Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition - Part 3

R66774
5 years ago
Shogo

“Too much uncertainty- in all of this stuff- for me to feel comfortable offering an explanation.”

Go listen to Sean Hannity, you right-wing apologist.


R66791
5 years ago
OriginalG

Shogo is just continually being owned from all sides in this discussion. :)

.........

- Ø®£Z –

Post Modified: 07/02/05 01:43:01

R66792
5 years ago
Anphony

...And SNARK, NARK, ZARK and CARP have all just sort of melted together like so many file cabinets and cola machines into one glistening mass of many members.

...And Shogo respects only the opinions of his superiors. Just insert your authorization in the proper hole and he’ll believe anything you say… Right Shogo buddy? ;>


R66794
5 years ago
whateveryousay

i don’t think that the amount of metal office furniture in building 7 is important.

what is the most likely explanation of what happened?

  1. the official story is that building 7 collapsed due to fires.
  2. this has never happened in the 100 year history of steel framed buildings
  3. the only investigators, FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), concluded that they have no idea how fires could have levelled the building.
  4. the evidence was quickly (and illegally) destroyed.
  5. investigators were barred from the crime-scene.
  6. the public was repeatedly treated to footage of airplanes hitting towers, but the media’s coverage of building 7 is almost non-existent. probably the most bizarre, uncanny structural failure in history and it’s barely worthy of a footnote in the press.

the most likely explanation is that the building was demolished and the event has been covered up.
far less likely or even impossible is the official story.

Post Modified: 07/02/05 04:23:54

R66797
5 years ago
Shogo

“Shogo is just continually being owned from all sides in this discussion. :)”

Only if you’re a total fucking moron.

(There’s a hint in there, fuckstick)


R66801
5 years ago
Shogo

“the official story is that building 7 collapsed due to fires.”

“this has never happened in the 100 year history of steel framed buildings”

Why do you stupid motherfuckers insist on misstating the facts?

A) There is no official story about building 7. There are various hypotheses that have been offered, but no official theory.

B) Stating that any of them say the building collapsed due solely to fires is just plain wrong. Indicating that you stupid motherfuckers that keep repeating this like it was your mantra are brain damaged and incapable of comprehending that which you read.

The building was heavily damaged from falling debris. One side of it was scooped out, and it collapsed asymmetrically, with one side of it collapsing first (hint: the side that was heavily damaged).

Do you seriously think that falling chunks of steel and concrete are not going to damage the shit they fall on? Particularly given how tall the WTC towers were?


R66802
5 years ago
cortez

Worth a repost.

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: 07/02/05 09:00:30

R66805
5 years ago
Snark

How does the fact that some structural members appeared to have been ‘evaporated’ (vaporized, I assume he meant?) prove that there was a demolition? Demolition charges don’t produce high, sustained temperatures. And before anybody mentions Thermite, that’s not used for building demolition….it ignites relatively slowly and burns for a long time, which would be spectacularly unsuited to the split-second timing of a demolition. I know, because I’ve lit some off. Burned right through an old Chevy’s engine block, but it took about 15 minutes.

I agree that it seems, from a layman’s perspective, and from what information has been made available to me, that WTC7 collapsed under bizarre circumstances. It certainly looked like a demolition, and I thought as much when I watched it on TV, live.

As the source quoted above says, though, it’s within the realm of the possible that structural damage was enough to cause the building to collapse- especially if that damage was putting asymmetrical loads on the structure. As I understand it, structures like skyscrapers are sort of a delicate balance, with each structural member responsible for countering a specific force in a specific direction. While they’re very strong and resistant to, say, the downward pull of gravity, they’re weak when stressed in ways not specified in the design. Doing significant structural damage to a skyscraper, with some columns and floors out of commission, could result in heavier and less balanced loads on the remaining ones, possibly resulting in a sudden catastrophic failure. That scenario is at least as convincing to me as demolition. So I’m back to square one….

[broken record] I don’t think we have enough information or evidence to form strong conclusions about any of it- just suspicions, hunches, and skepticism. [/broken record]


R66814
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Thanks Suitcaseman for this thing on the explosion at the base of WTC 1.

