow.
Whew! I can’t believe I got through that one with a straight face.
So, what have we learned here today? Perhaps it is that the lies sold to the American people became more sophisticated in the 130 years between the Great Chicago Fire and the 9-11 attacks. Or maybe not. It may be tempting to conclude that only a less sophisticated generation of Americans could be sold an absurd tale about a cow and a lantern. But could that earlier generation have been sold a story about some guy named Osama sending his merry band of terr’ists into town to start the fire by using themselves as human torches—after, of course, killing some time in one of Chicago’s finest tittie bars, and after thoughtfully leaving behind a passport, a copy of the Koran, and a gas can?


And now it is time once again to dip into the mailbag to see what is on the minds of readers. This first query comes from Dylan:
The one question I have from my initial quick read is this: Doesn’t it seem incongruous that the perpetrators would be concerned about minimizing the loss of life from the towers’ collapse, as you suggest they may have taken steps to do? Wouldn’t the nation as a whole be more traumatized if more people had been killed?
While a higher death toll would obviously be more traumatizing for the American people, I think that part of the answer to Dylan’s question, in the immortal words of the real estate industry, is “location, location, location.” If this operation had been carried out in, say, Harlem, or South-Central Los Angeles, then minimizing loss of life would probably not have been a high priority. But this operation was aimed specifically at bringing down the World Trade Center towers, which resided in the very heart of the corporate beast.
The other part of the answer is that, in the days immediately following the attacks, the actual casualty figures were irrelevant, since the American people were initially sold much higher figures. In those early days of wall-to-wall coverage, when maximum trauma was being inflicted, our trusted media mouthpieces spoke in hushed tones of tens of thousands of yet-to-be recovered bodies. We probably all remember Rudy Giuliani, suddenly revered as “America’s Mayor,” ominously ordering up enough body bags to accommodate those bloated estimates. It took time for those early estimates to slowly creep down to the currently accepted figures, and by then the damage had been done to the American psyche.
And what was the nature of that damage? I recently stumbled across the writings of some guy named Tim Boucher, who has penned an accurate and concise appraisal of the nature and purpose of the trauma inflicted upon the American people:
Do you remember watching it all unfold on television and feeling somehow like it “wasn’t real”? That’s a crucial symptom of traumatic dissociation. Your mind splits, blinks off for a moment, creating a critical space which can be filled with a new story, a new mythos. Before that, almost none of us gave a shit about terrorism or national security. But as a result of this trauma-based rite of passage, we were suddenly conditioned to a completely new value system – one in which everything we held dear before was turned upside-down: personal freedom, the Bill of Rights, etc. It’s virtually identical to what happens to a child in a traditional culture who is re-aligned to adulthood through ritual circumcision and the supporting transformative mythos. Maybe the World Trade Center tumbling down was the ritual circumcision of the American psyche. We are now adults. We are now warriors.
I don’t think I have much to add to that.


Next is a question from an anonymous reader:
Now let me say here that I have never been satisfied with the official story, and that my opinion has always been that this is an inside job. However, there is something that I don’t understand… maybe you can comment on this. If the towers were detonated from within, then why would the bombers detonate the explosives according to a standard demolition procedure? If the bombers had wanted it to appear that the buildings had collapsed due to the impact of planes, then why not set up the explosives in a more random fashion? ... Of course, it’s probably a moot point given that the official story was swallowed by the public so easily.
As far as I know, there wasn’t any other option. For the handful of companies specializing in the controlled implosion of tall structures, building demolition is a relatively exact science. The goal is to bring the building down with a minimum of collateral damage, and accomplishing that requires that the explosive charges be very precisely placed and then detonated in a very specific sequence. There is no way to do that and make it look random.
It is certainly possible that, on a subconscious level at least, the perpetrators wanted the public to know that the towers were not brought down by airplane crashes. That sort of cloaked revelation seems to be, in many cases, a component of the traumatization process. What better way, after all, to disempower and demoralize the American people than through an unspoken acknowledgment that the enemy is within, and can act with impunity?
My hunch is that the official story of the collapse of the towers wasn’t necessarily swallowed all that easily. I suspect that what was sold to the public was, as Eric Darton suggested, “spooky for people, on a deep level.”


Next up is some feedback from researcher Jeff Strahl:
Just a couple of things re the generally excellent Newsletter 69. In a couple of sections, the text is mangled by graphics when I print it, esp. the part about WTC 7 next to the map of the area, and the part with two adjacent graphics about the core. And the last couple of paragraphs seem confused, a strange way to end the thing, just seems to trail off. I don’t understand your contention about the South Tower being damaged more significantly when just a corner was damaged, it was much much easier for the load to be transferred given the core was pretty intact and fewer perimeter columns were damaged, in addition to which most of the fuel was consumed in the external fireball, the fires were much less intense. The lower elevation is made up for by thicker beams, as the beams were tapered.
As for the problems when printing the post, the only response I really have is to suggest that it is probably best not to try to print it. That should alleviate the problem. The other option would be for me to attempt to fix it, but that would probably require that I actually be able to read and edit HTML, or possess some other rudimentary level of computer expertise – which might be the case in a perfect world, but this isn’t a perfect world, as evidenced by the fact that George Bush is still my illegitimate president, Arnold Schwarzenegger is still my illegitimate governor, and “Dr. Phil” is still on the air.
As for the lame ending to the series, that was primarily due to the fact that it was actually a fake ending to buy me some time until I finished all the Addenda. When I get to the real ending, it’s going to be a really good one. You’ll see. I’m thinking of calling it, “Act IV: Revenge of the Sith.” I probably shouldn’t mention it yet though because now someone will likely steal that title. If that should happen, remember that you read it here first.
As for my contention about the damage to the South Tower, I think it is pretty obvious that I was talking out of my ass when I wrote that, but I still think it is a little rude of you to bring it up. Yes, the core suffered less damage in the South Tower strike; and yes, fewer perimeter columns were damaged; and yes, the fires were indeed less intense; and yes, the columns were tapered, with the bases being absolutely massive and the tops being considerably less so. But even so, I still contend that, with all the strife in the world today, it is an inappropriate time to dwell on the flaws in my work.
As near as I can tell, my comments indicating that the South Tower suffered more damage and was therefore brought down first, before the upper stories could topple over, were a holdover from my previous post on the collapse of the towers, and they really should have been edited out.
My initial belief was that the beginnings of an actual partial collapse of the South Tower necessitated the instigation of the planned controlled collapse. But after discovering a photograph of the same phenomenon occurring immediately before the collapse of the North Tower, and after realizing that if the South Tower were to have suffered a partial collapse due to the initial impact damage, it would have occurred almost immediately after the impact, I came to a different conclusion.
I now believe that the initial toppling of the upper floors of the towers was not a condition that dictated the sequence of the collapses, but was rather an indication that the controlled demolitions had already begun. Even as those massive blocks began to topple above the impact points, as depicted in photos, their structural integrity had already been thoroughly undermined from within, and they were beginning to come apart even as they appeared to topple.
The only reasonable explanation for this phenomenon, visible in the collapse of both towers, is that all of the central core columns of both towers were instantaneously dropped and cut into sections, thus pulling the floors and the outer shells of the buildings down towards the center of each tower’s footprint. And the only way that that could happen is through the elaborately choreographed detonation of very carefully placed explosive charges.
My belief now is that the South Tower was brought down first not to preempt a potentially disastrous partial collapse, but because it was the tower that was cleared of occupants first (as much as was possible). I hope this clears up any confusion.


Of the feedback that I have received on Act III, the most popular topic (or perhaps I should say the most unpopular topic) is my commentary on the infamous quote from Larry Silverstein. “Why would you let Silverstein off the hook for his incriminating comment?” ask incredulous readers. According to some readers, I may have gone so far as to have “provided him with an alibi.” Some respondents have even noted my obvious affiliation with the MOSSAD (an organization within which, as we all know, I head the secretive and powerful Irish Catholic division).
Sigh I guess I’m going to have to run through this again.
When confronted with any new piece of evidence, no matter how tempting it may appear to be, it is essential that that evidence be rigorously examined to determine whether it does indeed have merit. In fact, the more tempting the evidence is – the more it is touted as a ‘smoking gun’ – the more skeptical one should be. The danger, you see, is that if you let that piece of evidence become the centerpiece of your case, and then the bottom unexpectedly falls out of that centerpiece, then your case no longer has any credibility, no matter how strong your other evidence may be.
With that in mind, let’s take another look now at the Silverstein quote (view the video clip here):
I remember getting a call from the, uhh, Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.” Uhh, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse.
As a disembodied quote, stripped of context, Silverstein’s words could very easily be interpreted as a candid admission that the building was deliberately brought down. It is, to be sure, a rather ambiguously worded statement. Context, therefore, is all important.
The first thing that must be considered is the context in which Silverstein made the statement. Overlooked by many 9-11 skeptics is that this was not a spontaneous, off-the-cuff remark by the WTC’s new leaseholder. It was not uttered during a live press conference or during a live appearance on a cable ‘news’ shout-a-thon. It was not, in other words, an unscripted response to an unexpected question, nor was it a statement that, once uttered, could not be expunged from the public record.
To the contrary, the Silverstein quote comes from a friendly interview that was taped and edited for inclusion in a documentary film that was later aired on the public airwaves, for all the world to see, just over a year after the events of September 11, 2001. The purpose of the film, as with all televised documentaries concerning the events of that day, was to further sell the American people on the sanctity of the official 9-11 story. It was, in essence, a state-sponsored propaganda film.
Larry Silverstein certainly had ample time to consider his statement both before and after making it. If he had inadvertently incriminated himself, he would surely have immediately recognized that fact, as would the filmmakers, whose goal doesn’t seem to have been to bring the truth about 9-11 to the American people. Why then would a supposed ‘smoking gun’ admission have made it into the final version of the film? Was everyone involved with this production asleep at the wheel during the editing process? Or has PBS suddenly become the voice of truth – but only in this one specific instance?
Also to be considered is the context in which Silverstein’s notorious segment appears in the film. Here is the narration that immediately precedes Silverstein’s statement: ”[WTC] Seven had been cleared faster than the rest of the site, and there had been no bodies to recover. Pelted by debris when the North Tower collapsed, Seven burned until late afternoon, allowing occupants to evacuate to safety.”
I doubt that PBS has set any records here, but that’s a fairly impressive pack of lies they managed to bundle into that second sentence. WTC7 was not, in reality, “pelted by debris” from the North Tower, but was in fact quite intact right up until the moment that it spontaneously collapsed. It also did not burn all day, at least not with fires of any significance. And the building’s occupants, including the helpful folks staffing the emergency command center, were evacuated very early in the day—long before “late afternoon.”
There is a more important issue here, however, than the fact that the statement is a series of outright lies. Take another look at how those lies have been strung together: “Seven burned until late afternoon, allowing occupants to evacuate to safety.” The PBS gang is not telling us that in spite of the fact that the building was allegedly ablaze all day, occupants were nevertheless able to evacuate to safety. No, they are saying that it is precisely because the building burned all day that all the occupants were able to evacuate.
I think most readers will agree that it is not often that you hear someone say: “You know what? It’s a damned good thing that that building burned all day like that so that all those people could get out of there.” But September 11, as we all know, was a day like no other. Employing the peculiar logic and physics of September 11, we can easily determine that the message that the narrator wished to convey was that it was fortunate for all concerned that WTC7 didn’t collapse fairly quickly, as was the case with the Pentagon and both WTC towers, but rather held out for most of the day before its inevitable collapse. Because that is, as we all know, what buildings did on that particular day – even buildings that were not directly involved in the attacks.
Having planted in the viewer’s mind the absurd notion that the collapse of WTC7 was not a matter of “if,” but “when,” the filmmakers then segue directly into Silverstein’s statement, which, in case anyone has forgotten, goes something like this:
I remember getting a call from the, uhh, Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.” Uhh, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse.
There are at least two possible interpretations of that statement. The first one, offered on numerous 9-11 skeptics’ websites, is that the phrase “pull it” refers to performing a controlled demolition. The problem with that interpretation, however, is that the statement then makes no sense. As we have already seen, the “terrible loss of life” in Manhattan that day was directly attributable to the collapse of the Twin Towers. If Silverstein was feigning concern for the loss of life that day, and expressing an interest in avoiding any further loss of life, then why would he recommend instigating the collapse of yet another building?
Another possible interpretation of Silverstein’s statement, as I noted previously, is that the phrase “pull it” refers to suspending firefighting operations – ‘pulling’ firefighters out of the supposedly burning building. Using that interpretation, Silverstein’s statement begins to make sense, because the best way to avoid the further loss of life – particularly among firefighters, who took heavy casualties in both tower collapses – would have been to cease firefighting operations in WTC7 (if it had actually been ablaze and in danger of collapse, and if there had been any actual firefighting operations in progress). And it makes perfect sense that Silverstein, as the leaseholder, would make such a recommendation to a Fire Department Commander, thus relieving the FDNY of liability for failing to work diligently to save his building. It makes no sense, on the other hand, that Silverstein would recommend to a representative of the Fire Department that his building be immediately brought down in a controlled manner. As far as I know, the FDNY is not qualified to stage such a spectacle.
If we look at Silverstein’s statement in conjunction with the narration that immediately precedes it, there doesn’t appear to be any great mystery about what was said. The narrator first informs us that there were no bodies to recover in the rubble of WTC7, and then he begins to explain why: all the building’s occupants had been able to safely evacuate before the collapse. Silverstein then jumps in to add that there were also no firefighters in the building at the time of the collapse because he and a Fire Department official had made a timely decision to pull them out.
There are, unfortunately, a couple of problems with the benign interpretation of Silverstein’s statement. The first is that the peculiar wording of Silverstein’s final comment is difficult to explain away, since he seems to be saying that the building collapsed as a direct result of the decision to “pull it”: “they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse.” It is possible, however, though perhaps not plausible to many, that Silverstein was saying something entirely different. It is possible that he intended his comment to be interpreted as having a silent “and it’s a damned good thing they did” inserted into it, as in “they made that decision to pull and it’s a damned good thing they did, because those men barely had time to get out of there before we watched the building collapse.”
It is possible, in fact, that the qualifying clause wasn’t actually silent at all. It occurred to me, after repeated viewings of the video clip, that Silverstein is no longer on camera when he makes that final comment, but is instead speaking in voiceover. There is therefore no way to determine if his statement has been edited. It seems to me that it is entirely possible that Silverstein’s words were carefully scripted and edited to deliberately create ambiguity.
The other problem with a benign interpretation is that the word “pull” is clearly used elsewhere in the film to refer to the controlled demolition of WTC6. (As will be recalled, I previously stated that such a reference couldn’t be to a controlled collapse since WTC6 didn’t collapse on September 11. However, after viewing the clip, it is clear that the collapse referred to was part of the clean-up operation, not the events of 9-11-01, and the word “pull” clearly is used to refer to a controlled demolition. Oops. My bad.)
The chances of a relatively obscure phrase like “pull it” appearing twice in the same documentary film, with entirely different meanings for each occurrence, would seem to be pretty slim, to say the least. And yet, in the case of WTC6, the phrase clearly refers to a controlled demolition, while in the case of WTC7, such an interpretation renders Silverstein’s statement incomprehensible.
So what are we to make of all this? It seems that there are at least three possible interpretations of Silverstein’s statement: the benign one, in which Silverstein was essentially giving his consent to suspend firefighting activities; the nefarious one, in which Silverstein was ordering the (impossible to spontaneously engineer) controlled demolition of one of his buildings; and the possibly even more nefarious one, in which Silverstein was essentially planting a red herring in the 9-11 skeptics movement by delivering a very carefully crafted bit of deliberate ambiguity.
I previously subscribed to the first interpretation, but after reconsidering the issue, I am now leaning heavily towards the third possibility. It wouldn’t surprise me, in fact, if the original interview tapes were to reveal that Silverstein actually made a much less ambiguous statement. But what do I know? After all, I obviously draw my paycheck from the MOSSAD. And as we all know, the MOSSAD, and Israeli Zionists in general, control the weak, pathetic little country that we call America.
There is one thing about that that puzzles me, however – one thing that I can’t seem to get a handle on. I’ve given this some thought, you see, and this is what I have deduced: if the nation of Israel were to suddenly cease to exist (and this is just a hypothetical situation to make a point, not an endorsement of the destruction of the nation of Israel, so calm the fuck down already), the United States would suffer at least a temporary loss of influence in the oil-soaked Middle East, but would otherwise carry on with business as usual, forcibly exerting its influence over much of the rest of the world; but if the United States were to suddenly cease to exist, then Israel would, I would think, either quickly learn to live peacefully with its neighbors or quickly find itself living on borrowed time.
It has always been my understanding that it is the puppet that is dependent upon the puppeteer. But maybe like everything else since September 11, that has changed as well.
This article and more

R65359
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Iday,

Isn’t it interesting that Webster Tarpley, the author of George Bush, The Unauthorized Biography, is the author of the article that you referred to, the one about secondary explosions in the WTC buildings, which I put up a link to.

Couple of things, one, do you remember that Mark Lane was pretty upset with Oliver Stone and told Stone not to use his stuff for the movie JFK. That is interesting in itself, but what Stone did was take the interviews that Lane did in his movie Rush to Judgment and make it seem like Jim Garrison actually conducted the interviews. These were interviews with people on the ground at Dealey Plaza, who witnessed such things as the puff of smoke on the grassy knoll, they saw what they saw and heard what they heard. Some of these people were witnesses at the trial of Clay Shaw. Well, the link that I provided earlier is interesting, because Webster Tarpley is using the same approach as Mark Lane used.

Also, there is a Backword in the book The War on Freedom, by John Leonard, in which he discusses “the movers”, you know about them I’m sure, the guys that were arrested with box cutters in their moving van, and maps of NYC with certain places highlighted.

Here is an excerpt from Backword, Where would we be without our Wars?

“Local police had been prompted to intervene after receiving the following FBI alert: “Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center.”

And later,

“The movers were all on tourist visas, they were all employed as a team, without work permits, for an Israeli-owned company, and two more employees of the firm were also arrested for questioning by the FBI.

The FBI, especially after developing their film, suspected them of being Mossad agents, kept them in solitary confinement and wanted to keep them in custody for at least another 90 days. But the Israelis refused to give information about their type of military experience, or anything else. The New York Times reported coyly that one of them, Paul Kurzberg, the group’s effective spokesman, “had trouble” with a seven-hour polygraph test, but ‘did better on a second try” – in other words, failed them both. Kurtzberg had refused on principle to divulge much about his role in the Israeli army or subsequently working for people who may have had ties to Israeli intelligence.” Yet Kurtzberg’s release was soon arranged on the personal order of Attorney General John Ashcroft. The respected New York-based Jewish newspaper Forward disclosed that “top-ranking Israeli diplomats” had intervened with Ashcroft on the group’s behalf, securing their release and deportation on minor immigration charges.”

“It has now been confirmed, in spite of official denials, that a group of five Israelis rescued by Ashcroft were, indeed, working for the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. America’s most prominent Jewish newspaper Forward reported that: According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of the investigation that the five Israelis…were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J. served as a front.”

This was taken from pages 351-52 of The War on Freedom. Leonard speculated on the possibilities on page 352. “A moving company, for instance would have been a perfect cover, they could transport equipment in their van, and bring it into the WTC in their uniforms. They absolutely did not cooperate with the police, and in the circumstances, all they had to do was deny everything and wait for help.”

Post Modified: 06/22/05 11:55:55

R65362
5 years ago
Shogo

“According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be named”

Always a sign of credibility, right?

Why bother with facts when there’s innuendo.

Remind me: what does that have to do with how the buildings collapsed?


R65370
5 years ago
COS

Why bother with facts when their false?


R65371
5 years ago
COS

Why bother with facts when theyre false?


R65373
5 years ago
Shogo

You’d believe the Jews were behind your chronic hemorrhoids.

Post Modified: 06/22/05 11:31:51

R65380
5 years ago
fennec

Oh, come now Shogo, at least you can cop to that one you sick twisted fuck.


R65440
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Well, having read all this and being an amiable person, I think you’re all right, in part. I think that technically, the planes could have brought down the towers on their own, and highly unlikely that if that is technically possible, that wouldn’t have been known to the purpetrators and therefore the goal. Why would that be a goal when, as Schneib contends, it was unnecessary for the supposed purposes of justifying war? Because “the bigger the lie, the greater the chance it will be believed” and because the bigger the mess, the greater the chance of getting any incriminating evidence removed. Also, the easier to pull the damning WTC7, and the easier to write off the twins with the insurance companies rather than being forced to rebuild.

Assuming the above conjecture to be correct, an extra charge or two strategically placed in the core as insurance seems likely.


R65446
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Remember the Three Stooges plumber episode, when the butler says “it’s the plumbers madame”?

With 911, it is the movers, as you put it, strategically placing an extra charge or two in the core for insurance.


R65451
5 years ago
Shogo

Nutcaseman, you sure say some dumb stuff.


R65456
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

The bigger the event, the longer it lasts in people’s minds
And people’s minds are and are not a terrible thing to waste


R65460
5 years ago
Schneibster

I haven’t considered this scenario seriously before, because I did not believe that the other factors in the situation (which I detailed earlier) warranted an exhaustive analysis; Chickenma has brought important new considerations to the table that make such an analysis worthwhile.

I’m no demolitions expert, but some research shows that when a building is demolished, crucial structural components are cut using small charges, but generally a large number of them. Most buildings have a great deal of redundancy, and in the ordinary building, in order to perform the operation properly, “a charge or two” isn’t going to do it; it’s a pretty involved process, with not just explosives, but wiring of measured lengths to ensure that the explosives detonate in the correct sequence. Millisecond- to tens-of-microsecond timing is necessary to ensure the collapse occurs as predicted. I have examined several papers presenting the results of finite element analysis of demolition of several different building types, and all specify timing accuracies within the above parameters. I have also done some other reading, and most demolition experts are not comfortable with radio detonation control. I came across several horror stories (well, pretty horrible from an engineering or liability perspective, though there were no deaths or even major injuries some adjacent property got damaged in a couple cases) and the general consensus is that radio detonation schemes are for amateurs; the pros use hard wiring.

It’s worth noting, for perspective, that the speed-of-light delay in wire is about a nanosecond per foot; so a thousand feet of wire gives a microsecond delay, which is only a single order of magnitude below the higher-precision timings specified above. It is also worth noting that the most precision seems to be required for the largest buildings. Obviously, none of the buildings in any of the articles I studied were very much like the WTC towers, with a central solid core, outside perimeter, and clipped floor slabs. Most were apartment buildings in Eastern Europe, with a hotel or two and an office building thrown in for variety. Finally worth noting is the fact that demolition failures, mostly horror stories in which the building didn’t collapse correctly or in which some remnant was left standing that could neither be easily handled with machinery, nor was stable or safe enough to have personnel enter, or even approach, and use a few more charges to demolish, were shown to have resulted from the failure of only one or two charges out of hundreds.

In the WTC, the obvious crucial structural components are in the core; if the core goes, the floors go with it; the curtain walls are nowhere near sufficient to support the floors. However, because of the core’s structure, simply cutting it at one point would not be sufficient; you have to consider the possibility that the lower portions of the core would fail to collapse. It’s sturdily connected, as has been pointed out elsewhere. So you would need to cut the core at multiple points. Now, that core was constructed, as the curtain walls were, with steel that was “staggered.” IOW, multiple-story lengths were used, and the welds between adjacent stringers are not at the same height; I don’t recall the exact arrangement, but I do recall that they were three stories long, and that three adjacent stringers would have welds on three adjacent floors. The upshot of this is that there’s no “strategic spot” to pick; it’s all pretty much of a piece.

There seems to be a quite casual air about the discussion of building demolitions among the sites out there, and on this thread as well. I have to make the point that this is not a task for amateurs; and the demolitions experts who do this stuff for a living would consider almost anyone who has not apprenticed under one of them the rankest amateur, no matter how much experience they might have even in a related field, such as military demolitions. Even if finite element analysis is to be used, the judgement of one or more of these experts is an absolute must if your intent is to drop a building within its own footprint and not spray debris over the landscape, creating extensive collateral damage, from the explosions or the force of the collapse. Small charges are preferred, because they do not blow debris all over the place. Large numbers of them are generally necessary due to the redundancy of most buildings. Hard wiring is strongly favored; many have stated multiple times that they would never involve themselves in a project that used radio controlled detonation, and none of the rest appear to have stated that they would be comfortable with it. Last but not least, due to the large number of charges and the care with which they must be placed, a great deal of time is required; some jobs, particularly in the largest buildings treated in the materials I reviewed, take a month or more to set and wire. A single mistake can be extremely costly; each and every one of hundreds of charges must go off at its appointed millisecond, or you risk losing control of the structure and having a disaster on your hands.

For all of these reasons, because of the size of the WTC towers and the time it would take (this could not have been done in a week, and perhaps not in an entire month), and because Chickenma’s idea of a few “strategically placed” charges is not practical given the circumstances, I still seriously doubt that any demolitions were done on 1 or 2 WTC to aid their collapse.

But hey, I have to say, that was the best idea yet.


R65461
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Magic Planes

The Pancake theory goes the way of the majic bullet theory.
Explosions. Explosions. Everywhere.
Men sneaking in in the middle of the night
Planting charges and waiting for the day to come
When the mighty towers come down
It should be the magic planes theory!

Post Modified: 06/23/05 23:23:59

R65464
5 years ago
Shogo

Nutcaseman, full of shit as ever.


R65507
5 years ago
Snark

Just something else that tends to discount the demolition theory. As Schneibster says above and as corroborated by what little I’ve read about demolition myself, the charges are quite small. They would not create the sizable plumes of debris in the photos cited by many demolition theory advocates, which seem to erupt several meters past the perimeter wall.

On the other hand…anybody ever heard of resonant charges?


R65553
5 years ago
lday

I’m sure cutting edge high-tech explosives are all classified information that only the DoD and MIC know about.

Views of those who were there or have demolition expertise (from Tarpley’s Ch. Six of Synthetic Terrorism, available online—google: Webster Tarpley WTC):

Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter: “There were bombs…”

Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr: “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,” he revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.”

Survivor Teresa Veliz worked on floor 47, North Tower:
“The explosions were going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street towards Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another…”

Ross Milanytch viewed the scene from the 22ndfloor of a nearby building. He reported seeing “small explosions on each floor…

Steve Evans, a reporter for the BBC, happened to be in the South Tower that morning. “I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” he reported. “There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake — then we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions”.

Fox 5 News, a New York television channel, was able to catch on videotape a large white cloud billowing out near the base of the South Tower. The newsman commented: “There is an explosion at the base of the building, white smoke from the bottom, some thing has happened at the base of the building, then, another explosion…”

Tom Elliott was at work at his desk in the offices of Aon Corp. on the 103rd floor of the South Tower just before 9 AM. When the North Tower was hit, he decided to leave the building and began walking down the stairs with a small group of people. At the 70thfloor, Elliott was encouraged by a woman to disregard the announcement on the public address system that there was no need to evacuate. When Elliott had reached the 67th floor, United 175 struck the South Tower, above where he was. Elliott later told a reporter what he was able to observe after that: “Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible sound – he calls it an ‘exploding sound’ – shook the building and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,”

11:56 AM, NBC News broadcast, reporter Pat Dawson: “Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, who was obviously one of the first people here after the two planes were crashed into the side, we assume, of the World Trade Center towers, which used to be behind me over there. Chief Albert Terry told me that he was here just literally five or ten minutes after the events that took place this morning, that is the first crash. The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York City told me that shortly after 9:00 he had roughly ten alarms, roughly 200 men, trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of a secondary device, that is another bomb, going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash, that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building…”

Ann Thompson of NBC reported at 12:42 PM that she had reached the corner ofBroadway and Fulton on her way to the World Trade center that morning
when she heard an explosion and a wall of debris came toward her. She took refuge in a building. When she came out again about 10:30, she heard a second explosion. Firemen warned her about another explosion.

A German reporter tried to film a standup with the WTC in the background, but was interrupted by the sound of an explosion: “We can’t get any closer to the World Trade Center. Here you can see the firemen who are on the scene, the police and FBI officers, and you see the two towers – A huge explosion! Debris is coming down on all of us!”

Another eyewitness reported: “We heard a huge explosion, and everything got black. Glass was falling down, people were getting hurt when the glass hit them. It was a big explosion…

Another European documentary showed a man with glasses recovering in a hospital bed who recalled: “All of a sudden it went bang, bang, bang, like shots, and then three unbelievable explosions.”

An eyewitness who worked in an office near the WTC described his experiences to a reporter for the American Free Press. He was standing in a crowd on Church Street, about two and a half blocks from the South Tower. Just before the South Tower collapsed, he saw “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these flashes and at the same time heard “a crackling sound” just before the tower collapsed.

Kim White, 32, who worked on the 80th floor of the South Tower, was another eyewitness who reported hearing an explosion. “All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn’t know what was going on,” she told People magazine. “We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was afire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion.”

A black office worker wearing a business suit that was covered with dust and ashes told the Danish television network DR-TV1: “On the eighth floor we were thrown back by a huge explosion.”

The German network SAT 1 broadcast a report featuring survivors who also were talking about explosions. One of these eyewitnesses, by the name of Tom Canavan, was cut off in mid-sentence by two FBI agents who barged in, grabbed him as he was speaking, and hustled him away; this scene was captured on tape.

NBC TAPES SHOW CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIONSIn his best-selling study and also in his prime-time special broadcast on German television in August 2003, Gerhard Wisnewski employed out-takes from NBC News cameras near the World Trade Center to provide actual examples of what are almost certainly controlled demolition charges being detonated. On the NBC tape, we see the two towers burning and emitting clouds of black smoke. Then, at about frame 131 of thetape, there emerges a cloud of white-grey smoke along about two thirds of the 79th floorof the South Tower. Two thirds of the southeast façade correspond to the dimensions of the central core column complex, which would be where controlled demolition charges would have to be placed. This line of white-grey smoke billows up, contrasting sharply with the black smoke from the fire. At about frame 203, another line of white-grey smoke emerges several floors below the first, and billows up in its turn. This represents decisive photographic evidence of controlled demolition..

Andreas von Bülow, the former Social Democratic Technology Minister of Germany under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, noted in his study of 9/11 that news tapes show smoke being forced out of the hermetically sealed windows of both towers in the minute or so just before they fell..

WTC6 CNN broadcast the image of smoke rising up from street level near the base of Building 6, the Customs House. This video footage had originated at 9:04, about one minute after United 175 struck the South Tower. Remember that WTC 6 was on the north side of the north tower, so any explosions there cannot be regarded as having been generated by the impact to the South Tower. A powerful explosion inside WTC 6 had hurled a cloud of gas and debris 170 meters high. A CNN archivist commented, “We can’t figure it out.”

Demolition expert Van Romero: “...there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,”...“If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. “It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points [Later he got a research grant and recanted.]

European experts:
Steffen Kretz,the news anchor of the Danish television channel DR-1, reported that “the World Trade Center Tower collapsed after two more explosions.” In a commentary of this same network, it was stated that the World Trade Center collapsed after an additional explosion.
On 9/11, Denmark’s DR-1 broadcast an interview with JensClaus Hansen, a high-ranking officer of the Danish Military Academy. His view was: “Additional bombs must have been placed inside the WTC towers – otherwise they would not have collapsed as they actually did.” Another guest was the former NATO General Keld Hillingsøe, who commented: “Additional bombs must have been installed in the buildings.” The Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende, theleading conservative paper in the country, published an interview with the explosives expert Bent Lund, who pointed out that fire alone could not have caused the collapse of the twin towers. He estimated that about a ton of explosives must have exploded inside the buildings in order to bring them down in this way.

Another leading authority who raised the issue of sabotage from within the towers was Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule…


R65588
5 years ago
Shogo

“I’m sure cutting edge high-tech explosives are all classified information that only the DoD and MIC know about.”

Funny, I was just thinking that exact thing on my way to grab a coffee.

Well – not precisely. What I was thinking about was Schneib’s point about the huge number of charges that would be needed, with their attendant cables, and the attendant smell, and how there’s no way such a thing could be hidden from office workers.

I thought to myself, “I bet the next thing some nutter says is how there must be some super sekrit magical explosives.”

And lo and behold, as though my very thoughts summoned you to post.

Well done, Larry!


R65596
5 years ago
Butt

innerestin how you ignore the eye/ear-witness accounts there Blo-Job – they’re just odinary folks and dumb firefighters, and firefighters ain’t expert on nuttin – not even temperatures, and certainly not smart enough to report the stink from the tons of kerosene apparently lying around, no siree bob.

I thought to myself, “I bet the next thing some Blo-Job says is cunt/nutter/stupid/fucktard/nutcase/ignoramus/moron/suck my weiner, oh, and where’s Schneibster, there a leg needs humpin round here somewhere.”

Blo-Jo=Beta-male

Post Modified: 06/23/05 14:45:08

R65604
5 years ago
Shogo

“firefighters ain’t expert on nuttin – not even temperatures, and certainly not smart enough to report the stink from the tons of kerosene”

Firefighters know about fighting fires, cunt. They’re not explosives experts.

And has been mentioned elsewhere, that I’m sure you couldn’t be bothered to read, kerosene has a distinctive smell – even when burning.

I like how you feel the need to ride my zipper though. It’s pretty entertaining.

Don’t ever change Butt, your kind of ignorant douchebaggery always brightens my day.

Cunt.


R65638
5 years ago
Butt

And has been mentioned elsewhere, that I’m sure you couldn’t be bothered to read

you’re sure, are you?

kerosene has a distinctive smell – even when burning.

I’m well aware of that, but it’s funny how the firefighters made no mention of it – maybe most of it burned off?

I like how you feel the need to ride my zipper though

lol I bet you do, makes ya feel kinda important, I’d guess

Firefighters know about fighting fires

that’s right – they do. But you have already dismissed the testimony of firefighters who were on the 78th floor, unlike the authors of pop mech, as the mere ramblings on ONE firefighter. BTW they don’t send these guys out alone, you know. They tend to go in groups. So the opinion being expressed would have been the opinion of several experienced firefighters.

Nowhere in the released tape is the statement that the shafts were on fire, merely that the elevators weren’t working

from pop mech
“It’s very hard to document where the fuel went,” says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, “but if it’s atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it’ll go off.”

wow! well that’s exhaustive journalism for ya. But you’re so sure it ended up in the shafts? Pop mech states only,
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower’s core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel—and fiery destruction throughout the building

that sounds very definite, no?

however
“It’s very hard to document where the fuel went,” says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert

now that’s not so definite-sounding, is it?

anyhoo, nnerestin how you ignore the eye/ear-witness accounts there Blo-Job, when it suits you


R65710
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

http://reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov

This is a Jeff King presentation

See below

Post Modified: 06/24/05 10:28:20

R65711
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

EXPLOSIONS

This is 67 megs
A Large Download
It takes time
This is Jeff King who studied physics at MIT
He says the collapses were not spontaneous
His friend from Army Corp of Engineers saw squibs
(puffs of smoke)
says they are sign of controlled demolitions
This download is a short presentation

YOU MUST SEE: CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE A Call to Reopen the 9-11 Investigation

Post Modified: 06/24/05 11:42:02

R65713
5 years ago
zark

It’s a miracle Rodriguez, 44, who worked at the WTC for 20 years, is even alive. Usually arriving to work at 8:30am, the morning of 9/11 he reported 30 minutes late. If he’d arrived on time, it would have put him at the top floors just about the same time the jetliner hit the north tower.

“It was a miracle. If I arrived on time, like always, I’d probably be dead. I would have been up at the top floors like every morning,” said Rodriguez about the quirk of fate that saved his life.

But since he was late, Rodriguez found himself checking into work in an office on sub-level 1 when the north tower was hit, seemingly out of harms way. However, the sound and concussion of a massive explosion in the sub-levels right below his feet changed that.

“When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking,” said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.

Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.

“Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above,” said Rodriguez. “Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.”

article


R65718
5 years ago
Shogo

Sounds more to me like Rodriguez heard and felt the impact of the plane hitting the tower whose sub-basement he was in. Then shortly thereafter he heard the impact into the second tower.


R65722
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Well, one thing we can agree on – those towers were intended to come down, either because the purpetrators can do math same as Schneib and knew they would come down, or because they planted some insurance. What doesn’t add up for me in Schneib’s arguments is that, as in the emporer’s new clothes, it belies visual evidence and common sense. Schneib, when did WTC7 get wired – wouldn’t that have taken awhile too, and been evident with your plodding methods? Yet I don’t hear any disagreement that WTC7 was pulled.

Shogo, yes some of us are thinking new/secret technologies. Vaporizing buildings is one I’ve been hearing about for awhile. These guys are in the weapons business, and never pass up an opportunity to try a new one out, especially since no one would know how to look for whatever tell-tale signs might be left.


R65724
5 years ago
Shogo

“Yet I don’t hear any disagreement that WTC7 was pulled.”

I love how all the conspiracy nutters say “pulled” like they’ve learned some badass lingo.

I don’t think WTC7 was a demolitions job for the same reason I don’t think the towers were. Schneib may think that, but I don’t know what his basis for it would be – for the very reasons you cite.

“Vaporizing buildings is one I’ve been hearing about for awhile.”

Where have you been hearing about it? On some cracked out “it’s a secret but I read about it” conspiracy website?

There are a lot of claims out there made by people about defying the laws of physics. Just because you read it on the internet doesn’t make it true.


R65732
5 years ago
zark

shogo… 15 minutes is the time difference between wtc 2 and 1 being hit

Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above

so if you wanna argue that Rod is using ‘seconds’ to denote 900 seconds.. go right ahead


R65735
5 years ago
zark

a side note : – i find it incredible that people who know that the US government was complicit in the attacks… wont believe that it is possible that the US government blew up the buildings in sync with the information that hijackers were gonna fly planes into them.

oklahoma.. Murrah Federal Building
pearl habour .. everyone knows that the japanese codes were broken and the us had the information to fight back.. so it wasnt the ‘suprise’ we are taught
jfk… if it wasnt for Zapruda filming it.. oh well

now i aint saying because of the past governments that this one is guilty without proof, but where is your common sense people?
if a government is willing to poison their own troops and then deny treatment and deny culpability.. how can people defend them?

the only conclusion i can make is that a majority of people are bullies, who are frightened to speak out against big business, governments and large groups… the same people will demonise minorities.. in the UK the minorities are muslims and travellers at the moment.
while on the net, the bullies gang up on the ‘conspiracy theorists’.. the ones who speak out against government discourse and government beaurocracy. shame on you


R65736
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

WE ARE NOW READY FOR

CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE

READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Order your free DVD

I hope you found
The Original Power Point Presentation

Post Modified: 06/24/05 13:30:45

R65744
5 years ago
Butt

I don’t think WTC7 was a demolitions job for the same reason I don’t think the towers were

well what did bring 7 down, then?? In such a wonderfully controlled manner?? More kerosene in the elevator shafts?? or was it diesel this time? Maybe the fallling debris landed exactly upon each of the support columns, yes that would explain it, maybe the Pop Mech people will write an article on it, concluding just that. And you could start a thread entitled ‘I told you so’

Schneib may think that, but I don’t know what his basis for it would be

Is this your way of saying ‘See! I’m NOT a leg-humper’?

Post Modified: 06/24/05 13:57:36

R65745
5 years ago
Shogo

I don’t know what brought WTC7 down. And neither do you, cunt.


R65746
5 years ago
Butt

I don©t know what brought WTC7 down.

surely Pop Mech have a ‘debunking WTC7 conspiracy-fucktard-nutters series’ as well?
perhaps then you should cancel the Popular Mechanics subscription, as they’ve been so lax


R65753
5 years ago
Shogo

Let me explain how scientists operate Butt, since you’re such a stupid cunt.

Scientists draw conclusions based on verifiable data. Not half-baked conspiracy theories, not innuendo, not “Bush’s cousin’s uncle’s rent-boy managed security”, but verifiable data against which hypotheses are constucted. In the absence of meaningful data, drawing conclusions would be intellectually dishonest.

The jury is still out on WTC7. Not enough data exist for there to be an explanation proffered.

That’s where conspiracy fuckwads like yourself eagerly fill in the blank with whatever nonsense you dream up.


R65754
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo said, “In the absence of meaningful data, drawing conclusions would be intellectually dishonest.”

Everyone agrees with that – which is exactly why scrubbing the crime scene is so suspicious.


R65757
5 years ago
Shogo

Some data is ephemeral, and labeling the WTC site a crime scene is a misrepresentation.

The planes hit the towers, resulting in damage to the towers, and fires. After a period of time the towers collapsed.

The explanation for this is obvious to anyone who knows anything about physics.

There was no “crime scene”. It’s only suspicious to people like you who believe in magical building vanishment rays.

And really, even if the debris from the buildings was kept and analyzed, none of you clowns would trust anything the government said about it anyway. You wouldn’t be happy until tons of steel were handed over to rense.com for analysis, and if anyone reached a conclusion other than “the gummint did it”, you’d be crying foul.


R65764
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

You got it Toyota.

Now chek out the latest from the guy from MIT.

Just clik onto the video clip. Be patient.

Post Modified: 06/24/05 15:53:52

R65765
5 years ago
Butt

a crime occured at the scene – ergo: a crime scene?

what about magical evidence vanishment rays? you keep ignoring them

an event, which we shall call ‘A’, occured, the result of which was ‘B’, shortly afterwards another event, which we shall label ‘Z,’ occured, therefore A+B=Z, QED

didn’t there once used to be a ‘respectable’ ‘science’ know as Eugenics – whatever happened to that?

remember kiddies we ‘science’ guys are never wrong, ‘I’m Not a leg-humper’ said so, and he has a science background, so it’s therefore irrefutable


R65766
5 years ago
Flojo

Popular Eugenics did an article debunking the myth that any hetreosexuals ever attended MIT, so that New England fag can suck my wiener

edited to suppress evidence of New Englandism
Post Modified: 06/24/05 15:59:54

R65767
5 years ago
Shogo

“a crime occured at the scene”

When there’s a car accident on the freeway, the damaged cars get cleared off the roadway so as not to present a hazard to traffic. Crime scenes stay designated as such until sufficient evidence is gathered and then they are cleaned up.

You and the other Konspiracy Kooks believe that insufficient evidence was gathered. You’d believe this even if every scrap of rubble was preserved so long as the conclusion of the investigators didn’t jibe with your foregone conclusion that it was demolitions.

You WANT it to be demolitions. You don’t care if there’s evidence opposing that conclusion, you won’t accept any evidence that contradicts your religious faith in the magical demolitions elves.

There is zero physical evidence that indicated demolitions. Even if all the rubble were intact and that conclusion reached, you and your ilk would simply chalk it up to some super secret technology that nobody knows about.

“didn’t there once used to be a ‘respectable’ ‘science’ know as Eugenics – whatever happened to that?”

It was rightly rejected for being bad science. Unlike physics, which has a large body of experiential evidence to support it’s conclusions, eugenics was based on a poor understanding of Darwinism, and has since been relegated to the scrap heap.

I can only say I hope you get as much enjoyment from your stupidity as I do.


R65768
5 years ago
zark

shogo – i am worried about your state of mind. you are becoming increasingly hostile to everyone on this forum. i do hope you are not this way in every discussion you get into. i suggest you relax, take some time off from these boards and get it together.

we are not cunts or fuckwads

best wishes


R65769
5 years ago
lday

Shogo: ‘“I thought to myself, “I bet the next thing some nutter says is how there must be some super sekrit magical explosives.”’