I saw parts of Confronting the Evidence, and it occurs to me that Building 7 and the Pentagon are two obvious giveaways. Talk about no planes. It is amazing. Too bad more people don’t know about it. And what has the mainstream press done on this. Absolutely nothing.

Post Modified: 07/02/05 12:03:31

R66816
5 years ago
Strangegloved

One of the funniest parts of Confronting the Evidence is when they make the point that Building 7 should have been heavily investigated. You know like people who work in buildings like that might want to know that they are not going to come down if a small fire breaks out. But strangely enough, no investigation of Building 7?


R66822
5 years ago
Shogo

Wonderful. Yet another stupid fuck ^ heard from.


R66823
5 years ago
Shogo

“While they’re very strong and resistant to, say, the downward pull of gravity, they’re weak when stressed in ways not specified in the design.”

Snark, your attempts at injecting reason into the discussion are laudable. Sadly, this gang of putzes wouldn’t recognize reason if it was bukkake’d all over their face.


R66840
5 years ago
Joe

“ that WTC7 collapsed under bizarre circumstances.”

I’d like to see a pic of WTC 7, post twin-towers collapse, of the front side that faced the towers. As far as I can tell though, no such photos exist (not surprising, considering the fire and smoke and debris). It’s unfortunate.


R66846
5 years ago
Snark

Me too. Wonder how bad the damage was?

Also, considering that WTC7 was indeed on fire for a while before it collapsed, and heavily damaged, wouldn’t that have damaged all of the wires and shit that carried electrical impulses to the demolition charges? (This question applies to WTC7, not necessarily to the twin towers.)


R66848
5 years ago
Snark

You know like people who work in buildings like that might want to know that they are not going to come down if a small fire breaks out

Check my comments a few posts ago, vis a vis asymmetrical/off-kilter loading of structural members if significant structural damage occurs. Just a possibility, mind you, but I don’t think anyone thinks this was a “small fire.”


R66850
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

Wonderful. Yet another stupid fuck ^ heard from.

Two competing theories on Shogo:

1. He is an automated response program located in the pentagon to constantly debunk conspiracy theories.

2. He is accumulating information with the sole purpose of writing a book about 9/11 conspiracies, specifically controlled demolition.

Post Modified: 07/02/05 15:27:57

R66861
5 years ago
Shogo

“wouldn’t that have damaged all of the wires and shit that carried electrical impulses to the demolition charges? “

Not at all Snark. You see, these were MAGICAL wires and demolition charges, invisible to the naked eye, and impervious to damage. The gummint has all kindsa top sekrit shit that we don’t even know about.

I have it on excellent authority that the pools of molten metal were actually poop left behind by metal-eating aliens. It’s a secret but I read about it.


R66862
5 years ago
Shogo

Nutcaseman, just when I thought you couldn’t get any nuttier you go and exceed the density of nuttiness found even in squirrel turds.


R66868
5 years ago
Strangegloved

I think I will stick with the 911 commission critics on the fires if you don’t mind. Even the second tower hit, everybody who has bothered to look knows not that much of a fire
and certainly no big fires in building 7.

Post Modified: 07/02/05 18:40:59

R66871
5 years ago
whateveryousay

‘cause yeah… possible structural damage which no one has seen, and no one has pictures of… some wild speculation about diesel fuel tanks in an unlikely combination with said structural damage… and the solidly conclusive, “could have played a role” testimony of “some experts”... yeah i guess that adds up…

i mean obviously a zero alarm fire + some diesel fuel tanks + some theorized structural damage which you can’t see adds up to a totally uniform simultaneous failure of an entire 47 story steel structure.

and being the most obvious explanation and also totally without precedent and also with no one really agreeing on anything resembling details, the evidence was quickly disposed of.


R66872
5 years ago
Continuity

The general gist from FEMA was that WTC7 fell mostly due to fire damage—-damage not yet fully understood they added. Did they want to fully understand it? Certainly not. The fires in WTC7 were small and localized. If anyone can show me big fires or towers of smoke, I’d be happy to see them.

WTC1 had a stronger fire than WTC2. The fire in WTC1 spread to another side of the building. But WTC2’s fire burned strong for only about 16 minutes, then showed signs of dying. It makes sense since a lot of the plane kerosene seemed to blow up immediately after impact.

The kerosene had roughly 5 minutes to do its work as an accelerant. After that, it was gobs of office junk burning.

As for theories about demolition, who knows what devices could be used? I won’t stray into that territory. It’s not that I completely believe these theories; it’s just that I don’t believe the natural collapse theories, as handed out by the authorities and keeners. As long as things look so controversial, I’m going to keep looking into this.


R66874
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

Re: WTC 7

“The fuel tanks were not the only highly flammable materials in the building. But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building’s cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said.” -New York Times (11/29/01)

“Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building; however, this proved not to be true.” -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)
Post Modified: 07/02/05 20:38:38

R66877
5 years ago
Shogo

I’m glad you dumbfucks have it all figured out. You should team up and hit the lecture circuit. I’m sure you could convince some similarly handicapped schmucks to fork over their dough to hear your compelling arguments.


R66878
5 years ago
Shogo

Those intact building facades sure do look like the aftermath of controlled demolitions right?

I’m thinking maybe there was a secret squad of gnomes deployed to gnaw through key supports. Steel-eating gnomes. That poop molten metal.


R66882
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

“Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”

An interesting link


R66883
5 years ago
Shogo

You’re such a douchebag.


R66884
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

Thanks. I take that as a compliment.

It’s all in how you spin it. I mean even the official explanation tells the story.

The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2. The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially “peeled” outward and fell from the top to the bottom. In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the facade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse. Review of video footage indicates that the collapse began at the lower floors on the east side. Studies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded, with collapse initiating at an interior location. The collapse may have then spread to the west, causing interior members to continue collapsing. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building, including the cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the interior beams and columns at the building perimeter.


R66922
5 years ago
cicero

sHO-GO: Those intact building facades sure do look like the aftermath of controlled demolitions right?

You are right! The fact that they stack inwards in a pile is evidence of an implosion similar to a controlled demolition. If the pancake theory was rigth most of the walls would be pushed outwards.

Thanks for supporting the controlled demolition theory with evidence!

Post Modified: 07/03/05 05:08:48

R66923
5 years ago
whateveryousay

video: levy in his own words.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=—=-=-==-=-=-=—=-=———————==========-=-=-==-=-=

Those intact building facades sure do look like the aftermath of controlled demolitions right? —shogo

you mean all of the building’s material neatly piled within it’s own foot-print?
well, yeah.. that looks more like a demo job than the towers.

http://portland.indymedia.org/icon/2004/10/300790.jpg:

but, you know, if there was a lot of charges to cut up the ‘facade’, or ‘outside’ as i call it, you’d see them going off.

are you implying that the demo job was meant to look like an accident shogo? as if it was pre-planned and meant to be kept secret? hmm. interesting point.

but you were probably (hopefully) looking for pictures of all the terrible damage which caused the building to spontaneously self-destruct.

here’s what i could find:

pretty convincing.

Post Modified: 07/03/05 05:15:53

R66924
5 years ago
whateveryousay

R66925
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Thanks for supporting the controlled demolition theory with evidence —cicero

photos are not evidence cicero. speculation of “some engineers” about high-pressure gas lines which didn’t exist is evidence.


R66926
5 years ago
whateveryousay

oops… okay click and pic go big.


R66937
5 years ago
Shogo

“ If the pancake theory was rigth most of the walls would be pushed outwards.”

You’re a fucking tool, cicero.

I was being sarcastic.

Clearly, the intact facade fallen to one side shows that it was an asymmetrical collapse.

Post Modified: 07/03/05 08:25:44

R66938
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

The Pentagon claims the engines, wings, and flight recorder were vaporized

They also claim that passenger body parts were not vaporized and were identified

They claim that the nose punched through 9 reinforced concrete walls

But the heavier and denser 10,000 pound engines did not punch through even one

Does that make any sense?

Debunking The [Propaganda Mechanics] Debunkers

by Eric Hufschmid

More

The FEMA report about the collapse of the buidings admits that they could not figure out why Building 7 collapsed. The FEMA report is proof that there are still unsolved mysteries. Therefore, Popular Mechanics is foolish to claim that the issue has been resolved.