Chickenma: “...some of us are thinking new/secret technologies. Vaporizing buildings is one I’ve been hearing about for awhile. These guys are in the weapons business, and never pass up an opportunity to try a new one out, especially since no one would know how to look for whatever tell-tale signs might be left..”

Naturally this line of inquiry leads straight back to SPC.

From an early 2001 press release from the “super sekrit magical explosives” DARPA researchers:

SAN DIEGO — System Planning Corporation of Arlington, VA, is being awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract with a maximum potential value of $100,972,040 for Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) support for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The effort involves technical studies, assessments and documentation; and will require the contractor to identify and develop new programmatic opportunities, identify pathways for successful technology transfer, define system architectures and supporting subsystem performance requirements and provide technical expertise for systems analyses and senior advisory panel studies. The performance period for this contract is 5 years. There are no options. Work will be performed at the contractor facilities (75%) and at the DARPA facility (25%). The period of performance is from 27 April 2001 through 26 April 2006…

Not quite boxcutters eh?


R65770
5 years ago
Shogo

That Flojo persona is aces. I mean seriously, you’re a comic genius.

You and gonadcock should take your act on the road.


R65771
5 years ago
zark

shogo – would you support an independant investigation, which would obviously prove you correct and thus save us all from losing our minds to conspiracy theories?


R65772
5 years ago
Shogo

“you are becoming increasingly hostile to everyone on this forum.”

Mmmm. No.

Who am I hostile to? You, Butt, Florence, gonad, Chuck. Same as usual, really.

I don’t have much respect for people who are totally ignorant of science, yet feel their opinions on scientific matters should carry any weight.


R65773
5 years ago
Chickenma1

“It’s only suspicious to people like you who believe in magical building vanishment rays.”

OK, you win a point here – I googled vaporizing weapons and came up empty. I really have no problem with the planes doing it if they’re capable – hmmm, except for all those other pesky little problems (the eye witnesses, the core, WTC7, stuff like that).


R65774
5 years ago
Shogo

“would you support an independant investigation”

Of course. Provided that the people doing the investigating were qualified to do so.

Specifically, people with expertise in structural engineering.


R65776
5 years ago
zark

Of course. Provided that the people doing the investigating were qualified to do so

cool. so it would be a full disclosure investigation. national security wouldnt apply to them, they would be protected by law to produce all conclusions they find to the public.

they could bring into court anyone they wish and each witness could speak without hinderance of official secrets, national security contracts or any other gagging orders.

the public could have full access to the investigation as it happens, and .. fuck it.. televise it live


R65777
5 years ago
Shogo

“those other pesky little problems”

There aren’t pesky little problems.

1) No eyewitnesses reported demolitions. The only thing even approximating this are people like refrigeration mechanics saying they heard stuff that sounded to them like explosions. In a building in flames, with shit collapsing, there’ll be a lot of stuff making loud noises. Who knows what they heard?

2) The core has been addressed to death. The core only needed to be damaged, and it didn’t need a direct hit from the plane to do so since the core is going to absorb any shock delivered to the building. The jets slamming into the building delivered a lot of kinetic energy to the frame of the buildings, which would be absorbed by the core. To expect the core to be undamaged from this is unrealistic. Further, the core was aided in supporting the building by the external structure of the building. That was seriously compromised when the jets took out huge chunks of it.

3) WTC7 as of yet has no official consensus. However, there was a diesel fuel tank in the basement, and fires were burning in the building all day long – not to mention all the falling debris that landed on it. However, that has still not been explained.

The lack of an explanation for WTC7 doesn’t equate to demolitions, though. It just means that there isn’t presently an explanation for why it collapsed. There is ample reason why towers 1 and 2 would have fallen.


R65779
5 years ago
Butt

When there©s a car accident on the freeway, the damaged cars get cleared off the roadway so as not to present a hazard to traffic

well I don’t know how these things operate in I’m-NOT-a-leg-humper-land, but over here a member of the police arrives and they take measurements an’ do sum o’ dat scientifik shit an’ all

Crime scenes stay designated as such until sufficient evidence is gathered and then they are cleaned up.

and you’re maintaining that ‘sufficent’ evidence was gathered from the ‘ground zero’? sufficent for what purpose?

Konspiracy Kooks

you know if you’d inserted Krazy before that little alliterative bit, you could have shortened it to KKK and really tarred everyone you’re opposed to.

I can only say I hope you get as much enjoyment from your stupidity as I do.

actually, the seething hostility is what’s making me laugh at the moment


R65780
5 years ago
Butt

3) WTC7 as of yet has no official consensus. However, there was a diesel fuel tank in the basement, and fires were burning in the building all day long – not to mention all the falling debris that landed on it. However, that has still not been explained.

a soon as there’s an ‘official’ consensus I’m sure you’ll be here supporting it. It was da diesel, I tell ya! had to be, Popular Diesels did an article on it, and proved that diesel fires bring down 40-storey buildings all the time, in their own footprint, happens all the time….really

an btw: having money makes you a superior being, Warren Buffet is one of this planets most superior beings, a better human than any of you KKKer’s (Krazy Konspiracy Kooks), as is the Sultan of Brunei, and Adnan Kashoggi owns loads of houses,

Post Modified: 06/24/05 16:34:55

R65783
5 years ago
zark

2) response

the floors were individually connected to the outter wall and the central collumns. ‘the core’ wasnt one single piece. it was mutliple columns. with the damage to oneside of the building and a number of floors.. 5 max from the initial impact. the individual floor beams were intact all the way, up and down the building.. except for the few nailed in the impact.


the huge chunks taken out of it, were on a few floors and would have destroyed those floors connected at those points, but the columns on the other side of the building had no such impact damage.
when the floors collapsed.. the opposite columns, floors and outter structure would have retained integrity.
the plane and fuel damage should therefore have cause collapse on one side of the building first. the columns on the opp side would have retained integrity as the side of the building fell off.

additionally as you can see the floor is in 4 sections.. the sections would have prevented complete uniform collapse.. thus differing with what we saw.


as you can see, all the floors above and below the green area are likely to collapse if the columns are damaged. but the floor sections left, right and front have no reason to collapse at the same time as the plane damaged ones.

46 central columns, and 25% are damaged, all in a group .. in one section of flooring.

uniform collapse is ridiculous

also take into account the uniform collapse of both towers.. with the planes hitting at different angles.

Post Modified: 06/24/05 16:39:54

R65789
5 years ago
Butt

but zark – YOU have no science background – stfu


R65792
5 years ago
lday

Butt,
Shogo has to dump on the firefighters because
their eye-witness testimony conflicts with the officially approved myth.

for example, from Tarpley Ch 6:

“The official version, as codified by the 9/11 commission, claims that not one of these [WTC 1&2] blackboxes was ever found. But a New York City firefighter named Nicholas De Masi claimed that he escorted FBI agents into the WTC ruins and helped them to find and recover three of the four missing black boxes. DeMasi’s account is supported by the WTC volunteer Mike Bellone, who said that he had seen at least one black box being taken from the wreckage. The three black boxes were removed from the wreckage with the help of DeMasi’s all terrain vehicle, according to this account. Then the three black boxes were taken away by the FBI, and have never been heard of again…”

So who are the liars? The firefighters or the mythmakers?

The firemen had great objections to Guiliani’s trashing the crime scene, a clear felony, and they rioted on Nov. 2, 2001 at Ghoulyani’s (sp?) photo-op at Ground Zero. They knew he was full of bullshit and demanded his resignation along with his appointed poodle ‘Fire Commisioner’. After the riot a dozen firemen were arrested.

Did the ‘authorities’ turn to the experienced people who were there for opinion? No, they gagged them and turned to (..drumroll..) the SPC:

Federal Government Releases SPC’s TriData Division Report on Economic Consequences of Firefighter Injuries

Arlington, Va. (Apr. 8 [05]) — System Planning Corporation today announced that an economic consequence study completed recently by its TriData Division for the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) has been released to the public.

Firefighters face a significant risk of injury – with an estimated 81,000 injuries and 100 deaths in 2002 alone. Using information from the study, fire departments nationwide can plan their fire prevention and firefighting strategies better, with an eye toward reducing injuries and costs. NIST plans to use the study as an aid to determining what new research might lead to a reduction in injury costs and to enhanced fire safety.

The study, called The Economic Consequences of Firefighter Injuries and Their Prevention, stressed the importance of programs that minimize emergency calls, prevent accidental fires, and reduce the incidents of arson. It also calls for early detection of fires using smoke detectors as well as improved on scene command procedures to locate firefighters and understand threats to them. The study praises firefighter bravery as “legendary and real,” but calls for new ways to instill safety awareness in firefighters. It also says that training injuries can be minimized by developing better virtual reality simulations for use in training firefighters…”

Blablabla.. SPC just gets more taxpayer money while the NYFD was reduced to whining in a magazine:

‘Fire Engineering’ blasted the entire inadequate investigation process in January 2002 editorial. Editor Bill Manning wrote that “for more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.” Manning charged that “Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure…”

Anthony Weiner (D-NY) (House Science Committee, March 2, 02): “...According to reports that we have heard since, there has been no comprehensive investigation. One expert in fire engineering concluded that there was virtually a nonexistent investigation. We haven’t examined any aspects of the collapse that might have impacted rescue worker procedures even in this last month. Second, reports have emerged that crucial evidence has been mishandled. Over 80 percent of the steel from the World Trade Center site has already been sold for recycling, much of it, if not all of it, before investigators and scientists could analyze the information.”...

Here is an person of interest; perhaps he could provide ‘expert testimony’?
Philip S. Schaenman
Mr. Schaenman is the founder and president of TriData Corporation, a division of SPC specializing in studies of fire protection, emergency medical services (EMS) and EMS management, hazardous materials, rescue/emergency management; and the development of practical indicators to measure the performance of state and local government emergency services.
During his distinguished career, Mr. Schaenman has held management positions with the U.S. Fire Administration/FEMA, The Urban Institute, and Bellcomm, Inc., where he supervised computer technology studies for the manned space flight program…

http://www.sysplan.com/Corporate/Officers/PSchaenman

“The TriData division [of System Planning Corporation] is one of the nation’s leading fire protection, prevention and emergency management consulting organizations. TriData specializes in research and management studies as well as training and technical assistance in fire protection, emergency medical services (EMS), hazardous materials, emergency management, and counterterrorism.
The division’s fire and EMS specialists evaluate fire and EMS departments, analyze fire statistics, undertake risk analyses, monitor technology, conduct fire investigations, develop prevention programs, conduct training for first responder and emergency management personnel, and prepare customized arson control plans. TriData staff members not only have extensive experience in fire department management studies and research…

http://www.sysplan.com/TriData/

hmmm…


R65794
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Thanks Zark. That is exactly what I was referring to as a pesky problem – otherwise known as common sense.


R65812
5 years ago
viaossa

zark writes: the opposite columns, floors and outter structure would have retained integrity.

This is the kinda stuff that gets written… sounds good… but really doesn’t mean anything. How long would the other structural elements have retained integrity with the additional weight brought to bear on them? 10 minutes? An Hour? Do you know? No. So saying something like “the outter structure would have retained integrity” means exactly nothing.

the plane and fuel damage should therefore have cause collapse on one side of the building first.

This is another. Collapse would have occurred on one side of the building first. Really. Based on what evidence, exactly? I mean, other than “that’s how I think it would work”, how are you supporting this analysis? Hypothetically speaking, if I cut halfway through a tree, will only the one side collapse then? If not, why not?

uniform collapse is ridiculous

Uniform collapse is a misnomer.

-VO


R65814
5 years ago
Chickenma1

VO – A tree cut half way through will not fall straight down into its own footprint – it will fall over sideways.


R65815
5 years ago
Chickenma1

VO – A tree cut half way through will not fall straight down into its own footprint – it will fall over sideways. ( I assume that’s in physics 101.)


R65816
5 years ago
viaossa

Ah. You mean kinda like the top of the towers did?

Imagine the implications… The lumberjacks did it.

-VO


R65823
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Yeah, the top did fall over sideways. Now picture the cut tree – the part above the cut falls over sideways, the rest continues to stand. VO, I’m willing to listen but I think you need a different analogy.


R65828
5 years ago
viaossa

No I don’t. The analogy is (and this important to understand) as valid as zark’s analysis, which you deem “common sense” and I deem “common nonsense”.

For instance. Let’s compare a WTC tower to a tree. Why not… it’s been compared to pancakes and tubes, so let’s just say “the towers are like a tree”. Turn-of-the-century woodsmen used to top trees in place. That is, they would scale the tree to a suitable height, cut a notch for peg-boards, stand on the board, take a chunk out of the side of the tree, and watch the top lean over, rotate and (this is important) fall straight down to the ground.

Here’s a simple experiment.

Play Jenga. But put a cinder block on top of your tower. Remove only the blocks from one side about three quarters of the way up. Watch what happens.

Go “oooo.”

-VO


R65830
5 years ago
Joe

EDIT: what V said.

Post Modified: 06/24/05 19:17:04

R65842
5 years ago
Chickenma1

I don’t know about what turn-of-the-century woodsmen did, but I’ve topped a few trees and find it pretty easy to eyeball where to put the notch to get the top to fall where you want it to – the bottom part never fell down, though. I don’t have any blocks – you’re saying the whole thing will fall down? Why? Because the cinder block on top was unsupported and knocked it down? Does a Jenga tower have a core? Does it fall like this? What’s Jenga?


R65848
5 years ago
viaossa

Chickenma1 wonders: I don’t have any blocks – you’re saying the whole thing will fall down? Why?

Because gravity.

Because the cinder block on top was unsupported and knocked it down?

The weight on top becomes unsupported, and falls. Because gravity. Anything that gets in the way falls. Because gravity.

Does a Jenga tower have a core?

If you feel like building one. I recommend using shoestring french-fries.

What’s Jenga?

It’s like google.

-VO


R65850
5 years ago
Joe

The majority of the volume of an office building is occupied by air. Perhaps a better analogy would be a house of cards – the few thin cards form a large open structure. A tree is solid wood. There’s no place for the treetop to fall into, it has to tilt, even though gravity is pulling it directly down. But if you pull a card from the top of the card-house, it’ll crumble. Or it won’t, depending on your luck.

Not that the skyscraper is exactly like a house of cards, but it’s a similar idea, the steel and concrete merely support the occupants. Controlled demolition is entirely based on this idea. The building wants to fall. Gravity is pulling it down, and if the structure is sufficiently weakened, it will collapse. Demolition experts merely hollow out the building as best as they can, and then use small charges to cause a structural failure that will work to their advantage.


R65852
5 years ago
viaossa

I thought about the house of cards approach, but have you ever built a house of cards? It takes forever. Never mind trying to balance a brick on top of it.

Maybe graham crackers. Cut a square out of the middle of a hundred graham crackers, and arrange them around a core made of 47 dried spaghetti nooodles. Balance a bowling ball on top…

Then, take a slingshot and a large marble….

-VO

Post Modified: 06/24/05 20:40:39

R65857
5 years ago
Chickenma1

OK. Now put a multiple stick core firmly in the middle of your house of cards. For drama, light it on fire, then pull one card out. Will the whole thing still collapse straight downwards? Will it look like this, (hit by plane) which looks a lot like this? (no explanation).

Sometimes I feel like these debates obscure the big picture, which include 3 buildings falling straight down, evidence being destroyed, interceptor jets disappearing into wargames, FEMA standing by at the ready, PINAC wanting another Pearl Harbor as a reason to occupy the Middle East, a critical oil shortage looming, evidence of gaming the market, etc. In the face of the big picture, demolition charges are sort of unnecessary speculation.


R65865
5 years ago
viaossa

Chickenma1 writes: Will the whole thing still collapse straight downwards?

Probably. Unless they’re totally consumed by flames.

Will it look like this

No, silly… they’re just cards. That’s a whole big building.

-VO


R65872
5 years ago
Chickenma1

C’mon VO, you didn’t put your sticks in right…


R65874
5 years ago
viaossa

Oh, how I wish that were the first time I’d heard that…

-VO



R65877
5 years ago
Shogo

“What’s Jenga?
It’s like google.”

Heh. Rad.


R65887
5 years ago
Schneibster

Chickenma,

Well, one thing we can agree on – those towers were intended to come down, either because the purpetrators can do math same as Schneib and knew they would come down, or because they planted some insurance.

I’m not as certain as you seem to be about that. I still say that if the purpose was to create a pretext for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the “war on terror,” and PATRIOT, they didn’t have to come down. I’m not certain how much anyone in the federal government cared or cares about the woes of either the Port Authority or Silverman. I note with interest that Ruppert, who is a fine investigator IMO, doesn’t mention him, and doesn’t mention the Port Authority’s financial problem with the twin towers, in Rubicon. He could hardly have avoided noticing it; and I’m sure he didn’t mention it because he couldn’t see how it connected, and because he couldn’t find a money or information trail that pointed to either. Considering what else he dug up, and considering the ubiquity of the data on Silverstein on the ‘Net, I’d have to say that he didn’t find a smoking gun, and I’m sure he looked.

What doesn’t add up for me in Schneib’s arguments is that, as in the emporer’s new clothes, it belies visual evidence and common sense. Schneib, when did WTC7 get wired – wouldn’t that have taken awhile too, and been evident with your plodding methods? Yet I don’t hear any disagreement that WTC7 was pulled.

No, the construction methods for 7 WTC were different. It’s a different design of building. And it’s a design type that has a relatively simple method for demolition. Look at the design of the building; it had cantilevers holding up the “box” that started on about the fifth floor. It’s an easy target, much easier than 1 or 2 WTC. If you look at the collapse films, and read the NIST report (which uses those films as a source), it is clear that the east side failed first, and that the collapse progressed from the east to the west; this is what you see on the film. This is a classic demolition methodology, a “progressive collapse,” that drops a building almost entirely within its footprint.

It is worth noting that large chunks of the towers penetrated 6 WTC; aerial photos of the damage to 6 WTC’s roof, and diagrams of the damage inside the building, make it abundantly clear that prior claims that the towers were dropped within their footprints are hyperbole. If they had been, the damage to 6 WTC would not have happened. In addition, it is worth noting that the damage to the southwest corner of 7 WTC was fairly severe, although not IMO enough to bring the building down. All of this damage was done by structural elements of 1 and 2 WTC when they came down. This was nothing like a controlled demolition; it was a disaster, if that was what was intended, because in a controlled demolition, the idea is to avoid damage to the surrounding buildings. That is the entire reason for undertaking one in the first place.

Shogo, yes some of us are thinking new/secret technologies. Vaporizing buildings is one I’ve been hearing about for awhile. These guys are in the weapons business, and never pass up an opportunity to try a new one out, especially since no one would know how to look for whatever tell-tale signs might be left.

Demolition explosives work one way and one way only. They produce a large amount of gas very quickly; normally this is accompanied by quite a bit of heat, but the heat is a by-product of the gas production, not the main point. The main point is that a solid material produces a large amount of gas at supersonic speed; that is, the reaction proceeds through the explosive faster than the speed of sound. The gas, in expanding, produces a supersonic shock wave, which is a longitudinal wave; that is, a pressure wave, of the same mathematical form as a sound wave, rather than a transverse wave like a water wave. Sometimes the pressure wave is referred to as “overpressure.” It is this pressure wave that does the damage that the explosive does.

Demolition explosives are shattering explosives; that is, the pressure wave has an extremely high gradient in the first microseconds of the explosion, between the uncompressed and compressed regions. The region of extremely high pressure gradient travels at supersonic velocity through solid materials such as rock, stone, concrete, and steel, and shatters them, by accentuating the microscopic flaws that are always present in such materials.

A “shaped charge” is designed to focus some of this longitudinal wave in a certain direction at detonation. This allows a smaller amount of explosive to be used, because normally the shock wave expands from the point of ignition of the explosive outward spherically, in all directions, decreasing in intensity as the square of the distance from the ignition point. However, only a limited amount of the energy can be focused in this manner, because no material object exists that can contain such energy forever; for the first few microseconds, the containment holds, and the wave is focused, but after that the material of the container shatters as well, and the remainder of the energy spreads spherically as in a normal charge. A good example is using modelling clay and a firecracker. If placed next to a tin can and lit, a firecracker may dent the can and throw it some distance, but it will not rend the steel from which the can is made. However, if the overpressure from the firecracker is momentarily focused by covering it with modelling clay and fastening it to the can, it can easily pierce the can’s steel.

Note however that in a demolition operation, this merely allows less total explosive to be used; the number of charges remains the same, because the same number of frame members must be cut. In fact, it might even increase the number of charges, because in focusing the force, one might preclude accomplishing two tasks with a single charge.

The use of thermite in demolitions is not recommended; while it can pierce metal, it is much less efficient than a shattering explosive when steel frame members must be cut, particularly when they are embedded as reinforcing material in concrete. Thermite is not usually used to pierce metal; it is usually used in welding, particularly for heavy machinery that would otherwise be extremely difficult to disassemble for repair, such as locomotive axles. It is also commonly used to weld railroad track sections together without heavy, complex, and dangerous welding equipment (a welder for track rail sections would not be your standard oxyacetylene torch; for something of such size, a much larger piece of equipment would be required, and the same goes for the locomotive axle).

Between shattering explosives, shaped charges, and thermite, you have pretty much exhausted the inventory of demolition methods. “Cutter” explosives are simply shaped charges, nothing more. If there are any “secret” explosives that the government does not make public, they are merely either much hotter than a normal explosive, which would permit them to increase their effect by softening or melting steel before and during the passage of the shock wave, or they produce a higher pressure gradient. Candidates would include octocubanol, an extremely high-energy shattering explosive which has certain difficulties in its manufacture and use, and nothing I can name for a “hot” explosive because I’ve never heard of any single material that has that characteristic. Composites, however, are well known and have been used since the Second World War: in military explosives, if extra heat is desired (such as in the bazooka, which uses a shaped-charge-tipped rocket to make a hole in the side of a single-armored tank), aluminum powder is added to the charge along with an oxidizer. The powdered aluminum in the bazooka rocket liquifies a small portion of the armor of the tank and the shaped charge then propels this liquified metal at supersonic speed into the interior of the tank; the crew generally did not survive the experience, at least in WWII. Modern tanks have Chobham spaced armor, that is, multiple layers of armor separated by air spaces, to defeat this mode of attack, and require more sophisticated and powerful weapons than the bazooka to be successfully attacked.


R65892
5 years ago
zark

Yeah, the top did fall over sideways. Now picture the cut tree – the part above the cut falls over sideways, the rest continues to stand

exactly

VO – you question the time the one side would retain integrity. i am confident it will be more than 12 seconds…

the toppling of the upper part, as seen in WTC 1, proves that the central columns were all intact in that portion and it ‘fell off’ the top as a whole. therefore the columns of the otha side to the impact would be intact and as such would be the floors.
re-read page 1… continuity, cortez et al

additionally the floors as they fell would hit the floors below them. slowing the fall.
12 seconds.. is 2.2 seconds slower than free fall.
2.2 for smashing through 70 floors…. do me a favour.
i would like a total calculation for the strength of the joists and the weight of the floors. as you can also see.. both towers collapsed within the same time scale ~ 1 second.. even though WTC 1 had the upper 30 floors lean sideways and fall in one chunk. How can that be… the weight of the upper floors is different in both buildings during the collapse.. well i mean the weight distribution is different.. therefore the force will be different but they both collapsed in exactly the same mannar and within 1 sec time scale of each other.

lies

Post Modified: 06/25/05 00:15:12

R65894
5 years ago
viaossa

zark writes: i am confident it will be more than 12 seconds…

Oh, well. If you’re confident, I guess that’s that.

the toppling of the upper part, as seen in WTC 1, proves that the central columns were all intact in that portion and it ‘fell off’ the top as a whole. therefore the columns of the otha side to the impact would be intact and as such would be the floors.

If the upper part toppled, and there was a central column, then explain Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

That, ladies and gentleman, speaks to the entire case of the intact center column. If the top toppled, and Chewbacca lived on Endor, then obviously that does not make sense.

re-read page 1… continuity, cortez et al

Oh, for the love of all that is holy and hairy, why? What possible bit of relevant information could anyone hope to gleen from a re-read of the same dead horse redux that has been repeated in thread after thread after thread on both iterations of GNN? What… will page 1 suddenly have examples of physical evidence of explosives where there have been none before? Will innuendo and speculation no longer be confused with fact? Will it all be made clear the umpteenth time around? Will it actually mean something this time?

Or will it be, yet again, more people confusing “that’s not how I think it should have happened” with an ironclad case?

-VO


R65896
5 years ago
zark

the toppling of the upper part, as seen in WTC 1, proves that the central columns were all intact in that portion and it ‘fell off’ the top as a whole. therefore the columns of the otha side to the impact would be intact and as such would be the floors

if the upper part was intact but the plane, as is suggested by officialdom, damaged the column to cause this… why didnt the floors of the upper section on wtc 2 collapse?

also the floors on the opposite side to the crash site should have, like the upper floors, retained integrity… yet they didnt.
furthermore.. the toppling upper section was leaning.. therefore central columns were only damaged on one side.. so again why did the floors on the opposite side collapse.. what force caused them to fall?

Oh, well. If you’re confident, I guess that’s that

yes.. thats exactly it. until there is a shogo-zark agreed independant investigation it is a discussion of who has the most convincing arguement.

schnieb – has convincing scientific calculations.. especially with regard to the heat found at the base of the buildings days after the event

shogo – has convincing swearing and slagging off everyone who disagrees with him and officialdom

so for me.. yes thats that

Post Modified: 06/25/05 02:54:32

R65898
5 years ago
zark

also i think it is only time until one of the conspirators breaks silence and goes public with all details.

hitler kept eevryone schtum about the Reichstag fire for a long time.. but eventually the truth came out.. when they admitted they did it.

dont worry people… someone will grass on em… and you know why?

cause the people involved are PROUD of what they did. i bet they are itching to say “i did it, and i saved the world because of it”

Post Modified: 06/25/05 03:00:13

R65906
5 years ago
Joe

“It is worth noting that large chunks of the towers penetrated 6 WTC; aerial photos of the damage to 6 WTC’s roof, “

Did someone say photos? :-D

pics deleted

Post Modified: 03/16/06 18:07:29

R65913
5 years ago
Shogo

Yeah, those pics sure look like some controlled demolitions!


R65936
5 years ago
Schneibster

Joe, yep, that’s what I was talkin about. You can see 6 between 1 and 7, with the huge hole in the top.


R65948
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, Doubts Official 9/11 Story

Excerpts

A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan stepped back into the political spotlight this week, expressing doubt about the official 9/11 story and claiming “if they lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why should we believe them now.”

Expressing doubt about the government’s official version of 9/11 but deferring detailed criticism to the experts, Roberts concerns come on the heels of recent criticism leveled by Morgan Reynolds, a former chief economist in the Bush I administration.

Reynolds is the highest-ranking public official so far to step forward and criticize the government account of 9/11, calling the government story “bogus” and saying the WTC most likely fell from a controlled demolition.

Roberts said the recent statements made by Reynolds, however, reveals just how flimsy and unbelievable the government story comes across.

“This is not some kind of conspiracy nut or kook talking. He is a man with extremely qualified credentials, whose opinions I respect.”

“The real story is not Morgan Reynolds or myself, but why have so many former Republican conservatives and top ranking officials who disagree with the neo cons been systematically run out of Washington? And, also, why is the media so intent on covering up the Bush-neo con agenda and all the mistakes surrounding it?”

The article.

Post Modified: 06/25/05 12:51:12

R65950
5 years ago
sisyphus

Viaossa – “Oh, for the love of all that is holy and hairy, why? What possible bit of relevant information could anyone hope to gleen from a re-read of the same dead horse redux that has been repeated in thread after thread after thread on both iterations of GNN?”

Word, why the fuck am I even reading this?


R65956
5 years ago
viaossa

sisyphus writes: Word, why the fuck am I even reading this?

Me neither…

-VO


R65958
5 years ago
cortez

zark posted a piece of this article on the last page, but not much was said on the matter.

“... 14 people who felt and heard the same explosion and even saw Rodriguez, moments after the airplane hit, take David to safety, after he was burnt so bad from the basement explosion flesh was hanging from his face and both arms…”

more info on William Rodriguez

documentary trailer

Various Articles

WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim Blows ‘Official 9/11 Story’ Sky High; Eye Witness Testimony Is Conclusive That North Tower Collapsed From Controlled Demolition

WTC janitor pulls burn victim to safety after basement explosion rocks north tower seconds before jetliner hit top floors. Also, two other men trapped and drowning in a basement elevator shaft, were also pulled to safety from underground explosion..
June 24, 2005

By Greg Szymanski

What happened to William Rodriguez the morning of 9/11 is a miracle. What happened to his story after-the-fact is a tragedy.

But with miracles and tragedies comes truth. And truth is exactly what Rodriguez brings to the whole mystery surrounding 9/11.

Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.

He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.

All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?

Rodriguez claims this was impossible and clearly demonstrates a controlled demolition brought down the WTC, saying “Let’s see them (the government) try to wiggle out of this one.”

Well, they haven’t wiggled out of it because the government continues to act like Rodriguez doesn’t exist, basically ignoring his statements and the fact he rescued a man burnt and bleeding from the basement explosions.

His eye witness account, ignored by the media and the government, points the finger squarely on an official cover-up at the highest levels since the government contends the WTC fell only from burning jet fuel. And after listening to Rodriguez, it’s easy to see why the Bush administration wants him kept quiet.

Bush wants him quiet because Rodriguez’s account is ‘proof positive’ the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition, not burning jet fuel. And Bush knows if he’s caught lying about this or caught in a cover-up, it’s just a matter of time before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

In fact, Rodriguez’s story is so damaging – so damning – it literally blows the lid off the government story, literally exposing the whole 9/11 investigation as a sham and a cover-up of the worst kind.

And it appears the cover-up also extends to the media.

NBC news knew about his story several years ago, even spending a full day at his house taping his comments. But when push came to shove, his story was never aired. Why?

His eyewitness account, backed up by at least 14 people at the scene with him, isn’t speculation or conjecture. It isn’t a story that takes a network out on a journalistic limb. It’s a story that can be backed up, a story that can be verified with hospital records and testimony from many others.

It’s a story about 14 people who felt and heard the same explosion and even saw Rodriguez, moments after the airplane hit, take David to safety, after he was burnt so bad from the basement explosion flesh was hanging from his face and both arms

So why didn’t NBC or any other major news outlets cover the story? They didn’t run it because it shot the government story to hell and back. They didn’t run it because “the powers that be” wouldn’t allow it.

Since 9/11, Rodriguez has stuck to his guns, never wavering from what he said from day one. Left homeless at times, warned to keep quiet and subtly harassed, he nevertheless has continued trying to tell get his message out in the face of a country not willing to listen.

Here is his story:

The Miracle

It’s a miracle Rodriguez, 44, who worked at the WTC for 20 years, is even alive. Usually arriving to work at 8:30am, the morning of 9/11 he reported 30 minutes late. If he’d arrived on time, it would have put him at the top floors just about the same time the jetliner hit the north tower.

“It was a miracle. If I arrived on time, like always, I’d probably be dead. I would have been up at the top floors like every morning,” said Rodriguez about the quirk of fate that saved his life.

But since he was late, Rodriguez found himself checking into work in an office on sub-level 1 when the north tower was hit, seemingly out of harms way. However, the sound and concussion of a massive explosion in the sub-levels right below his feet changed that.

“When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking,” said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.

Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.

“Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above,” said Rodriguez. “Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.”

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling “explosion! explosion! explosion!”

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.

“He was burned terribly,” said Rodriguez. “The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.

“I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up.

“I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word.”

After Rodriguez escorted David to safety outside the WTC, he returned to lead the others in the basement to safety as well. While there, he also helped two other men trapped and drowning in the basement elevator shaft, another result he says of the explosives placed below the tower.

In fact, after leading these men to safety, he even made another trip back into the north tower, against police orders, in order to rescue people from the top floors.

“I never could make it to the top, but I got up to the 33rd floor after getting some of my equipment and a face mask out of the janitor’s closet,” said Rodriguez, adding he heard a series of small explosions going off between the 20th and 30th floors, unrelated to the airplane strike, while making his way through the stairwell to the top floors.

“Also, when I was on the 33rd floor, I heard strange sounds coming form the 34th floor, loud noises like someone moving and thumping heavy equipment and furniture. I knew this floor was empty and stripped due to construction work so I avoided it and continued to make my way up the stairs.”

Rodriguez said he finally reached the 39th floor before being turned back by fire fighters and then, reluctantly, started his descent back down and his own flight to safety while, at the same time, hearing explosions coming from the South Tower.

The Tragedy

The concerted effort by the media and the government to silence Rodriguez is the tragedy behind this American hero’s story. And there is no question, Rodriguez is a “silent hero” for saving so many lives and for having the courage to continue telling his story against tremendous odds.

In an effort to open a fair and honest investigation as to why the WTC collapsed, Rodriguez has been ignored by government officials, the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST).

NIST, an independent investigative group funded by the government, put the finishing touches this week on its 2 year $35 million 9/11 investigation. This week Rodriguez made his final plea to have his story heard while testifying at the final public hearing held in New York.

“ I disagree 100%with the government story,” said Rodriguez. “I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.

“And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers.

“Also, The FBI never followed up on my claims or on the other part of my story when I told them before 9/11, I encountered one of the hijackers casing the north tower.”

Besides the explosions, Rodriguez also has provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission that he stumbled across one of the supposed 19 Arab hijackers inside the WTC several months before 9/11

“I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, ‘Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?’” Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission. “Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange. I didn’t forget about it”

Rodriguez, claims he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001, telling an FBI agent about the incident a month after the attacks. Never hearing back from the bureau, he later learned agents never followed up on the story.

“I’m very certain, I’ll give it 90%” that Alshehri was casing the towers before the attacks,” said Rodriguez.

Regarding the media’s apathetic approach to his story, Rodriguez said immediately after 9/11 some newspapers picked it up but his words were never taken seriously and quickly forgotten.

“During the 9/11 hearings, NBC brought a crew out to my house and spent a day taping my story but they never did air a word of it,” said Rodriguez. “Since then, some reporters and commentators have subtly warned me to keep quiet, told me my life could be in jeopardy and warned me that I really didn’t understand who I was dealing with.

“I have been receiving this type of subtle harassment for years, but I keep telling everybody I can’t be intimidated because I am on a mission. Whenever someone asks why I keep talking or warns me that I could be killed, I just tell them I have nothing to lose.

“I tell them I lost 200 friends and I am their voice now. I tell them I will do everything in my power to find out the truth since I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway.”

Besides trying to tell his explosive story, Rodriguez has been active raising money for 9/11victims, being involved with charity groups that have raised more than $122 million. He says he has used over $60,000 of his own money, originally earmarked to buy a new house, in order to get at the truth behind 9/11.

Also seeking justice at the highest level, Rodriguez is the lead plaintiff in a federal RICO lawsuit filed against President Bush and others, alleging conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes in the deaths of more than 3,000 at the WTC.

The case, filed last November in a Philadelphia federal district court, recently was moved to New York in a change of venue after a government’s motion to dismiss was overruled, allowing legal discovery to continue.

“Even if the case goes no farther, I feel we have scored a victory by winning this first battle,” said Rodriguez. “At least the judge seems willing to listen which is a victory of sorts. However, I sincerely hope we can eventually take the case all the way to trial and reveal the truth to the American people about 9/11.”


R65959
5 years ago
Rasputin

It seems a perfect metaphor for this debate to juxtapose the eye-witness testimony of a lowly janitor – a hero who observed the events first hand and saved many lives – with the pompous swell of the self-appointed “debunkers” of the 9/11 truth movement.

Naturally, this lower-caste laborer will not be taken seriously by the tenacious ideologues of LIHOP and IHOP. Nor will the firefighters. Nor any of the other “common people”.

If only it was someone with links to the Pentagon, say a professor at MIT, or a cousin of the head of Homeland Security, I would believe. Truly I would.

If only there was some father-figure “expert” I could trust. Provided he isn’t Swiss:

Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich:

“In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.” The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice.”

Presumably, Bachmann had Al-chimera in mind, just like Romero when he expressed similar sentiments, or he never would have put forth such an unpatriotic theory in the first place.

Ok, Schneib wrote, “why does it have to be all or nothing?”

I say, it doesn’t. You’ll have a hard time convincing me that WTC7 wasn’t a cd, but I’m willing to buy the pancake premise with respect the other towers.

Perhaps you can help me though:

Let’s get real simple:

North tower collapse = 8 seconds (9 MAX)
Absolute free fall in a vacuum from 1350 ft = 9.2 seconds

Now it seems to me that the only thing that can account for this anomaly is controlled demolition. The difference in pressure would explain the vacuum, ie the faster than free fall rate, whereas a pancake hypothesis – a sudden collapse of the central steel structural core and everything blown to smithereens due to fire — simply makes no sense. No matter how you shake it, there would be some resistance, would there not?

Some of the more sensible/honest IHOPers have conceded that WTC7 looks rather like the most flawless, beautifully executed controlled demolition they’ve ever seen.

If WTC7 was wired, it’s not exactly a stretch to suggest that the other buildings were as well.

And there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting that hypothesis. That’s alls I’m saying.

One of the things that strikes me about the LIHOP/IHOP crew is that they tend to focus on only one or two events of the day while ignoring everything else. This amounts to a strawman, because if you look at the events in their entirety, the LIHOP theory falls apart.

You need only ask yourself if members of the Pentagon would in their right mind allow a couple of “dumb and dumber” pilots to attempt to execute the fantastical maneuver that destroyed the renovation wing of their beloved fortress when they could have done the deed themselves.

To say nothing of the other bizarre events surrounding the “hijackers” (some of whom are still alive).

Why take the risk? That’s what remote control is for. That’s what the Northwoods authors suggested several decades ago: switch the commercial planes with “exact duplicates” or drones and fly them into buildings.

That’s what the “drills” were all about.

Oh, you forgot the drills? Allow me to refresh your memory:

“On August 22, 2002, the Associated Press ran a story about 9/11. “Agency planned drill for plane crash last Sept. 11.”

“...one US intelligence agency [NRO, National Reconnaissance Office] was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 [2001] in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings.”

The same morning. As. The 9/11 attacks.

According to the NRO, their exercise was canceled when the real thing began. [LOL!!!!]

And here’s another classic from the coincidence theory songbook:

“Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

The pilot, Charles Burlingame, an ex- F4 Navy flyer, had, as his last Navy mission, helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.”

http://www.911dossier.co.uk/pen08.html

I mean re-he-heeeeely. And another:

“Flight 11 first deviates from its route a minute or two after Flight 175 takes off, and its transponder is switched off at the same time that Flight 77 takes off. Flight 175 first deviates from its route just as Flight 93 takes off and its transponder goes off at the same time that Flight 11 hits WTC1, which is also the time that Flight 77 first goes off course. It carries on like that right to the end. It’s uncanny. It’s either an amazing sequence of coincidences or it means that 9-11 was an incredibly well co-ordinated operation with someone in full control of — and in communication with — the four planes from the ground. Those crafty al-Qaeda scallywags.”

Go ahead and check the Timeline – it’s a work of art.

Post Modified: 06/25/05 15:11:55

R65961
5 years ago
Rasputin

Word, why the fuck am I even reading this?

Because you care about the truth?

Or you like a good bitch fest?


R65964
5 years ago
Rasputin

Rodriguez:

Let’s see them (the government) try to wiggle out of this one.

Indeed, and the pancake people in general. It’ll be a real hoot, or a real horror show, depending on your perspective.

I remember when foreknowledge was considered taboo.

Now everyone pimps foreknowledge.

Second they laugh at you (or call you a “conspiracy nutter”), so it goes.

;)


R65976
5 years ago
Rasputin

This a pic of WT7 at 3pm, right about the time the “structural damage” was threatening to bring the whole goddam building down:

I don’t know about you, but it seems clear that the building was about to collapse.


R65977
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Fantastic! It is that simple.


R65978
5 years ago
Rasputin

Post Modified: 06/25/05 19:23:55

R65979
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

The way the media and politicians and the military are after the bush administration these last few days about Iraq, makes you wonder if they’re gonna be the fall guys, even Brezinski said on CBS news tonite that iraq is lookin like a quagmire.

Post Modified: 06/25/05 20:03:54

R65981
5 years ago
Shogo

Quite a circle jerk you’ve got going here Spewt.

Only question I have is who eats the ookie cookie?


R65982
5 years ago
shoogoo

It’s all yours, betaboy.


R65983
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

How many stories in Building 7?
Fire collapsed it into a pile of dust
Man oh man look at the pentagon
they really blew it there
imagine trying to run that jive by us
it is just incredible!

Post Modified: 06/26/05 00:20:13

R65990
5 years ago
zark

rasputin- this WTC, 11th september has highlighted the structure, the thinking, the system as it works and who it empowers.

lowly janitor – kicked out on the street, he saved many people, but didnt have the correct status and story to be able to continue to revel in the public eye

official theory weighs heavier than others

if you are not with us, you are against us

the binary structure

official theory vs other theory (theories plural but in the eyes of the common knowledge singular)

terrorism vs peacekeeping
good vs bad
evil vs good
men vs women
christians vs muslims
muslims vs jews
military vs citizens
sovereign nation vs global government
subject vs transcendental identity
ownership vs ????

the structured story is easy to consume. the complex story where good and bad interlink and make us question how they are constructed is avoided at all costs. the same with terrorists and peacekeepers, these cross over and are so indistinguishable from each other, a structured definition of each is required (the patriot act, the terrorism act 2001, the prevention of terrorism act 2005)

did the terrorists collapse the towers? yes. Did they do it on their own without any aid from the US government? No
Were their explosives in the towers? ????
if the answer to this would create a crossover between law, honesty, goodness, peacekeeping and terrorism, evilness then there will be a fight to prevent confusion.

how about the hijackers had bag bombs in the planes and had them all in the cockpit of planes with timers. when the planes hit the central columns the bags fell out, into the central core shaft.. some got caught on the way down but some made it to the basement. they all went off and by pure luck rather than just blow up the 70th floors actually brought down the buildings. hmmm

Post Modified: 06/26/05 02:17:03

R65991
5 years ago
Continuity

I have a few minutes to hang here before I finally get to sleep.

Why has no one addressed my mention (linked earlier) of the molten steel found, several days later, beneath the rubble of WTC7?

A long time ago, Schieb went to great lengths to tell me molten steel beneath WTC1 and WTC2 was entirely acceptable. Since I didn’t feel like arguing every single phenomenon and I won’t pretend to know everything, I said okay and made a mental note.

But now we know that Controlled Demolitions Incorporated, the big dudes contracted to clean up the mess, were interviewed and they specifically mentioned the WTC7 anomaly, and they apparently were as confused as you or I.

This also begs the question—-Why was it so damned hot (as gauged by reliable sat photos, which I also linked) beneath the rubble of WTC7 five days afterward? WTC-1 and -2? Fine, whatever.

But 7? The hottest of the three? Molten steel? Hello?