Post Modified: 07/03/05 08:44:02

R66941
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Clearly, the intact facade fallen to one side shows that it was an asymmetrical collapse. —shogo

all the video angles say it went straight down. or do you mean like 1/2 a second asymmetrical? or are you pointing out that it was an asymmetrical building to begin with?
what on earth are you getting at man!?

looks to me like the middle went down first and the outside walls followed after… you can see this (on the videos) by the way the top middle bit of the building sinks first before the rest of the building telescopes away.


R66945
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

WTC 7

“The fuel absolutely could be a factor,” said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, “The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse.”

Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.

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

Post Modified: 07/03/05 09:58:23

R66946
5 years ago
Joe

“another source of heat.”

Demolition heat rays?


R66949
5 years ago
Shogo

HAARP. Clearly, it was HAARP.


R66971
5 years ago
Snark

You keep citing that “partly evaporated” stuff, but that’s not correct terminology…is that a direct quote? I mean, fine, I know what he was saying and I’ll consider it, but only liquids technically evaporate. Solids are sublimated or vaporized. The use of incorrect terminology makes me doubt the source somewhat.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have to ask again whether the presence of a large heat source within WTC 7 proves anything. Melting structural steel would not be a reliable or controllable way to drop a building, and demolition charges do not create sustained heat sources.

And, also repeating myself, I don’t personally consider it possible that demolition charges and wires would have survived after the building burned for half the morning.

Post Modified: 07/03/05 14:15:31

R66972
5 years ago
Snark

You are right! The fact that they stack inwards in a pile is evidence of an implosion similar to a controlled demolition. If the pancake theory was rigth most of the walls would be pushed outwards

Actually, the facades in a properly demolished building- at least those I’ve seen- would not remain in a recognizable unitary piece, as they are in the photo cited. When buildings are demolished, they more or less accordion down into their footprints; that does not appear to be the case in the photo, as the entire facade appears to have toppled over the rest of the wreckage.

Now, to play devil’s advocate against myself- I find the idea that the buildings were demolished with intentional sloppiness, resulting in messy collapses that resembled structural failure, very interesting. It accounts for many of the inconsistencies in both of the “it was demolished” and “it was collapsed” camps. However, i’m not entirely certain such a thing is possible, sooo…..


R66973
5 years ago
Snark

Also, since this thread is approaching OMFG in its size and longevity, let me step back and ask yet another question: given that it’s basically beyond question that there was governmental malfeasance on 9/11, does it actually fucking matter whether it was demolition or collapse? Is it even a productive line of inquiry? Because it seems obvious to me that, whether through a Pearl Harbor “not-so-surprise attack” or through more direct means, certain American governmental/elite interests had a hand in 9/11.

Given that, minus all required expertise, information, and evidence, this debate is essentially a dead end, and nobody will be able to whip out some smoking gun to convince everybody else…why not concentrate on what we can and do know, instead of continuing to flog this very deceased horse?


R66980
5 years ago
Continuity

Snark, the aerial photo shows that WTC7 fell on its footprint. That doesn’t automatically prove it was demolished, but that it fell on its footprint is clear.

And, also repeating myself, I don’t personally consider it possible that demolition charges and wires would have survived after the building burned for half the morning.

Most of the building was not on fire. If a controlled demolition was planned, don’t you think the main load-bearing supports would be targeted? I keep reading testimony from demolition people that crucial charges are detonated at the bottom of a building, even in its basement.

A building does not have to be stuffed full of charges, nor do all of the charges have to go off.

PS…. Shogo , you have to stop being so obvious. You’re trying way too hard and using any cheap trick that comes to mind. It’s fairly pathetic.


R66985
5 years ago
Continuity

Snark now has a superb question:

given that it’s basically beyond question that there was governmental malfeasance on 9/11, does it actually fucking matter whether it was demolition or collapse? Is it even a productive line of inquiry ?

The difference between Let-it-Happen and Inside Job is huge. It’s the difference between a highly cynical, opportunistic regime and an ultra-criminal regime.

Under the Inside Job premise (demolition and maybe remotely-controlled planes), Al Qaeda has no relevance in the equation. There’s no external terrorists blown out of proportion — no others— only agents actively directed by Uncle Sam as patsies and legends.

I.J. implies a government that is willing to kill thousands of American civilians, not just foreigners in faraway places. They didn’t just look away; they gave a thumbs-up to bombs and maybe remote planes.