R65993
5 years ago
zark

continuity – stfu, you are stupid, are you a scientist? you fucktard, just shut up and stop going on and on. Controlled Demolitions dont know nothing except shifting rubble, fucking prolls. i am getting fed up of you smegma’s. i have explained that my sources are PM and if that fails — you are all just conspiracy nuts following the thoughts of maniacs and psycho’s. WTC 7 had fuel storage in the basement… [can you imagine a building with highly sensitive records and departments having a fucking fuel dump in the basement of their building… lmao… plus with a little bit of fire.. can explode and bring down the building. its just fucking ace] which could be calculated by scientists to prove that the steel can easily be melted if in contact with it for a few hours. In reality the earth is made of molten lava, under the crust and you fucking prolls are astounded when a bit of molten steel is found. go to any steel works you will find molten steel there. does that mean they use explosives. you people are just not worth it, stupid fucks.. ahsakhdaksjhdkjahd i hate everyone, thick as fuck shits.

sorry forgot who i was

hi continuity

Post Modified: 06/26/05 06:01:43

R65996
5 years ago
Shogo

If there was a giant tank of diesel fuel under WTC7, then that would explain why the fires under it’s rubble would burn much longer than under the other two buildings. With the fires confined to the small area under the rubble, then the heat would be highly concentrated in small areas, which could produce small amounts of molten steel.

It’s pretty sad watching a bunch of idiots self-congratulate each other on their mutual stupidity.

Just wanted you all to know (zark, Continuity, Nutcaseman, Butt): you’re a bunch of total fucking retards.


R65997
5 years ago
Shogo

PS – zark, your self-confessed desire for the cocks of working men in your anus is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. Clearly the janitors of the world are much smarter than PhDs!

John Lennon didn’t advocate that a working-class tool was something to be, FYI.


R66001
5 years ago
Butt

when it comes to cock-obsession I’d say you win that one hands-down. one would only have to do a simple site-search using the terms ‘Shogo’ and ‘Dick’ (I found 88) I tried ‘Zark’ and ‘Dick’ and found only 11 hits. One could therefore form the hypothesis that Shogo is eight times more cock-obsessed than zark, if one wished to be a tool about it.

I also tried ‘Butt’ and ‘Cunt’
which gave me 25 hits, so one could , very unscientifically, conclude that butt is approx 70% less obsessed with cunt than shogo is with cock, or alternatively one could conclude that Shogo is 70% less obsessed with butts cunt than he is with his own dick

John Lennon also didn’t advocate that a coding-cock-obsessed-tool was something to be. BTW I didn’t know you were a Lennon fan. calm down, calm down (British joke)

it was du diesel I tell ya!

Post Modified: 06/26/05 09:23:00

R66002
5 years ago
zark

zark, your self-confessed desire for the cocks of working men in your anus is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. Clearly the janitors of the world are much smarter than PhDs

good will hunting… stfu doofus

seems like you think that calling someone ‘gay’ is abuse. golly what a scientific mind you have..

oh yeah and when you find ‘meaning’ in science.. please inform me of that.. cause meaning, involves subjectivity.. science is supposed to be objective.

shogo : – In the absence of meaningful data, drawing conclusions would be intellectually dishonest

Post Modified: 06/26/05 10:10:46

R66005
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R66006
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Believers of the government conspiracy theory want us to believe that the planes that hit 1 & 2 were Magic Planes that brought the buildings down, but at the pentagon, the photos show furniture and other items that were completely undamaged by fire. No Magic Plane there!

Post Modified: 06/26/05 14:05:25

R66008
5 years ago
Smelter

A photo of collected plane debris at the pentagon.

The video the photo was snaped from

From “CBS 60 minutes 2” special on bush’s day.


R66009
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

It is time to play Hunt the Boeing.


R66010
5 years ago
Smelter

Picture during construction shows core


R66011
5 years ago
fennec

Ok, back on topic…


R66018
5 years ago
Continuity

I guess Shogo-McBeal-Evil Josh has a set of unfortunate conditions known as —-

1. Cyber Tourette’s Syndrome (it’s kind of like abruptt diarrhea at the conclusion of each post)
2. Obsessive Thread Disorder
3. Getting-furious-at-people-on-the-Internet-Disorder, which is complicated by a delusion that people actually take his insults seriously
4. Curiosity-Deficit-Disorder
5. Cyber-Masochism, which is to say returning time and again to the thread which he claims he can’t stand. (Kinda like volunteering to work at a crappy job, right?)


R66019
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Question #1

Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

*250 mph when landing, 600 mph in flight.

Post Modified: 06/26/05 14:54:28

R66021
5 years ago
zark

suitcaseman.. it is impossible for a 757 to be travelling at 500mph, that low, without destroying the building.

plus the turbulance from it.. would have completely obliterated all the cars on the freeway (all planes have a safe distance so that turbulance doesnt affect otha planes)

all those people who said they were within 50 meters of it would have been deafened, head ringing, balance lost and probably be flying through the air on the wake of the turbulance.

just soo funny to think it is actually thought to have been a 757 at 500 mph.. that low.. lol


R66022
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Good. Thankyou zark.

Question #2

Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?


R66025
5 years ago
zark

dont really need to as there is no 757 — matrix stylie

Post Modified: 06/26/05 16:02:42

R66029
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Click here for a larger picture.
Thankyou once again zark.

Post Modified: 06/26/05 18:13:21

R66030
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Question #3

You’ll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon’s first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph

Post Modified: 06/26/05 16:51:34

R66031
5 years ago
Butt

Question #1

Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

well you see, apparently, the Pentagon had just finished reinforcing the outer wall of the building, which of course resulted in the minimal damage observed, and the minimal loss of personel, because, of course, that particular wing of the building was apparently unoccupied at the time, due to the aforementioned renovations. Fortuitous foresight? Cautious coincidence? hapazard hijackers? Mallible media? bullshit blowback?


R66036
5 years ago
Butt


The inner core of WTC 1 was the most solid part of the building.

Janitors of the world, Unite!, you have nothing to lose but your PhD’s!
Post Modified: 06/26/05 17:14:25

R66038
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I will answer Question #3 myself. NO, I could not find any debris. Thankyou Suitcaseman. Thankyou Butt for answers to Question #1.

Question #4

The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf.

Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Post Modified: 06/26/05 18:28:04

R66039
5 years ago
whateveryousay

i think that you can safely assume that the ‘official theories’ about the spontaneous total simultaneous failure of the entire towers 1 and 2 are crap.

i don’t think that it’s safe to assume conventional demolition through explosives alone as an explanation.
might actually the simplest explanation though.


R66042
5 years ago
Shogo

“thread which he claims he can’t stand.”

I don’t think I said that.

I think I said that you’re all a bunch of fucking morons.

Which is undeniably true. Especially judging by your latest rehash of the same unprovable conjectures grounded only in your own fantasy world.

But please, by all means, continue on in your rampant faggotry, bitches.


R66044
5 years ago
Shogo

“planes that hit 1 & 2 were Magic Planes that brought the buildings down, but at the pentagon, the photos show furniture and other items that were completely undamaged by fire. No Magic Plane there!”

You’re such a stupid fuck, Nutcaseman.

The Pentagon and WTC towers were totally different buildings, constructed via completely different methods. Further, to imply that the furniture was completely undamaged is ridiculous given that the side of the building the plane crashed into totally collapsed around the entry hole.

You, Butt, Zark, and Continuity are the dumbest motherfuckers on GNN.


R66046
5 years ago
cicero

Perhaps its been asked before?

Why was one of the worlds most experienced Controlled Demolition firms (CDI) called in if all they where going to do was shift the rubble?

Is that not a bit of a overkill!?


R66047
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

There you go again with the name calling. Second, I said that photos show furniture and other items that were completely undamaged by fire. Third, the side did not collapse because of the impact, it collapsed from the fire later. See below.

The two photographs were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck.

Post Modified: 06/26/05 21:55:56

R66048
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

While we are at it, Question #5

Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?


R66049
5 years ago
Shogo

“Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?”

They disappeared up your asshole along with Zark’s head.


R66051
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo the metallurgist said:

With the fires confined to the small area under the rubble, then the heat would be highly concentrated in small areas, which could produce small amounts of molten steel.

Just stop making things up, all right? Show me a link that backs any of that up. Tell me how the temperatures beneath WTC7 reached the melting point of steel. Which is to say roughly 1370 C, or 2500 F.

It could have been hot due to a carbon-fire, diesel or not. The heat could have lasted for a bit. But the heat would not double in temperature under the ground.


R66052
5 years ago
cortez

Szymanski is on a rampage

——

clip

Eye Witness Hears Explosions at WTC; Scientific Group SPINE Provides Sophisticated Analysis

By Greg Szymanski

....“Consider the following: if the pan caking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses.

“A discussion of the melted steel found at the base of the WTC complex, not explained by any official, forms the bulk of the remainder of this paper. The following discussion explores the possibility of whether it is possible to get sufficient volume of a relatively slow-reacting chemical compound, like thermite, either on or inside the inner columns to melt a section of them or otherwise weaken them to allow for the inner core to collapse.

“As Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc., commenting on the pools of molten steel he observed at the bases of the towers’ elevator shafts, said: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure. Controlled Demolition, Inc., incidentally was the company contracted to remove the debris from both the WTC and from the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC.

“Also, in Sam Smith’s Progressive Review)] there is an excellent discussion of the collapse of the WTC buildings from the perspective of professional firefighters. Included is an excerpt of an article by Jim Malott, a San Francisco architect, in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue of Designer/ Builder magazine. Malott states regarding a WTC tower collapse: “The outside of the building did not fail, it did not get hot enough…It was the core that failed.”

and another

9/11 Conspiracy Now Subject of Hollywood Theatrical Performance
The ‘Joan of Arc of 9/11’ is the first to tackle the complicated ‘mother of all conspiracy stories’ in a stage performance set to open July 17 at Met Theatre in Hollywood.
June 27, 2005

By Greg Szymanski

..The ‘Demolitions’ portion of the show reveals what we call “woops footage” from major news networks. Much of the video aired that morning by the media giants was never aired again. While shots of the plane strike were shown repeatedly to millions, the building collapses were not. Slowed down and analyzed, the collapses are the key…

Post Modified: 06/27/05 03:10:47

R66055
5 years ago
cortez

Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html

...Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade…. ...A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. Link -New York Times (11/29/01)
Post Modified: 06/27/05 02:55:14

R66074
5 years ago
Shogo

“Show me a link that backs any of that up.”

What the fuck?

Are you familiar with an invention called an oven? How about a pressure cooker?

Links don’t prove jack shit, dickhead. You find dozens of links written by cracked out conspiracy nutters, which in sum total add up to a big fat zero when it comes to anything resembling facts or supportable hypotheses.

If you don’t understand how heat works, and the difference between materials that conduct it, and don’t conduct it, and what energy conservation is, then you’re not qualified to do anything other than parrot your same limp-dicked conspiracy drivel.


R66080
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Are you familiar with an invention called an oven? How about a pressure cooker? —shogo

yeah, i totally left my pressure cooker closed the other day and the fucker melted.

why can’t these kids figure out that when you put x amount of energy in an oven you get x+more energy?
maybe shogo, you need to explain to them why you have to plug the oven into the big 220 plug instead of the little 110 plug.


R66087
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Shogo’s answer to Question #5 is as good as anything the government has offered so far.

Post Modified: 06/27/05 09:00:48

R66088
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Question #6

Can you explain why the Fire Chief at the Pentagon fire could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

When asked by a journalist: “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?”

“First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I’m talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.” “ You know, I’d rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don’t know. I don’t know.”

When asked by a journalist: “Where is the jet fuel?”
“We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the — what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -”

The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon.

Post Modified: 06/27/05 08:56:06

R66089
5 years ago
Shogo

“Fire Chief at the Pentagon”

Why is the account of a guy whose job was to direct a firefighting effort considered worth more than this?

“Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”“

Your innuendo is worth shit, Nutcaseman.


R66090
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

What was it the character, Jim Garrison, said in the movie JFK, about the Magic Bullet Theory?

“The FBI says they can prove it through physics in a nuclear laboratory. Of course they can prove it. Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense.”

Post Modified: 06/27/05 09:34:20

R66091
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Kilsheimer has been completely debunked.

Allyn Kilsheimer is a member of a group of individuals owning businesses, in academia and working for the federal government that appear at every questionable terrorist attack to provide the analysis and cover-up.

Quote:
Pentagon officials contacted Kilsheimer right after the crash. He had gained an exceptional reputation for analyzing structural failures around the world, and had done that for the government after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Post Modified: 06/27/05 09:32:44

R66093
5 years ago
Rasputin

From Cortez’s link, what I was alluding to:

Derrick Grimmer of Ames IA, a physics Ph.D. from Washington University and member of SPINE, wrote an extensive technical paper about the WTC collapse, expressing doubt about the government theory but doing it in a scientific manner. For those who may question the cursory approach taken by those who have criticized the government’s story, Grimmer’s approach is quite different and highly technical. The following are portions of his exhaustive research paper:

“What immediately struck some observers, this author included, is how much these collapses resembled a controlled demolition. Indeed, this was the first reaction of V. Romero of New Mexico Tech, until he recanted days later.

The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition…Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air.

“The theory put forth by T. Eagar of MIT and other “establishment” engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed, the floor assemblies, bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, did fail. The floor joists attachment bolts were weakened and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial floor to “unzipper” itself all the way round and collapse to the floor below. The remaining floors then pan caked all the way down. Never mind that floor joist cross-members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA calculations and presentations (nor was the inner core collapse mechanism explained at all).


R66095
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Summary of Kilsheimer’s Lies

• Finding one of the black boxes (a major lie)

• When he arrived at the Pentagon

• That he was accompanied by his engineers on the first day

Three lies. Now, what else was he saying?


R66098
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

These two photographs were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck.

Question #7

Can you find the aircraft’s point of impact?

Post Modified: 06/27/05 09:50:30

R66101
5 years ago
nomadrock

You, Butt, Zark, and Continuity are the dumbest motherfuckers on GNN

What am I? Chopped liver? I leave for a few days….


R66102
5 years ago
Shogo

“The FBI says they can prove it through physics in a nuclear laboratory. Of course they can prove it. Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense.”

a) confusing dialogue written by drug-addicted hack Oliver Stone with anything approaching a cogent argument is a mistake.

b) please find for me a theoretical physicist who makes such a claim.

c) please find any “theoretical” physics employed in discussing the WTC and Pentagon crashes.

d) eat the peanuts out of my shit.


R66103
5 years ago
Shogo

“V. Romero of New Mexico Tech”

Pretty high-end shit, right there.

The massive amount of building remnants scattered all over lower Manhattan illiustrate clearly that, as usual, you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

Maybe you can copy/paste some of your same old non fact-based insinuations masquerading as half-baked conspiracy doggerel?


R66104
5 years ago
Shogo

“Summary of Kilsheimer’s Lies
• Finding one of the black boxes (a major lie)
• When he arrived at the Pentagon
• That he was accompanied by his engineers on the first day”

Got any evidence that these are lies, Nutcaseman?


R66105
5 years ago
Shogo

“What am I? Chopped liver? I leave for a few days….”

I don’t put you in the same class gonadcock. You’re an annoying fuckwad, but you don’t seem as chronically stupid as those other fucks.


R66106
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Yes. There was no plane! The parts found did not match a Boeing 757.

Now, did you find the Boeing?

Where is it?

Post Modified: 06/27/05 10:42:40

R66107
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I repeat Kilsheimer has been completely debunked.

You have to do some reading at some point.

Post Modified: 06/27/05 10:51:39

R66108
5 years ago
Shogo

double post

Post Modified: 06/27/05 10:52:58

R66109
5 years ago
Shogo

“The parts found did not match a Boeing 757.”

According to who?

Some French conspiracy nutter who wasn’t there?
Some other random internutters who weren’t there?

Some fuck like you who’s watched 100 too many X-Files episodes?

Color me unimpressed.


R66110
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

It is all in the movie, which you can get for free, Confronting the Evidence.


R66111
5 years ago
Shogo

“You have to do some reading at some point.”

Yeah, I checked out your link.

After reading how some brilliant Konspiracy Kook has debunked him on the interweb, I’m totally convinced!


R66112
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R66113
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R66114
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

SHOGO,

You are off by one letter. Close. I think you are looking for FNN.

Post Modified: 06/27/05 11:07:28

R66116
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

And lest we forget about the World Trade Center Collapse Forensics.
Back by popular demand.

Post Modified: 06/27/05 11:19:08

R66117
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Suitcaseman, stop with the Pentagon stuff already, this is about the WTC.

Schneib, you are so appreciated, I’m learning a lot, but …

I think the problem is the word “controlled”. There use to be such a thing as “demolition” unqualified by the word “controlled” – I think that’s more what we have here – partial demolition, uncontrolled so as to be disguised and partly controlled so as not to take out Wall Street. Yeah, everything everyone said about gravity made sense except for two things: First, I think when the top of the building went over sideways, Zark’s “cinder block” fell off – so where was the weight to take down the rest? Second, a “stutter” between floors would be the least that any common sense analysis would expect.

Finally Schneib, damage rather than collapse would not have done the trick, as it didn’t in ’93 – a full collapse was absolutely necessary to get the full “pearl harbor” effect.

(Someone tell me how to get my own stuff onto textile, and I’ll post you a drawing of what I would expect the post-collapse buildings to look like.)


R66129
5 years ago
Butt

goto
www.imageshack.ws

use it to load your image onto the Imageshack webserver

then place the resultant url between 2 ‘!’ marks in the Post Reply box at the bottom of this thread

eg:

exclamationmarkhttp://urlexclamationmark

Post Modified: 06/27/05 12:18:57

R66140
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Thanks Butt. Sounds like too much work.


R66152
5 years ago
Butt

pm me for an email address and I’ll post it


R66178
5 years ago
Continuity

Are you familiar with an invention called an oven? How about a pressure cooker?

If you don’t understand how heat works, and the difference between materials that conduct it, and don’t conduct it, and what energy conservation is, then you’re not qualified to do anything other than parrot your same limp-dicked conspiracy drivel.

Ladies and gentlemen, Shogo has said a lot — and I mean a lot — of stuff in this thread, but I think these statements above set a personal precedent.

Shogo claims that the (ferocious) fire under the WTC7 not only retained its heat for a long time (which is certainly possible), but rose in temperature to a whopping 2500 F so that steel melted.

He doesn’t need a link. Or a basic explanation. He doesn’t realize that the scenario he just theorized about would, if true, revolutionize the production of steel.

Can anyone rationalize the molten steel found beneath WTC7? Or are we just stuck with Shogo’s pseudoscience and insults?


R66183
5 years ago
Rasputin

another MIT engineer, this one taking a contrary view to the pancake people.

http://www.reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov

Sorry folks, but no one expert is gonna be able to make your decisions for you on this one — you’ll have to study the conflicting arguments and make up your own minds.


R66191
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R66197
5 years ago
Schneibster

_North tower collapse = 8 seconds (9 MAX)
Absolute free fall in a vacuum from 1350 ft = 9.2 seconds_

I dispute the first figure. I make it twelve seconds absolute minimum, having watched tapes from several reliable and unreliable sources with stopwatch in hand. (I have one on my wristwatch.)

Now it seems to me that the only thing that can account for this anomaly is controlled demolition. The difference in pressure would explain the vacuum, ie the faster than free fall rate, whereas a pancake hypothesis – a sudden collapse of the central steel structural core and everything blown to smithereens due to fire—simply makes no sense. No matter how you shake it, there would be some resistance, would there not?

There is no way to create such a vacuum. Controlled demolitions count on the weight of the building doing most of the work; the “implosion” terminology used here is misleading. What you do is blow the supports in just the right order, knocking another one out just when the one before starts something moving that was about to be dependent on the one you just blew up. Millisecond timing can be crucial, depending on the exact details.

There was such resistance; that’s why it took twelve seconds, maybe more.

Some of the more sensible/honest IHOPers have conceded that WTC7 looks rather like the most flawless, beautifully executed controlled demolition they’ve ever seen.

“Conceded?” Point that thing somewhere else, it’s loaded. Hey, Ras, you know my opinion; it’s abundantly clear to me that 7 WTC was demolished, and yes, it looks like one of a couple possible plans for doing it deliberately; the plans are, “from the East side,” “from the West side,” and “from the center.” Depending on the exact construction details, one or another might be best for a straight-down drop into its own footprint, which is what happened to 7 WTC. And I even know why it was demolished, and have said why repeatedly. No sense repeating it yet again. ;)

Sorry folks, but no one expert is gonna be able to make your decisions for you on this one —you’ll have to study the conflicting arguments and make up your own minds.

Well, that’s kinda chronic with me anyway. :D

Good to hear from ya, bud, how’s the summer comin’ along up there?


R66198
5 years ago
Schneibster

Hey Chickenma,

Schneib, you are so appreciated, I’m learning a lot
I’m glad. It’s interesting stuff, too- I hope some of what you’re learning is useful elsewhere.

I think the problem is the word “controlled”. There use to be such a thing as “demolition” unqualified by the word “controlled” – I think that’s more what we have here – partial demolition, uncontrolled so as to be disguised and partly controlled so as not to take out Wall Street.
I have the impression that you’re thinking that it should topple like a tree and fall on… whatever is over thataway. One of the things to be aware of is that buildings aren’t very strong against lateral forces of the kind one would face in toppling like that. They literally can’t stay together as they topple. If they start to, what happens is their supports weaken and they fall straight down from the point where the lateral forces overcame the dynamic tension that was holding the frame together. This is the reason that controlled demolition works the way it does; it takes advantage of these built-in weaknesses.

Yeah, everything everyone said about gravity made sense except for two things: First, I think when the top of the building went over sideways, Zark’s “cinder block” fell off – so where was the weight to take down the rest?
Well, really what happened was that top part started to topple- and that broke the center column under it. Once it was moving, even just a little bit, it’s so damn huge that there was no stopping it. And it was moving down. You’ll note you didn’t see that toppling section continue on out away from the building; instead, it topples a bit, then it drops straight down when the core fails underneath it.