It implies a desperation to cover up records and paper-trails which might have thrown the republic into chaos. A desperation to jump into war, on a timetable of its choosing . In other words, no terrorist was the catalyst. Uncle Sam was.

It implies a bit more cover-up, corruption, and organization compared to let-it-happen. Not too much, mind you, but enough to the cabal up there with the Nazi oligarchy.

It implies capability and willingness to execute another event like 9/11, as opposed to encouraging some low-budg terrorists in a cave to try again.

Personally, I’m not quite sure what happened, although I think it’s somewhere in between. The Bush regime and various bureaucrats actively let it happen, but the actual criminals were not the Bushies, but rather allies. There’s a few likely suspects.

Post Modified: 07/03/05 15:18:56

R67013
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

A NATION CHALLENGED: GROUND ZERO; Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall Of 3rd Tower

By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON (NYT) 1715 words
Late Edition – Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 3

ABSTRACT – Preliminary report on Sept 11 collapse of 7 World Trade Center concludes that massive structural beams that functioned as sort of bridge holding up 47-story skyscraper were compromised in disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel; diagrams; tower was set afire by debris from twin towers and burned for about seven hours before collapsing in circumstances not explained until this finding by FEMA and American Society of Civil Engineers; up to 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel were stored near ground level, running in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for New York City command center, Secret Service office and other tenants; fire apparently undermined transfer trusses, steel beams that allowed skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers; same type of failure contributed to collapse of Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after 1995 bombing; draft report, which could bring serious changes in building codes, is based on videos, eyewitness accounts and analysis of debris; Irwin Cantor, one of building’s original engineers, says explanation is reasonable, and diesel tanks were not envisioned in design; Port Authority says floor plans show compliance with codes, but fire officials at one point did question large fuel storage; no one died in collapse, but it is considered major mystery of Sept 11, because no modern steel-reinforced high-rise in US had ever collapsed in fire (M)


R67015
5 years ago
Snark

Never mind this post.

Post Modified: 07/03/05 18:35:47

R67018
5 years ago
Snark

So WTC 7 was built over giant electrical transformers, the weight resting primarily on giant horizontal steel trusses, in close proximity to 42,000 gallons of burning diesel fuel. When those trusses broke, the center of the building drops (as seen in videos and mentioned above) and the building collapses. Plausible. Way plausible.

Would an overloading and severely crushed electrical transformer create a shitload of heat?


R67021
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

Thank you Gerald Posner. So so official.

POSNER: Building number 7 is one of the clearest examples, it’s actually a slam dunk in terms of engineering. That’s how it came down. I don’t even know why this one is a mystery at all and I’ll tell you why. It happens to be built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned (ph). It’s an unusual design. It has a crosshatch of steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, not the original designs, they stored 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel there, that was used for emergency fuel for generators, for Mayor Giuliani’s emergency operations and for the Secret Service.

When that caught fire after the World Trade Center was hit and some of the damage is done to the fire retardant materials in that building there’s a fire for five to seven hours. Just the opposite of what you heard in the ad. It slowly burns through those steel birders, fueled by the diesel fuel, and if you watch the tape that’s on that ad, 30 seconds before the building implodes, you see the actual mechanical room crash through exactly where you expect it to. There’s a clear engineering explanation for that building.

CNN

Post Modified: 07/03/05 19:54:11

R67023
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

What happened to WTC-7 was similar to scuttling a heavy battleship using a dirty bomb and reporting the ship ran aground. While the History Channel repeatedly airs a program called, “The Rise and Fall of an American Icon,” about the short life and mysterious death of the World Trade Towers, the narrator, Edward Herman, briefly intones of WTC-7, “the building burns unchecked for seven hours.” Almost as an afterthought a structural engineer comments on the puzzling collapse of the 47 story skyscraper, “We donít know exactly how it happened.” Nothing more is said about the highly suspicious collapse of WTC-7; end of any intelligent discussion.

Indeed, the present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection. Consider: between 11:30 and 2:30 PM on September 11th (hours after the twin towers had collapsed), according to this National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Report on the curious collapse of WTC 7, fires “broke” out on the following floors: 6,7,8,10,11,12, 19,20,21—and “multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20s and 30s.” Gee, who knew modern architecture was so inflammable, so prone to spontaneous combustion? Curiously, none of the other tall buildings much closer to the fa lling towers combusted in any similar, mysterious manner—but then they weren’t “Command Centers,” apparently ordered destroyed.