Second, a “stutter” between floors would be the least that any common sense analysis would expect.
No, not at all. Where does a 300-pound gorilla sit? When a twenty- or thirty-story section of a building is moving at ten feet per second, where does it go? And it was moving that fast by the time it hit anything that might cause any kind of stutter.

Finally Schneib, damage rather than collapse would not have done the trick, as it didn’t in ‘93 – a full collapse was absolutely necessary to get the full “pearl harbor” effect.
This is a salient argument. But I have to point out that once the planes had hit the towers, it really was about six of one and half a dozen of the other. I will however stipulate that additional political capital stood to be made by the collapse. Do you have some supporting documentation for this opinion, or is it stand-alone? Not that I criticize it simply because it is yours; but if there are serious others making this argument, I’d like to see their material. You know my standards.

Looked like you found what you needed textile-wise; sing out if not, and I’ll help if I can; but I’m in and out, this is a very busy week for me.


R66199
5 years ago
cortez

I missed this one in november, and maybe even on this thread?

————

Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:

[NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at www.ehl.cc). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at www.ul.com). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the “NIST and the World Trade Center” project, see wtc.nist.gov. Dr. Gayle’s biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle. The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. – 911Truth.org]
Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team’s report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing – that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of “experts” making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team’s August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to “rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse”. The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to “soften and buckle”(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that “most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C”. To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I’ve copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend

Post Modified: 06/27/05 22:40:08

R66201
5 years ago
Continuity

Cortez, I post a link to Kevin Ryan’s article earlier, but I think many people missed it. So a repost is appreciated. Ryan was a manager within the UL group, and UL certified the metal components of the WTC. It can be assumed that he’s somewhat relevant.

The number of people currently writing about WTC controversies is growing. The idea of a possible controlled demolition is getting mainstream.

Suitcaseman, thermite is one possibility. The infoplease link says it can reach 4500 F. No doubt many other possible candidates exist as well. It’s too bad that the steel is now in Indian and Chinese cars or something.

Post Modified: 06/27/05 23:11:25

R66212
5 years ago
whateveryousay

paper clips


R66217
5 years ago
zark

good point… paper clips

heh, the evidence is in offices all over the world.. THEY ARE TAKING THE PISS.. hidden in plain view

i am soo angry and mad

Post Modified: 06/28/05 06:37:37

R66223
5 years ago
Shogo

“angry and mad”

When you say mad, do you mean the English usage of “crazy”? If so, then I’d agree.

On the other hand, if that’s not what you meant, are you also upset and irate?


R66230
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Excerpt

Firefighters are still clinging to hope but the mood has become decidedly grim at “the pile,” which rescue workers have started calling the debris.

“We want everyone to prepare themselves for the reality that we are not going to be able to recover significant numbers of people,” said. “We are trying to recover human beings, and we haven’t had success since the second day in that effort.”

Rescue workers, armed with only tiny picks and shovels are peeling the rubble away layer by layer. Heavy cranes have also been brought in to carry away large steel beams of the now crushed World Trade Center towers. The debris is taken to Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island where investigators are sifting through the debris.

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. As the rubble is removed, oxygen causes the fires still smoldering to strengthen, making the task more difficult.

Post Modified: 06/28/05 09:12:23

R66231
5 years ago
whateveryousay

the sort of full-blown conspiracy theories state that every aspect of the whole operation was planned, rehearsed, and carried out according to plan.

i was talking to some hard-core team america types a while ago.

they said that the reason the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were so ‘effective’ was because the victims initially had no clue what actually happened to them. this heavy psychological effect could never be used again since people find out what the bomb is, how it works, etc.
when a nuke is pointed at us, we can enjoy a somewhat rational fear, rather than a more irrational fear of something unknown and terrible, whose existence is denied or beyond proof, whose effects can be seen but not explained.

now what i think is, if all that is true, and there is a huge power source in having ‘secret weapons’, then it would make sense for post-atomic-bomb-age weapons which are designed to produce a large psychological fallout effect (comparable to hiroshima/nagasaki), need to remain secret in order to be effective. this combined with the more contemporary notions of weaponry; that is to say that a weapon isn’t just a single bomb, or rifle, or physical object even, but an entire system composed of interconnected parts which all function in concert in order to achieve the desired effect.
for example, the perception management component of a specific weapon might employ (or trick) the mass media into spreading the right kind of messages about a specific topic. (if you’re curious as to how tricking the media works, check “helter stupid”.)

so. the 11/9 terrorists pulled off a big operation and we can see a lot of the effects pretty clearly. what i wonder is which effects were intended by the terrorists and which effects were not intended by the terrorists. maybe bin-laden had a plane+building crash operation planned all along. maybe the wtc lease holders found out through a private intelligence firm and wired the buildings with bombs to capitalize on the impending doom.

once again. we don’t know who did it.

so yeah:

my full-blown conspiracy theory for the moment is this:

11/9 was the public demonstration of a new weapon which makes planes fall from the sky, makes giant buildings with people inside turn to dust in under 10 seconds, and makes the general public believe in fairy-tales. the headline of this demonstration depends on who you are and where you live and read:

you’re next or
help wanted or
for sale


R66234
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

“A few seconds after 10:00 am”, former Colonel Donn De Grand Pre notes, “we see a great white cloud of smoke and dust rising from the base of the [South] tower. The anchor gal on Fox 5 News video exclaims ‘There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion! Another building in the WTC complex …’” [Barbarians Inside the Gates: Book Two: The Viper’s Venom: p 50]

Video showing white smoke at the base of WTC 1 seconds before its collapse.
With zoom:
582kB wmv download

Available here.

It is very important to go back to the day that it happened to examine how things happened and how things were reported, before the story could be controlled. The statement by the anchor gal at Fox 5 News is a perfect example.

Post Modified: 06/28/05 09:48:57

R66299
5 years ago
Chickenma1

We’re still getting some excellent posts – this is great.


R66301
5 years ago
Shogo

“We’re still getting some excellent posts”

I know what you mean. Nutcaseman is comedy gold.



R66306
5 years ago
Rasputin

Schneib:

I dispute the first figure.

You may be right. I assumed that figure was widely accepted but after doing some research it turns out there is some controversy. I’ll let it go for the time being.

Hey, Ras, you know my opinion; it’s abundantly clear to me that 7 WTC was demolished

Indeed.

Good to hear from ya, bud, how’s the summer comin’ along up there?

Fantastic, gorgeous, except that my damn cat keeps bringing in half-dead hummingbirds. I saved one last week :)

Post Modified: 06/28/05 16:54:34

R66307
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

“While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.”

“Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse.”

MORE.

Oh Gee! Nothing suspicious about Waco or Oklahoma.

Post Modified: 06/28/05 19:33:38

R66342
5 years ago
Guillaume

“this shit is so retarded, it’s not even funny.” well put shogo, well put.


R66351
5 years ago
zark

this shit is so retarded, it’s not even funny.” well put shogo, well put

heh catch up that was page 1… we are now on page 7


R66356
5 years ago
Continuity

Suitcaseman,

Yeah I linked that too. You’ll notice this passage from the article too:

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later [under the Twin Towers], when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, Think of the jet fuel.

*

Yes, Tully. We all are.


R66375
5 years ago
Shogo

You’re assuming that any molten steel found under the WTC is structural steel. You forget that it was an office building equipped with filing cabinets, wastebaskets, light fixtures, restrooms, etc. etc. There was more steel in that building than solely structural steel.

It was reported that temperatures under the rubble had hit 2000° F. It’s entirely plausible that non-structural steel would melt at that kind of temperature.


R66384
5 years ago
whateveryousay

‘cause, like, all the paperclips in the building tend to just sort of melt and pool together like in terminator 2.


R66385
5 years ago
whateveryousay

this guy seems to think that if you the estimated amount of energy in the towers (elevated mass) was not near enough to pulverize the building’s concrete and to account for the rapid expansion of the dust cloud right after the collapse.

Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center


R66387
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Continuity,

A friend of mine, who works in the mainstream media, received a copy of Confronting the Evidence in the mail. It is quite long. Very informative.

One of the presenters is Dave VonKleist, who has a radio program called The Power Hour. He did 911 In Plain Site

Here is something from VonKleist, taken from Confronting the Evidence, on office furniture and fire

Whatever,

Jim Hoffman can tell us a thing or two about pyroclastic flows.
He knows about Oklahoma too. One of the reasons we were not as shocked as we might have been on 911 was because we were prepped with Waco, WTC 93, and Oklahoma.

Post Modified: 06/29/05 10:04:54

R66389
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

And Shogo,

Remember you disputed my statement that the parts found at the pentagon did not match a Boeing 757? You need to read this
and this

Neither of these people are french.

Zark,

I was thinking the same thing about pages one and seven.

Post Modified: 06/29/05 10:07:18

R66392
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

And just to keep with the theme that this operation reminds me of the JFK assassination, the white smoke rising from the bottom of the South Tower before it came down is like the puff of smoke that witnesses saw at Dealey Plaza, that the mainstream media would not discuss, even though it was in the Warren Report, the FBI confiscating film and cameras in Dealey Plaza is like the FBI confiscating the film from the gas station that might have showed what went into the pentagon, notice in the second link that I put up for Shogo, the people with the parts in their hands, and the airmen transporting something that is covered with a blue tarp, that reminds me of the FBI men, who picked up bullet fragments in Dealey Plaza…....

Post Modified: 06/29/05 10:13:48

R66424
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Whateveryousay, great post. I hadn’t seen anything about the cloud before.

Suitcaseman, I have respect for you, but please don’t be bringing in a lot of other conspiracy theories right now – they need to have their own threads with their own exhaustive analyses. We’re actually getting somewhere here with the WTC, and your input is distractive (I’m not saying it’s not true, just let’s prove one thing at a time).

Schneib, my drawings look nothing like my thoughts, I spoke too soon. Thanks anyway, and you too Butt.

Also Scheib, I’m anxiously awaiting your opinion on Whateveryousay’s link.


R66451
5 years ago
Rasputin

Rove’s 9/11 political game: Strategy or insanity?
By Cathy Garger

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Full article here

Despite outward appearances, Rove’s real game in Washington is nothing less than a full-scale operation devised to keep Americans reminded and focused on the carefully-manipulated media image of September 11 as being perpetrated by 19 Muslim terrorists with box-cutters under the central command of that old “evil-doer” himself, Osama bin Laden (from a damp cave in Afghanistan).

Indeed, there exists sufficiently valid reason for the administration to perpetuate these carefully orchestrated psychological maneuvers. Thanks in good part to alternative media and through the outspoken voice of respected 9/11 researchers and writers such as theologian David Ray Griffin, recently featured on C-Span and author of “The New Pearl Harbor” and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions.”

Americans in great numbers are being asked to consider that those who planned and carried out the three separate attacks on September 11 were perhaps not the same individuals that the 9/11 Commission would have us believe.

Rove’s recent insults aimed at “liberals” indicate what is possibly a very carefully planned psychological tactic to get Americans who’ve heard whispers or read claims that bin Laden didn’t do it to go back in time and believe once again in the official U.S. government account of what happened on September 11.

By shouting loudly and vigorously that the Democrats are on the side of the “terrorists,” the psychological ploy Rove and friends are using is to get our minds back on the elusive guy hiding out, ostensibly in some cave, along with his merry band of hijacking “terrorist” Muslims.

There is just a itty bitty problem with a thing called Proof, though. No definitive proof has ever been presented that bin Laden ever actually planned and carried out the attacks.

With at least seven of the 19 hijackers reportedly still alive and independent researchers blowing holes wide open in the 9/11 Commission Report, the president’s Brain has much more to attend to than merely keeping up with distracting political games.

In fact, Mr. Rove has now the far more challenging task of swaying public opinion and attention back around to the belief that Muslim “terrorists” indeed actually did 9/11.

Naturally, our Democratic leaders realize all of this already, for after all, it was the very chairman of the DNC himself, Dr. Howard Dean, who stated on May 22, 2005, on Meet the Press:

“But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9–11 Commission said also wasn’t true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false. The 9–11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, said it was false. Is it wrong to send people to war without telling them the truth.”

While we will undoubtedly continue to watch partisan poison darts flying back and forth wildly, like a spirited game of ping pong, the real question remains: Just how long this administration can keep Americans sufficiently distracted into continuing to buy into the whole 9/11 terrorist-as-evil-Muslim-boogeyman “official story?”

And so to Karl Rove, spinning his spin and flinging typical GOP discourse, liberals must now ask Rove the all-important question: Are you really sure you want to attack us over the subject of September 11? Do you really, really want to GO THERE with the “liberals,” Mr. Rove?


R66454
5 years ago
Shogo

“Neither of these people are french.”

Maybe not, but they definitely are homosexual.


R66457
5 years ago
cortez

Here’s a couple of bits of video of the WTC collapses, hopefully from angles not commonly seen.

Clip1

Clip2

Clip3 (Watch this one closely)

—-

The Greg Szymanski rampage continues

Link

Former Army Sgt. Mark Johnson of Philadelphia is finished blowing up buildings and bridges, finished with the ugly work of a military demolitions expert…

...“From day one on Sept. 11th, after seeing the footage of the airliner striking the WTC on CNN and seeing explosions happening on lower floors of both towers, I knew right then and there that the towers were purposely being imploded,” said Johnson.

“What William Rodriguez , the janitor at the World Trade Center, recently said about explosions in the basement on 9/11 is true and indicates explosives were definitely used. Anyone with any kind of demolition training can see that!”

What makes the Rodriguez story even more incredible is that it can be corroborated by at least 14 other eye witnesses, who were all huddled with him in a small basement office when a massive explosion below sub-level 1 of the north tower rocked the floors and cracked walls just prior to airliner hitting the top floors.

...Adding even further credibility to Rodriguez’s story is the fact that all the witnesses viewed Rodriguez even help a basement burn victim to safety immediately after the explosion.

Felipe David, severely burned on his face, arms and hands, rushed into the office were Rodriguez and the 14 others were located after his injuries occurred while standing in front of nearby freight elevator as flames shot up from the elevator shaft….

—————-

Maybe we are wrong, maybe the IHOP theory is correct, but it looks less and less like that is the case

and again take a look at how close a real controlled demolition goes down.

R66460
5 years ago
Joe

LOL.. it doesn’t look anything like a demolition job, especially the last one.. awesome.. good stuff, convincing us proles…


R66463
5 years ago
cortez

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority,
it is time to pause and reflect.”
Mark Twain

oops did I say controlled demolition, take out the controlled part. Then it’s about right, I don’t believe WTC1&2 look like perfect demolitions (I was more interested in the squibs on implosionworld.com, and look at the ‘floors pancaking’ or blowing out in the other 9/11 videos)

Osama Bin Naughty was good enough to hijack planes aim them, hit the targets but not as smart as in ’93 to place a bomb at the foundation of the building.

Why was it not a legitimate question to ask for the media ?


R66464
5 years ago
Joe

“I knew right then and there that the towers were purposely being imploded”

pic deleted

What an implosion!

pic deleted

Post Modified: 03/16/06 18:08:06

R66470
5 years ago
Continuity

Comments on Cortez’s linked videos.

Here we see the core of WTC1 suddenly cease to exist as a load-bearing mechanism. A section of the core disintegrates (i.e. all its components and concrete shielding become unfixed, simultaneously) and the core matter telescopes downward. Exactly where along the core’s height it could have given out — point of impact, or much farther below — cannot be determined so far.

Without support, the outer floors and walls get dragged down with the core. As the floors meet compounding resistance, matter is sprayed outward as ejecta (for one example, the lattice fragments from the walls). We see no core ejecta in video or pics; those chunks instead go straight down.

Another interesting feature is the heavy amount of pulverized concrete — pulverized in mid-air. In addition to the pulverized concrete from the outer floors, a noteworthy amount of must have come from thick deposits around the core.


R66473
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo:

You’re assuming that any molten steel found under the WTC is structural steel. You forget that it was an office building equipped with filing cabinets, wastebaskets, light fixtures, restrooms, etc. etc. There was more steel in that building than solely structural steel.

Since when did office people in WTC7 have steel filing cabinets, steel wastebaskets, steel light fixtures, and steel toilets?

Stop making stuff up. You know these items are almost exclusively made of cheaper, lighter alloys. If you have a link to counter WTC7’s unique innards, then post it.

Moreover, now that you agree that temperatures beneath WTC7’s rubble were higher than any carbon-based or diesel fire, why was temp below WTC7 so high in the first place?

Schnieb came up with some calculation to explain the rubble of WTC 1 and 2. Fine, he can believe that. But there is no good explanation, so far, for WTC 7’s incredible heat and molten steel.


R66483
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Rasputin,

About this Howard Dean quote from Meet the Press.

“But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9–11 Commission said also wasn’t true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false. The 9–11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, said it was false. Is it wrong to send people to war without telling them the truth.”

Are we that far along? Osama was not behind 911. Iraq was not either. We can talk about it on Meet the Press. Looks like the people have a lot of catching up to do.

Post Modified: 06/29/05 19:16:25

R66487
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Yeah, Rasputin, you’ll have to link your Dean quote – I haven’t heard it before.

Cortez, your clips didn’t really help – I was hoping to see the alleged blast at the bottom, but didn’t.


R66489
5 years ago
fennec

Not sure this is relevent but I should post it just in case:


R66490
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes: Stop making stuff up. You know these items are almost exclusively made of cheaper, lighter alloys.

Other than word of mouth, what evidence is there regarding the metallurgic properties of the alleged molten metal found onsite? If you can’t provide any sort of chemical analysis of this molten metal, I would suggest you refrain from referring to it as “steel”.

In other words, stop making stuff up.

-VO


R66493
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Cortez,

About this quote from the link you provided us with.

“I want the message to ring out loud and clear throughout Washington, a message that the American people are sick and tired of being lied to about 9/11, the war in Iraq and everything else going on in Washington,” said Johnson.

“However, what baffles my mind is that still after all the obvious lying, so many American citizens are still not getting it and still living with their heads in the sand.”

Ditto what I said to Rasputin. Looks like the people have a lot of catching up to do. They are beginning to see that the government is lying about 911 and Iraq, but most don’t know the extent of it.

What’s your angle on Clip 3?

Post Modified: 06/29/05 20:37:39

R66499
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

Suitcaseman, I have respect for you, but please don’t be bringing in a lot of other conspiracy theories right now – they need to have their own threads with their own exhaustive analyses.

I think that JFK was used as a textbook for carrying out 9/11. There are so many similarities between the two, that when one fully analyizes JFK, 9/11 is very easy to understand. Atta = Oswald. Rudy Deckers = Clay Shaw. On and on.

Keep up the good work Suitcaseman. You are surely on an FBI/HSD list for sure.

And for the record, it was a controlled demolition, there were no hijackers, and there is no plane at the pentagon. I mean, isn’t that common sense by now?

Post Modified: 06/29/05 20:59:39

R66508
5 years ago
Continuity

Why don’t you read the link, Viaossa, and identify the person/organization who identified the materials and the shape they were in.

Then stop playing the circular where-is-the-evidence-of-this-steel game because you know they illegally took all of it away.

And another thing, start quoting external links, testimony, anything. I don’t care what you personally think. You just amount to a filibuster.


R66514
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes: Then stop playing the circular where-is-the-evidence-of-this-steel game because you know they illegally took all of it away

Stop making stuff up. If you have no evidence that it was steel, quit assuming and pushing the assumption that it was. Also, quit whimpering about how unfair it is every time I point out that you don’t have evidence to support these claims. It’s called critical thinking… if you don’t have evidence, don’t assume that it’s true.

Sure… go ahead and point out that you don’t have evidence because it was taken away. That is an absolutely valid observation. What is invalid is to make the giant leap of illogic that goes: “they took it all away so I couldn’t prove it was steel. Therefore, it must have been steel.”

You just amount to a filibuster.

Seriously? Tool = you.

-VO


R66516
5 years ago
nomadrock

fennec contends:

Not sure this is relevent but I should post it just in case

right

Post Modified: 06/29/05 23:47:33

R66531
5 years ago
Shogo

“Since when did office people in WTC7 have steel filing cabinets, steel wastebaskets, steel light fixtures, and steel toilets?”

I realize that due to chronic unemployability you may not have spent much time in an office building, but I can assure you that steel filing cabinets are a common office accessory. Especially in the case of a building as old as WTC7, and especially considering it’s where the SEC housed their records.

As for lighting fixtures, you obviously haven’t spent much time with fluorescent lighting, which is commonly housed in ceiling fixtures made from steel.

Toilets are not made of steel, but partitions between stalls are.

Of course, as has been pointed out, there isn’t really any evidence that this molten metal that was found was steel in the first place. But assuming that it was, for the sake of argument, there are ample (and significant) amounts of non-structural steel present in office buildings in the forms I just mentioned – and probably several I haven’t even thought of.

The assumption that the only steel present in a building is in its structure is foolish, misinformed, and generally retarded. Like you.


R66533
5 years ago
Shogo

“You know these items are almost exclusively made of cheaper, lighter alloys.” – Continuity

How does it feel to be wrong all the time?