South Tower survivor, Brian Clark (complete transcripts) who managed to escape before the building collapsed, said of the fire surrounding the stairwell, “You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up.”

link

Post Modified: 07/03/05 20:02:49

R67024
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R67027
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

And the mainstream press reports it this way

March 2, 2002, Saturday

METROPOLITAN DESK

A NATION CHALLENGED: GROUND ZERO; Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall Of 3rd Tower
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON (NYT) 1715 words

Massive structural beams that functioned as a sort of bridge to hold up the 47-story skyscraper known as 7 World Trade Center were compromised in a disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel, leading to the building’s collapse on Sept. 11, investigators have concluded in a preliminary report.

The tower was set on fire by debris from the twin towers and burned for about seven hours before collapsing in the late afternoon under previously unexplained circumstances. The analysis of its collapse is one of the first detailed findings by a team of engineers organized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers to understand the fate of all the buildings around the site.

As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s command center, the Secret Service’s office and other tenants.

Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks.

A failure of the same type of structural bridge contributed to the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City when it was bombed in 1995. Federal guidelines for public buildings, created in 1996, warned of the dangers of such trusses in terrorist attacks.

‘‘It’s certainly right in the vicinity where the columns go into this transfer system,’‘ said a person knowledgeable about the investigators’ draft report on the World Trade Center. ‘‘The rest of the building is built on top of the bridge.’‘

While 7 World Trade Center, which stood across Vesey Street just to the north of the twin towers, was not formally a federal building, it did house crucial government offices that included the city’s nerve center for emergency response.

The investigators said that their conclusions, combined with other findings about the failure and collapse of 5 World Trade Center, could prompt serious changes in the codes used in building construction.

The findings are in a draft report that has already been circulated among government agencies, and are based on videos made on Sept. 11, witnesses’ reports, interviews with firefighters, evidence from the debris pile and structural analysis. Team members, who described many of the findings, cautioned that the conclusions on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center could still be modified as reviews proceed.

But Irwin Cantor, one of the building’s original structural engineers, who is now a consulting engineer and member of the City Planning Commission, said the diesel-related failure of transfer trusses was a reasonable explanation for the collapse.

He said he believed that diesel tanks were not envisioned in the original design of the building. ‘‘It ended up with tenants who had diesels,’‘ Mr. Cantor said. ‘‘I know none of that was planned at the beginning.’‘

According to floor plans submitted to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land on which 7 World Trade sat, the building complied with city fire codes, said Frank Lombardi, the authority’s chief engineer. Those codes permit no more than one fuel tank with a capacity of 275 gallons or less on above-ground floors, he said.

Jerome M. Hauer, who was the director of Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management at the time the command center was opened at 7 World Trade, said several teams of engineers reviewed plans to open the office there. But no one ever mentioned any hazard associated with placing fuel tanks above ground, near a transfer truss, he said.

‘‘There were a host of people who looked at this,’‘ said Mr. Hauer, who is now a managing director of the crisis and consequence group at Kroll Worldwide, a security consulting company based in New York. ‘‘We relied on their judgment.’‘

Fire officials did at one point question the storage of large amounts of fuel well above the ground level, saying that one large tank for the mayor’s command center, if ever compromised, might fuel a fire that would threaten the building.

The Sept. 11 draft report also has photographs and a description of debris collected from a previously undisclosed, multistory collapse within 5 World Trade Center, a nine-story office building that also burned on Sept. 11 but largely remained standing. The team has found that one specific type of bolted connection, called a column tree connection, that joined floor-support beams, failed in the heat of the fires, causing the four-story collapse in the part of 5 World Trade at the corner of Vesey and Church Streets.

Although no one died as a result of the collapses in 5 and 7 World Trade Centers, since both stood long enough to be evacuated, the team’s findings are likely to lead to recommended changes in the way public and government buildings are constructed, much the way similar studies did after the Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles in 1994 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

The team is still deliberating on how tightly it can pin down the precise train of events that led to the collapse of the twin towers themselves. But until now, the collapse of 7 World Trade has stood as one of the outstanding mysteries of the Sept. 11 attack, since before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire.