R66537
5 years ago
zark

i realize that due to chronic unemployability you may not have spent much time in an office building, but I can assure you that steel filing cabinets are a common office accessory. Especially in the case of a building as old as WTC7, and especially considering it’s where the SEC housed their records

lol.. i work in a building that is over 100 years old and do we still use quills and ink? lmao

when is the last time you were in an office building? Health and safety, space issues and general progression of computer systems have made filing cabinets the cornerstone of struggling, fuddy-duddy offices.. not government offices.
house records.. erm yes.. my building houses files… but there are no steel filing cabinets.. no wait.. there is one.. in the corner, empty, filled with dead phones and assorted wires that no1 has been bothered to throw away.

dumbfuck… ever heard the word… ‘server’, ‘router’, ‘hot storage drives’?

there are ample (and significant) amounts of non-structural steel present in office buildings in the forms I just mentioned – and probably several I haven’t even thought of

bollocks. you’re talking shit and living in 1950 USA with the steel industry still running full pelt.. nowadays we are obsessed with plastic and computers.

take a visit sometime to the new millenium.. yes even in 2001, steel cabinets and paper files were non-existant within government offices and big business for use. maybe a couple were still hanign round but not alot m8

Post Modified: 06/30/05 06:39:31

R66538
5 years ago
Shogo

“when is the last time you were in an office building?”

Yesterday.

“Health and safety, space issues and general progression of computer systems have made filing cabinets the cornerstone of struggling, fuddy-duddy offices.. not government offices.”

You’re a total moron.


R66539
5 years ago
Shogo

Ha, I don’t know I missed this gem:

“dumbfuck… ever heard the word… ‘server’, ‘router’, ‘hot storage drives’?”

Sure have. I’ll give you three guesses what server cases, racks, rackmounts, drive housings, and industrial router housings are made out of.

Hint: the first letter is ‘s’.

You’re such a retard zark. Seriously guy, do you think you’re really some brilliant genius that has all this stuff figured out? I’m kind of curious how someone as chronically clueless as you seem to be manages to make it through the day without, I dunno, stabbing yourself in the face with a fork while trying to eat. Know what I mean?


R66548
5 years ago
Rasputin

Briefcase:

I think that JFK was used as a textbook for carrying out 9/11. There are so many similarities between the two, that when one fully analyizes JFK, 9/11 is very easy to understand. Atta = Oswald. Rudy Deckers = Clay Shaw. On and on.

Indeed, there’s a new report out by the otherwise clueless Daniel Hopsicker that Atta was busy gambling on one of Republican lobyist Jack Abramoff’s casino boats in the week before 9/11:

“There is a weird report just a day or two after 9/11 that someone reported to the FBI that three or four of the hijackers were seen gambling on a SunCruz boat,” wrote a source in Miami. “The FBI interviewed everyone who might have seen them, that very day by all reports.”

Sure enough. We found an Associated Press story on Sept 26, 2001 headlined “SunCruz Casinos turns over documents in terrorist probe.”

“SunCruz Casinos has turned over photographs and other documents to FBI investigators after employees said they recognized some of the men suspected in the terrorist attacks as customers.… Names on the passenger list from a Sept. 5 cruise matched those of some of the hijackers… Two or three men linked to the Sept. 11 hijackings may have been customers on a ship that sailed from Madeira Beach on Florida’s gulf coast.”

Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, Atta and several other hijackers were aboard one of Abramoff’s casino boats. What no one seems able to answer is this:

What possible thrill could gambling offer men getting ready to die in less than a week? To this date, their Sept 5 visit to a SunCruz casino ship remains unexplained.”

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=293718113

Actually it seems fairly obvious, at least to people with semi-functioning brains: Atta and co were patsies. As in the case of Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray and countless other bogus culprits, only the most gullible or ideologically fixated amongst us can possibly cling to the government’s account; the rest of us can only shake our heads and ask: why?

Why is that some people fail to see the significance of a man dropping a rifle in plain site outside of the 422 South Main Street rooming house where Martin Luther King’s assassin resided, in the moments after the deed was done? Or the significance of a woman in a polka-dot-dress shouting “we killed him!” after RKF was taken out by a “lone assassin”, a woman who, coincidentally, was seen by several witnesses having drinks with Sirhan hours before that assassination. Or the hamfisted attempts to leave a trail of breadcrumbs implicating the hard-drinking, coke-sniffing, crucifix wearing drug courier Atta as a Jihadist?

I think we should stop playing word games with the McBeals and Viasso’s of the world over pools of molten steel and ask ourselves a more fundamental question: what makes these invincibly ignorant “debunkers” tick?

Tarpley:

At its root, the belief structure of the 9/11 myth is not a factual account of an historical, real-world event. Still less is it an example of euhemerism, in which real events are preserved in more or less distorted mythical form. The 9/11 myth is rather a collective psychosis of a paranoid schizophrenic type. Let us explore for a moment what this might mean. What is now referred to as schizophrenia was formerly known as dementia praecox; the change in terminology is due to Eugen Bleuler, who used it to describe not so much a split personality as a lack of coordination among various psychological functions. Bleuler was also the first to speak of the special quality of schizoid thinking, which he called autistic. Simple schizophrenia is marked by a reduction in external relations and interests; this may include a lack of curiosity. “Emotions are lacking in depth; ideation is simple and refers to concrete things…and a retreat to simpler or stereotyped forms of behavior.” Paranoid schizophrenia generally occurs in later life, and “is characterized primarily by unrealistic, illogical thinking, with delusions of persecution or grandeur, and often by hallucinations.” In psychoanalysis, the description of schizophrenia emphasizes “regressive symptoms,” seen as a retreat to less mature levels of the ego (the reality-testing portion of the psyche),” along with attempts to replace the existing world, from which the patient has retreated, by such phenomena as hallucinations, delusions, fantasies of world reconstruction, and peculiarities of language.” (Silvano Arieti, “Schizophrenia,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971) The points of contact with Bush as the chief 9/11 fear-monger, and with the 9/11 myth, are manifold.

WUE: CATSTROPHE FROM OUTSIDE A PERFECT SYSTEM

A vital part of the WUE brought about inside the perfect system by evil forces is that these evil forces are axiomatically seen as coming from outside of that perfect system.

Evil is always external, never home grown, as it was for the racist southern sheriff who thought that all racial tensions were the work of outside agitators. “The result is that when the evidence of the historicity of existence forces itself on the misoneism [hatred of change] of reified consciousness, it appears as an unexpected catastrophe, inexplicable and often attributed therefore to external action….For sociocentrism, the privileged system being perfect, any change (particularly any unfavorable change) is the work of external maleficent powers.” (Gabel 288 and note) Gerhard Wisnewski has related this idea most directly to 9/11. As Wisnewski points out, “from outside” is the central slogan of the official version of 9/11. “The impression is produced that the perpetrators came ‘from outside’: from outside of the building, from outside of America, even from outside civilization. The official version of these events screams ‘outside, outside, outside.’” (Wisnewski 143)

In a world axiomatically defined by terrorism, the Manichean outlook seems destined always to win out. Sanguinetti saw something similar in Italy at the beginning of the strategy of tension: “In view of terrorism presented as absolute evil, evil in itself and for itself, all the other evils fade in to the background and are even forgotten; since the fight against terrorism coincides with the common interest, it already is the general good, and the State, which magnanimously conducts it, is good in itself and for itself. Without the wickedness of the devil, God’s infinite bounty could not appear and be appreciated as is fitting.” (Sanguinetti 3)

INFANTILE EGOCENTRISM AND ETHNOCENTRISM

Many have noted the primitive and childish quality of the Bush/neocon analysis, with its mindless parroting about good guys and bad guys. Bush’s oratory also shares another key feature of the infantile mind – egocentrism, or the tendency to see large and distant events as having been caused by ones own petty actions. This is present in the suburbanite who thinks that getting the car washed will make the rain come down. After 9/11, Bush notoriously divided the world into terrorist bad guys and pro-American good guys. He insisted, in other words, that the world should be forever organized around this single event. Gabel shows that adult egocentrism and schizophrenia go together: “A zoologist who, having been successively bitten by a dog and a cat, used as a scientific concept ‘the animal species which bites zoologists’ would be guilty of false egocentric identification….False identification is an important aspect of the anti-dialectical structure of ideologies and, at the same time, a valued technique of economy of effort for propaganda.” (Gabel 92)


R66551
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Some things you just have to repeat.

“A few seconds after 10:00 am”, former Colonel Donn De Grand Pre notes, “we see a great white cloud of smoke and dust rising from the base of the [South] tower. The anchor gal on Fox 5 News video exclaims ‘There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… “something happened at the base of the building“… then, another explosion! Another building in the WTC complex …’” [Barbarians Inside the Gates: Book Two: The Viper’s Venom: p 50]

Video showing white smoke at the base of WTC 1 seconds before its collapse.
With zoom:
582kB wmv download

Available here.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 09:09:25

R66555
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

What was it Lee Bowers said?

“but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary”

testimony.


R66561
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I think we should stop playing word games with the McBeals and Viasso’s of the world over pools of molten steel and ask ourselves a more fundamental question: what makes these invincibly ignorant “debunkers” tick?

My impression is that many of these people, who do the Sean Hannity act, support anything that the right wing does, no matter what, because they believe that is what is good for America. Many of these people do not believe in the 911 myth. But what they believe in, is that somebody in that group of people responsible for 911, has their interest in mind.


R66563
5 years ago
Shogo

Rastupid: “ask ourselves a more fundamental question: what makes these invincibly ignorant “debunkers” tick?”

Nutcaseman: “My impression is that many of these people, who do the Sean Hannity act, support anything that the right wing does, no matter what, because they believe that is what is good for America. “

It’s wonderful to see two knuckleheads such as yourselves waxing philosophical about shit you know nothing about.

I always enjoy seeing people take the extremist position. In that respect, Nutcaseman bears a striking similarity to W. Bush. In a nutshell, if we don’t swallow his conspiracy drivel, then we are obviously right-wing Hannity supporters.

Believe it or not, Nutcaseman, it’s possible to think both you and Sean Hannity are idiots. I’m living proof.

What the Rastupids and Nutcasemen of the world fail to realize is that their conspiracy nonsense is viewed as nonsense for very good reasons. To wit: there is ample physical evidence, eyewitness evidence, and fundamental physical law that supports the notion that the buildings collapsed due to the extensive damage caused by the planes crashing into them.

You have not offered one scintilla of physical evidence that contradicts this scenario.

Instead, all you offer is rumor, innuendo, and hilariously batshit conjecture that would get you laughed out of any basic physics course.

But please, continue to pull each others peckers. It’s amusing to watch.


R66565
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

To wit: there is ample physical evidence, eyewitness evidence, and fundamental physical law that supports the notion that the buildings collapsed due to the extensive damage caused by the planes crashing into them.

Really?

You have not offered one scintilla of physical evidence that contradicts this scenario.

Oh, ok, if you say so.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 10:10:40

R66568
5 years ago
viaossa

zark writes: ever heard the word… ‘server’, ‘router’, ‘hot storage drives’

I just felt like re-repeating this sentence ‘cuz it’s so funny. Now pardon me… I’m off to go file some paperwork in my ‘router’.

Oh, and btw? It’s “hot swap” or “hot swappable” drives… not hot storage drive. And if you really wanna sound more cool than tool, you’d defer to the use of “SAN”, or “Network Attached Storage Device” or even “RAID”, or something that actually exists…

heh. Hot storage drives. Isn’t technology great.

-VO


R66569
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

BTW, it is not a real extremist position to believe that there was a staged attack on America, given our history. That is part of the myth that the bush administration wants to perpetuate.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 10:12:32

R66573
5 years ago
Shogo

“Really?”

If you were capable of reading and thinking, you’d understand.

“Oh, ok, if you say so.”

I do. Innuendo and conjecture is not physical evidence.

“Hot storage drives.”

That’s where the hot pr0n is stored. zark would know.

“it is not a real extremist position to believe that there was a staged attack on America”

No disagreement there. However a staged attack could consist of aiding hijackers in hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings.


R66574
5 years ago
zark

lol viaossa.. yeah ok… terminology isnt the same as a word

shogo = play with your filing cabinets then.. while the rest of the world files stuff in computers (heh watch Zoolander and i think they are taking the mick outta you “the files are in the computer”.. “urgh dont understand”)

Post Modified: 06/30/05 10:43:11

R66575
5 years ago
Rasputin

waxing philosophical about shit you know nothing about.

I don’t claim to understand the inner workings of your brain, but it’s a subject worth discussing, I think.

The pathologies you and others suffer from with respect “conspiracy nonsense” — your lack of curiosity, your inability to put 2 and 2 together, the hostility with which you respond to theories that contradict official government explanations — these are interesting, if disturbing and all too common defects that are worth exploring in more detail.

I agree that lumping characters like you in with the Neocons is a fallacy (Tarpley’s “infantile egocentricm” probably describes you better than the “state = God” types) but there may be some points of contact between your and their pathologies. For instance, to what degree does irrational submission to authority figures play into your worldview, and to what degree does primitive tribalism (loyalty to the “homeland”) and the desire to fit in skew your thinking process.

I think it’s perfectly natural that most people respond with terror to the idea that their own government carried out the attacks; a good defense mechanism would be to simply ignore or somehow suppress anything that supports this unfortunate probability, clinging to the simplistic “evil muslims” theory or some watered down version of LIHOP rather than accepting (or even entertaining) the idea that their government is capable of such atrocities.


R66576
5 years ago
Shogo

“play with your filing cabinets then.. while the rest of the world files stuff in computers”

You’re seriously a dumbass, dude.


R66577
5 years ago
viaossa

zark writes: terminology isnt the same as a word

Perhaps. But your terminology isn’t even valid terminology. “Hot storage drive” is either something you made up because you thought it would make you sound like you knew something about technology (unfortunately it had the opposite effect), or a mistake resulting from your lack of familiarity with technology.

Either way, for you to continue to act as if your understanding of how businesses leverage technology for data storage is more comprehensive than Shogo’s, or mine, or even an average gerbil’s, serves only to make you look progressively sillier with each post.

-VO


R66578
5 years ago
Shogo

“your lack of curiosity, your inability to put 2 and 2 together, the hostility with which you respond to theories that contradict official government explanations”

Bollocks.

I don’t know what to tell you, fucko. I looked at the same shit you did and came to a different conclusion. Where you and the other loonies see “obvious” demolitions work, I see a mess of a building collapse, totally dissimilar to any controlled demolition I’ve seen.

Your insinuation that because I don’t subscribe to your particular brand of nonsense means that I buy into the government version of events is particularly absurd. I’m quite open to the possibility that people in the government aided the hijackers in their task.

I don’t believe the Warren Commission re: JFK. I don’t believe the official version of the assassination of MLK, or RFK.

But those took place in the ’60s, and we’re not talking about the assassination of a popular political figure. We’re talking about an event similar to Pearl Harbor, or the sinking of the Bismarck.

Nobody is arguing that the US simulated the attack on Pearl Harbor. Plainly, the Japanese attacked. We knew about it in advance, but let it happen to draw us into a war. The parallels between that and 9/11 are obvious to see.

Why you insist on this idea that demolitions were necessary for the public to get behind the neocon agenda is totally baffling to me. Even if the towers didn’t fall from the plane impacts, the buildings would have been irreparable.

Your theory is fucking batshit.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 11:09:33

R66579
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

No disagreement there. However a staged attack could consist of aiding hijackers in hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings.

You mean aiding them with global hawk technology?


R66581
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Nobody is arguing that the US simulated the attack on Pearl Harbor. Plainly, the Japanese attacked. We knew about it in advance, but let it happen to draw us into a war. The parallels between that and 9/11 are obvious to see.

Yes, but was there evidence that we trained the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor? The Gulf of Tonkin would be a better comparison.

Let me clarify that point, because, from a psychological point of view, hitting the towers and the pentagon, was a great idea, and it more than equals the impact of Pearl Harbor, but from the standpoint of creating an illusion, the Gulf of Tonkin never happened, although the government and the media said it did, and that is more like 911.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 11:31:37

R66582
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

But stop playing games and lets get down to the nitty-gritty here. Start showing us some evidence that the hijackers flew those planes into the buildings.


R66583
5 years ago
Chickenma1

I agree with Shogo that the crux of the matter isn’t how the buildings fell, but who might have been involved. However, proof that the hijackers received inside help would certainly be provided by evidence of a demolition. As for “not one scintilla of evidence”, I’m not enough of a physics expert to know, but I haven’t heard any of you that are (Shogo!) comment on Whateveryousay’s post about the dust cloud.


R66584
5 years ago
whateveryousay

it all goes back to “Smart Fit the Battle of Jericho”

first aired:

Saturday, February 18, 1967, 8:30 PM

a classic “get smart” episode. kontrol vs kaos.

yo.


R66586
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I’m sorry but it is time for the colonel.


R66589
5 years ago
Rasputin

totally dissimilar to any controlled demolition I’ve seen.

You’re not really gonna make me post this again, are you? Very well — really slow this time, so you don’t miss it.

I’m quite open to the possibility that people in the government aided the hijackers in their task.

As am I. I’m also open to the possibility that the hijackers were patsies, and I see no reason why you shouldn’t be as well.


R66590
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

SHOGO QUOTES

There is plenty of hard science that backs up the twin towers falling due solely to the impact of the planes. The fact that not one of you dickheads can be bothered to look for it says a lot about your intellectual honesty.

verisimilar, you’re not only a tool, but you waste a lot of space with your retarded posting style. Fuckface.

The building wasn’t designed to withstand the weight of several upper floors collapsing downwards.
Fucking hell you guys are dumbshits.

“He’s fairly hostile on the issue”
Because the controlled demolition hypothesis makes no fucking sense, douchebag.

For the Pentagon douchebags:
Eat shit, fuckwads.

veristupid, please read the article and the excerpts posted here. Then look in the mirror and repeat 100 times, “I am an ignorant tool”.

To repeat: Proponents of the demolition hypothesis are not interested in science, else they wouldn’t put so much stock in half-baked conspiracy theories that aren’t grounded in reality.
Pleasant dreams, asshats.

You’re just some movie-addicted anarchist wannabe revolutionary holed up somewhere in British Columbia. But hey, you got a bunch of know-nothing internutters to believe you – that and a couple a bucks should get you a cup of coffee in most major metropolitan areas

This shit is so retarded, it’s not even funny.

AND THIS IS ONLY PAGE ONE
Anybody want to do Page Two?

Post Modified: 06/30/05 12:52:38

R66593
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

And it did not get any different on page 7

The assumption that the only steel present in a building is in its structure is foolish, misinformed, and generally retarded. Like you.

You’re a total moron.

“dumbfuck… ever heard the word… ‘server’, ‘router’, ‘hot storage drives’?”

You’re such a retard zark. Seriously guy, do you think you’re really some brilliant genius that has all this stuff figured out? I’m kind of curious how someone as chronically clueless as you seem to be manages to make it through the day without, I dunno, stabbing yourself in the face with a fork while trying to eat. Know what I mean?

It’s wonderful to see two knuckleheads such as yourselves waxing philosophical about shit you know nothing about.

But please, continue to pull each others peckers.

You’re seriously a dumbass, dude.

Your theory is fucking batshit.

Shogo,

All this ranting and calling people names is a sign of bad breeding or a serious emotional problem.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 12:50:38

R66595
5 years ago
Shogo

“All this ranting and calling people names is a sign of bad breeding or a serious emotional problem.”

I prefer to think of it as calling a spade a spade.


R66596
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

You are delusional.


R66597
5 years ago
Shogo

You are fucktarded.


R66599
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

See what I mean, you act like an idiot.


R66600
5 years ago
Shogo

Fag.


R66601
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

You are a child. It is time for you to go away.


R66603
5 years ago
nomadrock


R66604
5 years ago
cicero

Anybody want to do Page Two?

Yep!


R66605
5 years ago
cicero

R66606
5 years ago
nomadrock


R66607
5 years ago
Shogo

I like that “You’re Both Homos” pic.

That’s directed to Spewt and Nutcase, right?


R66609
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Page 2 of SHOGO QUOTES

Only if you’re a mental midget. But thanks for sharing how easily confusable you are. It explains a lot.

But by all means, continue to be the wise sage of GNN fucktards. It suits you well.

Conspiracy nutters are a funny bunch of fucksticks.

Please Rasputin, you’re embarrassing yourself now. Go back to the anarchy theories. At least with those you don’t sound like a complete fucking idiot.

Florence Gay, please stick to sucking cock.

Butt, suck my dick.

Eat shit, cunt.

Butt: nobody claimed the steel melted, you stupid fucking cunt.

You see, you stupid cunt, had you read the Popular Mechanics article you’d have seen the accounts of burning jet fuel that went down the elevator shafts.

The clamoring of all these uneducated dolts creates a cacophony of idiocy that guarantees the real questions about what went down on 9/11 will never be answered.

Butt, you are seriously one of the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet.

Good luck, cunt.

If you read the article, stupid cunt, you’d have seen that this was reported by a cameraman on the ground floor where the elevators landed, with burning people coming out of them.

Rastupid, thanks for ignoring the point I made earlier. The issue as to who was piloting the aircraft is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the question of why the towers collapsed. I certainly hope you aren’t presenting that broke-ass missile hypothesis again. That’s a real howler.

Yo, dickhead, that’s not a piece of metal. The facade was made of steel-reinforced concrete. This is the kind of sloppy ignorance that renders you and these other shitheads totally incapable of knowing what the fuck you’re talking about.

I at least have something of a science background from college. I feel pretty confident in my ability to recognize baseless conjecture when I see it.

Every argument put forward by the conspiracy nutters to advance their belief that it was a controlled demolition is constucted out of 100% conjecture. There is not a shred of hard evidence, nor a shred of credible argument.

Sorry gonadcock, I get paid for my food, music, and feature writing; so, no, I’m not an amateur. But that’s still only something I do as an avocation.

My full-time job is computer programming. I get paid for my ability to think logically. I doubt very much you could say the same.

But please, feel free to type “BWAHA” with as many As and !s as you like. It only confirms that you’re an immature know-nothing fuckwad.

You know what to do now right? It involves sticking your cock up your anus. Thanks.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 14:23:01

R66610
5 years ago
zark

former Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton, was on the radio and was told that it was the opinion, based on the evidence, of David Griffin that the US government was complicit and orchestrated the 11th september 2001 attacks. his reply was strange and i wonder what you lot think of it

“the charge, of course, that the United States government was cpmplicit in 9/11, is just extrodinary and, uh, we found No, zero evidence of that. ah um. our government planned that attack, uh um. so i think the burden of persuasion is on their side”

WTF! just listen to it here

Number 3 Griffin one
small little file.

Hamilton says that the commisson did everything they could to fully investigate the evidence “we took our best crack at it”, “we were ordered by the statute to tell the story of 911”.. i think he is honestly trying to say stuff without stepping outside of his job position. (file number 2)

just listen to him answer, very composed but always falling back on the fact that they were commissoned to do a job.

one of the things i think backs this up is within the 911 commisson document there is no mention of the central columns when the floor pancaked. which means they were omitted because

1) the commission had to prove the 911 story
or
2) the columns were not there when the floors collapsed

i reckon number 2.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 14:28:45

R66611
5 years ago
Shogo

That’s a pretty sweet collection of quotes, Nutcaseman.

I am pithy, aren’t I?


R66612
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Page 3 SHOGO QUOTES

Maybe, zark, if you got some of that education you’re so hostile to, you wouldn’t sound like such a goddamned moron.

When it comes to websites though, I am endlessly fascinated by the deranged writings of people like yourself. It is a form of entertainment for me. I am perpetually fascinated by the odd and crazy things that people are capable of believing.

I see why you copy/paste all the time, Spewt. Your original writing sucks ass, dick, balls, and cock.

If you want to subscribe to crackpot hypotheses advanced by foil-behatted conspiracy nutters, that’s your prerogative. But you should at least know that you’re arguing in bad faith by continually mischaracterizing the physical explanation of how the plane damage could result in the collapse of the buildings.

Why are you conspiracy nutters so hell-bent on ignoring basic facts? Christ you’re stupid.

Your brain is busted, renwald.

I think 9/11 was allowed to happen by certain elements within the government. But where you and your ilk part ways with me is that I don’t see why it’s necessary to buy into a bullshit and unsupportable belief in controlled demolitions.

It can be an inside job that solely consists of allowing planes to be hijacked and flown into buildings.

You really are a piece of work. Might I suggest you stick to your blue-collar lifestyle, and become a lorry driver? I don’t think you’re cut out for much more than that.

You’re a total dumbass, Florence.

Perhaps I’m a masochist for debating you zark, since you’re completely sub-moronic.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 14:46:10

R66614
5 years ago
Shogo

I think you should start a thread about how much of an asshole I am.

Oh, wait – someone’s already done that


R66615
5 years ago
Continuity

Viaossa:
If you have no evidence that it was steel, quit assuming and pushing the assumption that it was. Also, quit whimpering about how unfair it is every time I point out that you don’t have evidence to support these claims. It’s called critical thinking… if you don’t have evidence, don’t assume that it’s true.

Okay, the link has been posted about 3 times in this thread, once on this very page. Mr. Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, the company contracted to clean up the WTC rubble, made a formal statement that deposits of molten steel were identified in the rubble of WTC7.

Want me to hold your hand further? We have a documented article from an expert. You, without anything, claim to know better.

According to Josh-Shogo-McBeal, who just gets funnier and funnier, these deposits of molten steel were in fact created from scores of steel file cabinets, which melted together and turned into great doughy blobs.

Talking about reaching leaps of conjecture…. Shogo, are you going to publish your file cabinet theory soon in Popular Mechanics ? I’m sure they’d love it.


R66616
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo’s rape of the English language amounts to a poor man’s attempt at psychological warfare. It cheapens the debate (and GNN), attempts to ward off new readers who are curious about the subject, and tries and fails to distract/discredit the active posters.


R66617
5 years ago
Shogo

“According to Josh-Shogo-McBeal, who just gets funnier and funnier, these deposits of molten steel were in fact created from scores of steel file cabinets, which melted together and turned into great doughy blobs.”

Sorry, Cuntingency, I realize it’s tough to break out of the cycle of Konspiracy Kookiness, but give it at least a SMALL effort.

I identified a possible reason for there to be molten steel beneath the wreckage. Since you have no idea how much steel was found there, to ridicule a perfectly plausible explanation like non-structural steel items that are likely to be found in any office building is, frankly, retarded.

“Shogo’s rape of the English language amounts to a poor man’s attempt at psychological warfare.”

There’s nothing I like better than catching a scantily-clad gerund unawares. Or prepositional phrases…those bitches are just asking for it, I tell ya.

If you want some real psychological warfare, here we go: your mommy doesn’t love you, and your peepee is miniscule.


R66618
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

MORE SHOGO QUOTES FOR THE RECORD

I wish I had your kind of patience Schneib. I see this stuff and I just want to call everyone a fucking idiot.

Nice reading comprehension there, guy. You’re obviously a total moron.

It’s a shame that these conspiracy nutters have disappeard so far up their own assholes they have no way of seeing just how foolish they look, and how idiotic they sound.

Nutcaseman: Schneibster may have lost you, but that’s because you’re an ignoramus. Have fun with your X Files DVDs.

I think it’s quite humorous how people like you and zark loudly proclaim your ignorance of physics, yet expect your arguments to be taken seriously. Congratulations, you’ve earned the respect of your fellow conspiracy nutters. That and $74.99 + shipping will get you the complete 1st season of X-Files on DVD.

Some interesting points Schneib. I think the reason the conspiracy nutters don’t pay attention is because they aren’t in a position to buy homes, and are usually dirt poor.

You keep saying the same shit over and over like it’s going to change the laws of physics.

Maybe you should try eating a dick? That might help you.

Nutcaseman, full of shit as ever.

Firefighters know about fighting fires, cunt. They’re not explosives experts.

Don’t ever change Butt, your kind of ignorant douchebaggery always brightens my day.
Cunt.
Let me explain how scientists operate Butt, since you’re such a stupid cunt.

There is zero physical evidence that indicated demolitions. Even if all the rubble were intact and that conclusion reached, you and your ilk would simply chalk it up to some super secret technology that nobody knows about.

You and gonadcock should take your act on the road.

I don’t have much respect for people who are totally ignorant of science, yet feel their opinions on scientific matters should carry any weight.

Quite a circle jerk you’ve got going here Spewt.
Only question I have is who eats the ookie cookie?

It’s pretty sad watching a bunch of idiots self-congratulate each other on their mutual stupidity.

Just wanted you all to know (zark, Continuity, Nutcaseman, Butt): you’re a bunch of total fucking retards.

I think I said that you’re all a bunch of fucking morons.

But please, by all means, continue on in your rampant faggotry, bitches.

You’re such a stupid fuck, Nutcaseman.

You, Butt, Zark, and Continuity are the dumbest motherfuckers on GNN.

“Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?”
They disappeared up your asshole along with Zark’s head.

If you don’t understand how heat works, and the difference between materials that conduct it, and don’t conduct it, and what energy conservation is, then you’re not qualified to do anything other than parrot your same limp-dicked conspiracy drivel.

Your innuendo is worth shit, Nutcaseman.

d) eat the peanuts out of my shit.

“V. Romero of New Mexico Tech”
Pretty high-end shit, right there.
The massive amount of building remnants scattered all over lower Manhattan illiustrate clearly that, as usual, you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.
Maybe you can copy/paste some of your same old non fact-based insinuations masquerading as half-baked conspiracy doggerel?

“The parts found did not match a Boeing 757.”
According to who?
Some French conspiracy nutter who wasn’t there?
Some other random internutters who weren’t there?
Some fuck like you who’s watched 100 too many X-Files episodes?
Color me unimpressed.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 18:47:46

R66619
5 years ago
Shogo

What’s up with the fanboi routine, Nutcaseman? I already have a girlfriend, yo. Back up offa deez nuuts.


R66624
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity re-reiterates:

Okay, the link has been posted about 3 times in this thread, once on this very page.

Yes. It has. Despite the obvious lack of anything conclusive contained in that link or any other “molten steel” link, you still find it significant. I don’t. Sorry. You have hearsay and speculation by two government contractors. Pardon me if I find their lack of impartiality as well as their lack of evidence to be slightly underwhelming. Pardon me if I find your willingness to take the word of a government contractor without any skepticism whatsoever as long as it supports your favorite version of events to be anything other than surprising.

“Pools” of molten something and no chemical analysis, no samples, not so much as one grainy picture of it? But they could tell it was steel. Obviously they were experts.

We have a documented article from an expert.

Bullshit.

You, without anything, claim to know better

Bullshit again. I claim to not know. I claim to look at what you’ve presented and say “from this, it is impossible to tell”. You, on the other hand, are uncomfortable with a position of uncertainty. I am not so handicapped.

-VO


R66637
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Excerpt

Following is a summary of the near-unanimous views of the assembled military and civilian pilots concerning certain critical factors relating to the WTC/Pentagon hit of 911: Troubling questions arose about the alleged pilot-hijackers of the four aircraft, who were supposedly trained on Cessna aircraft over the past year at fields in Florida and Oklahoma. One General officer remarked, “I seriously question whether these novices could have located a target dead- on 200 miles removed from takeoff point…— much less controlled the flight and mastered the intricacies of 11FR (instrument flight rules) — and all accomplished in 45 minutes.”

The extremely skillful maneuvering of the three air- craft at near mach speeds, each unerringly hitting their targets, was superb. As one Air Force officer — a veteran of over 100 sorties over North Vietnam — explained,
“Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.”

Another pilot warned that “we had better consider whether electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency weapons were used from a command and control
platform hovering over the Eastern Seaboard… I’m talkin’ AWACS.”

Another comment“If there was an AWACS on station over the targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I mean, could it convert the commercial jets to robotic flying missiles?

A hotly debated question. Who would be in command of such an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)? Were they Chinese — Russians — Saudis — Israelis — NATO ? All of these countries possess AWACS-type
aircraft. All (except the Saudis) have the capability to utilize electro-magnetic pulsing (EMP) to knock out on-board flight controls and communications of targeted aircraft, and then, to fly them by remote control.
One of the Air Force officers explained that we had already flown a robot plane the size of a Boeing 737 across the Pacific to Australia — unmanned — from Edwards AF13 in California to a successful landing on an Aussie base in South Australia. It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but is “monitored” (controlled remotely) by a pilot from an outside station. He explained that the London Economist (20 Sep 2001) published comments from the former CEO of British Airways, Robert Ayling, who stated that an aircraft could be commandeered from the ground or air and
controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.

Article.

Post Modified: 06/30/05 19:22:48

R66644
5 years ago
OriginalG

Short video clip of the North tower collapse. Shot from street level, very near the North tower. The Verizon building is in the left-foreground. WTC 7 adjacent to the Verizon building, on it’s left.

I couldn’t find the webpage that this was originally from so I couldn’t link directly to a download of the file on that page, which also had screenshot stills of the collapse from this video clip, showing several explosion puffs (pointed out with arrows). But when you watch this, you can see the actual orange flashes from (presumably) detonation charges exploding down the corner of the building. They’re mainly concentrated on the West wall, nearest the corner that connects to the North wall. They start about halfway up the tower, and explode in succession toward the ground.

I would take screenshot stills but since I’m not using a Windows OS, the WMV player doesn’t pause smoothly, or pause where I want. I also can’t simply drag the play bar to where I want while the video is playing, like on QuickTime player (to pause and capture the image stills.)

It’s shaky footage because whoever filmed it was right near the bottom of the collapsing North tower. But it’s still explosive footage (pun intended.)

It’s only about 7 seconds long. Watch it at least a few times.

WMV DivX (1.3mb)

YouSendIt LINK> http://s14.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1M3QTODXADLLR3IM5GVMWSMZXM

I believe this is who the guy is that put it up on his site. (presentation filmed live at a 9-11 truth engagment of some sort.)

http://www.reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov

.........

- Ø®£Z –

Post Modified: 06/30/05 21:18:38

R66645
5 years ago
whateveryousay

rense?
pah!
they print anything. the wackier the better.

anyway. i’ve heard it mentioned here and there that the towers were built to last 100 years.

anyone else heard that before?

it’s kind of an important point…

i mean, you know, maybe the architects were actually smart enough to at least once think, “oh, how will we ever get these things down?”

but anyway,

i’ll maintain that we witnessed the testing of a special ray-gun which turns people’s brains to mushmellows.


R66647
5 years ago
Chickenma1

“I think 9/11 was allowed to happen by certain elements within the government. But where you and your ilk part ways with me is that I don’t see why it’s necessary to buy into a bullshit and unsupportable belief in controlled demolitions.”

Hey Shogo, get with the program. The title of this thread is “Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition” – therefore the thread is about the possibility of a controlled demolition, not what you think of “conspiracy nutters” in general.


R66648
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Shogo’s bold assertions about 911
and the Evidence to Back it Up

There is plenty of hard science that backs up the twin towers falling due solely to the impact of the planes, said Shogo. The fact that not one of you dickheads can be bothered to look for it says a lot about your intellectual honesty.

Shogo’s first post. He was concerned about intellectual honesty.

I’m not a structural engineer, said Shogo, nor am I a demolitions expert. Nor are pretty much any of those who are trying to persuade people that explosives took down the buildings. There is literally no evidence to support such a belief, and there is a tremendous hurdle in the form of how the fuck anyone would have been able to plant enough charges in the buildings to bring them down with nobody noticing?

Shogo boldly made the assertion that there is no evidence of demolitions. Here we find Shogo enthusiastically endorsing an article in a French publication.

The article is from the French architecture publication, Le Moniteur. Shogo said that there had been a lot of contradictions in the facts relating to the WTC collapse given on the Forum. He said, he thought people might be interested to know that the leading French construction paper ‘Le Moniteur’ had a lengthy article about the WTC collapse. French professionals tend to be very serious-minded people, Shogo said, and added that the article lays out some of the facts, and the opinions from some French professionals.

Next, Shogo boldly put up an article about how Building 7 came down. Here is a quote from the article.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse,” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down.”

Intense fire and severe structural damage. I didn’t know. This guy is good. He picks just the right articles.

Shogo talked about the Pentagon. He quoted another article. This one disputed the idea that the plane was too big for the entry hole. Here is a quote from this very informative article.

“Why wasn’t the hole as wide as a 757’s 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building,” Sozen tells PM, “it didn’t happen.”

Now I am convinced that a plane went into the Pentagon. I should have read this instead of being distracted by Shogo’s bad behavior. Think about it, what was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. I wish I had known that.

Shogo put up the Popular Mechanics article to debunk the explosives theory.

Now what was it that Chertoff, the author of the vaunted Popular Mechanics article, said on the radio, when a caller asked about Larry Silverstein’s statement that a decision was made to pull Building 7.

Chertoff said that they looked at the statement. He said that there are two meanings for the word pulled for firefighters. “Talk to any firefighter,” he said. “It either means that they pull hoses out of the truck or are evacuating the building.”

Post Modified: 06/30/05 22:52:53

R66649
5 years ago
whateveryousay

crazy angle.

look at that.

that tower exploded into a big mushroom or something.

that’s so crazy. how does that even happen?
maybe, there was, like, bombs on the plane or something.

anyway. the folks at nova were clever enough to not bother showing or analysing actual footage of actual buildings disintegrating. they just rely on nifty computer animations, useful if you want to omit little details like god-damn cross-beams.

Deconstructing the Towers’ Collapse

oh, and this gem.

It wasn’t until Dr. Thomas Eagar saw Building 7 of the World Trade Center implode late on the afternoon of September 11th that he understood what had transpired structurally earlier that day as the Twin Towers disintegrated.

you see kids, the fact that steel has high thermal conductivity isn’t really worth pointing out, but needing a big pot of water to cook lobster? i like lobster! print it!


R66653
5 years ago
whateveryousay

see. it all makes sense.

first, pretend that the highly redundant lattice work of interconnected structural steel beams doesn’t exist; then imagine that the vertical core columns look like pancakes, and you get this:

mmm. i like pancakes! delicious!
would you like some cross beams with your pancakes sir? no? okay. gone.

what happens to all the stuff in the middle of the pancakes sir?
does it stay standing or does it just cease to exist?

so yeah. if you imagine that most of the building wasn’t there, then you get trusses held together with bolts only.
then it’s quite easy to imagine the whole thing just falling down. if there was never a sun we’d all freaze instantly. and hey buildings are just 90% air anyway! and people just explode sometimes.


R66656
5 years ago
Rasputin

mmm. i like pancakes! delicious!

If anything is worth reposting it’s this chap about to enjoy a delicious breakfast which also happens to be full of shit, at IHOP:

what happens to all the stuff in the middle of the pancakes sir? does it stay standing or does it just cease to exist

You heard of flesh-eating disease? Well there’s a little known architectural ailment named steel-eating disease. With only three recorded cases in history, it lasts about 8-12 seconds and occurs only in buildings owned by Larry Silverstein.

implosion world

Post Modified: 06/30/05 22:36:27

R66658
5 years ago
Rasputin

R66687
5 years ago
Shogo

I guess you tools figure that if you repeat the same shit ad infinitum it all of a sudden becomes true?

There’s nothing different between what’s on this page, and page 1.

To re-state: no evidence of any kind. Merely conjecture rooted in a deep-seated lack of knowledge of science.

Keep parading your ignorance boys, it does more to discredit you than anything I could say.


R66689
5 years ago
Rasputin

Keep parading your ignorance boys, it does more to discredit you than anything I could say.

Then why not stop “saying” and crawl back into your hole?

I think we’d all appreciate it lots :)


R66699
5 years ago
Shogo

You should know by now about how much interest I have in what you and the other loons would appreciate.


R66700
5 years ago
cicero

see. it all makes sense.

Every thing makes senseif you find “one” weak spot and illustrate it as if it was the only thing holding the buildning together.

You should see this lecture by Jeff King a MIT Engineer and research scientist.


R66707
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Cicero,

One week ago today, I put the Jeff King link up, hoping to draw some response. As far as I know, nobody has said anything about it. Then I put up this on page five the same day.

WE ARE NOW READY FOR

CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE

READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Order your free DVD

I hope you found
The Original Power Point Presentation
Post Modified: 06/24/05 13:30:45

A friend of mine, who works in the mainstream media, received a copy of Confronting the Evidence in the mail. It is very very good. Jeff King is part of this very long movie.

Repetition is good: It is what the mainstream media does best.

Post Modified: 07/01/05 09:21:39

R66748
5 years ago
Continuity

One will notice mysterious puffs along the upper right-hand side of WTC7 as it goes down

Kinda odd to say the least….

Without a close-up, see below

Edit: I noticed Shogo vigilantly replied, with words of wisdom, in just over 2 minutes after I posted this.

Talk about hawkeye-ing this thread…

*

Post Modified: 07/01/05 13:03:46

R66749
5 years ago
Shogo

“One will notice mysterious puffs along the upper right-hand side of WTC7 as it goes down”

Those are actually from alien farts.


R66755
5 years ago
Snark

Zark- loath as I am to get involved with this discussion again, your asstertion that there weren’t any steel items in the WTC to be absolutely absurd. I’m in my office right now. It was built in 2002. It’s in a science museum with mondo NASA grants, and we have a damn up to date computer system. We use Microsoft Sharepoint and a couple of big network drives to store almost everything. And yet, just within 10 feet of me, there’s two big steel shelves, a steel Mantis media computer, steel cubicle framing, a five-drawer steel file cabinet, a desk with steel legs on it, a steel door, a computer whose frame is steel or aluminum, and some screwdrivers. I bet there’s 150lbs of steel within touching distance of me. Your assertion that there would be no appreciable amount of non-structural steel in a typical office environment in 2001 is absolutely without basis in reality .

I haven’t made my mind up about this, as Shogo has. But don’t try to argue your case with nonsensical arguments; it hurts your cause.


R66765
5 years ago
Continuity

Snark, could you honestly look me in the eye and tell me that all the office crap you see at your office could possibly melt together into noteworthy molten deposits? Could you tell me that the composition of said molten deposits of office junk would be indistinguishable from structural supports?

Think about it. Blobs of steel file cabinets…? The guys inspecting WTC7’s rubble are not going to mention blobs that used to be 20 thin filing cabinets, or shelves, or desk legs, etc.. Anyone with experience would be able to identify an unlikely blob made up of several disparate pieces, especially if it’s dirty and fused with other blackened junk. It’s not all going to run together like Terminator 2.

These mighty file cabinets would have been flattened by WTC’s crunching fall. The supposedly mighty diesel fires burn at 800 C maximum, with the optimum amount of oxygen.

Something burned extremely hot beneath WTC7.


R66771
5 years ago
Snark

Beats me. Just stating a fact; Zark seems to think there’s no steel in offices, and he’s wrong. I don’t know where said steel actually came from, or if it was really steel, and as stated above the evidence is unavailable now anyway. Eyewitnesses allege that they saw what they thought were molten puddles of what could be steel or some other kind of metal; if it is what they thought it was and their testimony is reliable, I have no real explanation for it. It’s mighty odd, I admit, but I’m not willing to proffer an explanation. Too much uncertainty- in all of this stuff- for me to feel comfortable offering an explanation.

That’s what I keep saying. Seems like everyone on both sides of the debate is absolutely certain that their version is accurate, and it just ain’t so. I’m comfortable with uncertainty, with not holding a firm belief about what happened, and I don’t feel the need to draw conclusions. Neither story is convincing in the slightest, so I’m just gonna sit back and relax.


R66772
5 years ago
viaossa

Snark writes: That’s what I keep saying.

Ditto.

-VO


R66773
5 years ago
Shogo

“20 thin filing cabinets, or shelves, or desk legs, etc.”

I’d be willing to bet that there were more than 20 filing cabinets in an office building of that size.

Regardless, as Snark has pointed out (and viaossa, and myself): you don’t know that those puddles were steel, nor do you know how big they were.

To jump from that to Inviso-Destructo Rays is a leap that no intelligent person would make. (hint, hint)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Archived GNN Threads