High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a fire, even if the fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel support structures are strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give way in the time it takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn.

In major high-rise fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991 and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach has worked. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours, leaping from floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. But the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never burned out, and in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop fighting the blazes.

‘’What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department would be afraid to fight it?’‘ said one member of the investigating team.

According to the Port Authority floor plans, 275-gallon diesel tanks sat on the fifth, seventh and eighth floors and were fed through pipes from the larger tanks near ground level. The team member said that while the diesel fuel remains the most likely candidate for feeding the fires, it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained.

The huge steel transfer trusses ran mostly through the fifth, sixth and seventh floors where the fires burned. The purpose of the trusses, which included zigzagging and horizontal members and were concentrated around the building’s core, was to allow 7 World Trade to be built over two Consolidated Edison substations that already existed on that spot when the building went up in the late 1980’s. Together the stations held 10 transformers, each about 35 feet high and 40 feet wide.

Using the trusses to avoid having vertical structural columns pierce the transformers, the building was constructed around them like a hen sitting on a giant egg.

‘‘We had to do design tricks to accommodate the existing Con Ed facility,’‘ said Mr. Cantor, the structural engineer. ‘‘This building had an awful lot of transfers.’‘

Transfer trusses are a well-tested technique and are used in countless high-rise buildings, as well as in bridges around the world. Engineers say that transfer trusses, for most buildings, present no extraordinary hazard. But if there is an explosion, earthquake or long-burning fire, they can present a problem.

In Oklahoma City, during the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building, a large transfer girder on the building’s third floor gave way, helping to precipitate a progressive collapse that later analysis showed was responsible for most of the 168 deaths. After this attack, federal guidelines for buildings that would hold government agencies were changed, recommending that buildings be designed so that single-point failures did not cause a catastrophic collapse.

Videos of the 5:28 p.m. collapse of 7 World Trade lend vivid support to the truss-failure theory. Roughly 30 seconds before the building goes down, a rooftop mechanical room starts to disappear, falling into the building’s core. Then a second larger rooftop room sinks. The building then quickly collapses.

Both rooms were above sections of the building held up by the trusses. Other video evidence shows fire concentrated in the floors containing the trusses and the fuel tanks.

Dr. John D. Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, in Menlo Park, Calif., reviewed videos of the collapse, discussed it with other engineers and came to a similar conclusion; the fuel, the trusses and the fire brought 7 World Trade down. ‘‘The pieces have come together,’‘ he said. ‘‘Without the fuel, I think the building would have done fine.’‘

————————————————————————————————————————

Post Modified: 07/03/05 20:54:01

R67037
5 years ago
Continuity

Suitcase, that ‘everything-you-need-to-know-about-7’ was quite informative.

Lol, and someone mentioned Posner earlier. When Posner is taken out of the box to blab, you know the damage control department has been clicked on.


R67042
5 years ago
Shogo

So, Continuity, I’m wondering.

When Rasputin blows his load in your mouth, do you spit or swallow?


R67068
5 years ago
whateveryousay

it was still unknown whether there could have been other sources of fuel in the building, (hint: like set and timed explosives) kept there by tenants like the Secret Service that have disclosed little of what their spaces contained.

you see, the odd design, vulnrability, and potential for sudden and total collapse were what attracted tennents like the cia, the secret service, and particularly the office of emergency management. they don’t go for those old style buildings that might remain standing during an emergency.

Using the trusses to avoid having vertical structural columns pierce the transformers, the building was constructed around them like a hen sitting on a giant egg.

yeah! and the transformers were like an egg. i like eggs!

Videos of the 5:28 p.m. collapse of 7 World Trade lend vivid support to the truss-failure theory. Roughly 30 seconds before the building goes down, a rooftop mechanical room starts to disappear, falling into the building’s core.

i call bullshit! i would like to see that tape… it’s what i would consider big news, unless by “roughly 30 seconds” they mean roughly a 30th of a second.


R67073
5 years ago
Shogo

Who gives a fuck if some random conspiracy nutter calls bullshit?

You’re just some moron spewing conspiracy drivel on the internet, armed with nothing but a sense of righteous indignation.

Even if you were personally sitting inside WTC7 and witnessed it collapse as has been outlined, you wouldn’t believe it.

You and the other conspiracy nutters are the intellectual equivalent of Jesus freaks. You have your religious faith, and you’ll be damned if anyone persuades you otherwise.


R67074
5 years ago
Joe

“i call bullshit! i would like to see that tape…”

Calling bullshit on a tape you haven’t seen.. heh.

Just for fun:

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/beirut_hilton.mpg

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/jlhudson.mpg

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/villa_panamericanas.mpg

Post Modified: 07/04/05 07:42:24

R67083
5 years ago
cicero

sHoGo: Who gives a fuck if some random conspiracy nutter calls bullshit?

I find that everytime someone uses the “C” word (Conspiracy Nutter or theory) they are just trying to find a way out of a discussion they cannot argument their way out of.

In one desperate attempt they try to discredit their opponent and with false indignation put them self above any and all arguments.

Its a sign of intellectual resignation and lack of objectivity.

Post Modified: 07/04/05 08:39:58

R67087
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Who gives a fuck if some random conspiracy nutter calls bullshit?

Yes. We have gotton your point. We understand where you are coming from, and most of us have chosen to ignore you.

But just in case you have not figured it out, which is what it looks like, we are among thousands of people, maybe tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people, who have heard the government’s explanations about what happened on 911, and don’t believe it.

It is not so much that we want to believe any particular conspiracy theory, it is that we do not believe the official government conspiracy theory as put forward by the bush administration, the mainstream media, and the 911 Commission.

Despite what you, and the Sean Hannitys of the world, and Gerald Posners say, it will not make us believe in the biggest conspiracy theory of them all, the story about 19 hijackers.

The people, who are part of the 911 Truth movement, are good people, knowledgeable people, good citiznes, not crazy conspiracy theorists, as you describe them. This is not for you, this is for people, who might be reading this.

Even if you were personally sitting inside WTC7 and witnessed it collapse as has been outlined, you wouldn’t believe it.

This statement by you does not make sense. I don’t know if you could witness the collapse by sitting inside the building as well as we have witnessed it on film over and over again. That is the problem with Building 7. The collapse was on film. Also, we know that it did not come down from fire, because we have seen the pictures.
An examination of the evidence shows that this diesel fuel that was claimed to have been on fire was in places where there was no fire. It is little problems like this that keep cropping up. It is clear that supporters of the Building 7 came down by fire crowd, have ignored the evidence, and they are the ones that are acting like what did you say jesus freaks.

So if you don’t mind, can we and others continue to question the 911 Commission report. For some reason the government has not carried out an investigation of why building 7 collapsed on 911. This is why we are at where we are at.

BTW, these questions are rhetorical. I don’t look forward to hearing from you. Please go away. If you persist, I am going to develop a list of names of people, who are part of the 911 Truth movement, and we will take a look at their credentials, what kind of people they are, and why they are questioning the government theory of 911. I want to especially talk about the ex-military people, who have joined the 911 Truth Movement.
We also want more people to take a look at the 911 Omissions Hearings, so they can determine whether these critics of the 911 official conspiracy story are conspiracy nutters, as you like to call them. Thou does protest too much, and it gets you in trouble.

Post Modified: 07/04/05 09:17:11

R67092
5 years ago
Shogo

“I find that everytime someone uses the “C” word (Conspiracy Nutter or theory) they are just trying to find a way out of a discussion they cannot argument their way out of.”

LOLERDERBY

You couldn’t find your ass with both hands and a map, so the idea of you “finding” anything is flatly ridiculous.

“Please go away.”

No.

“If you persist, I am going to develop a list of names”

Excellent. Thanks for continuing to provide first-rate nuttiness for my amusement.


R67097
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

In case people don’t know who Gerald Posner is, here is a copy of a blog I wrote last fall, which concerns him. Posner was on television in the fall of 2004 to argue the government’s point of view against Jimmy Walters, who had funded some television commercials that ran on local cable channels in NYC last fall about Building 7 and the Pentagon.

Posner Long Ago Discredited

Gerald Posner, whom MSNBC and CNN chose to bring on its shows (Keith Olberman’s Countdown and Anderson Cooper’s 360 degrees), was long ago discredited for writing Case Closed, which said that Lee Harvey Oswald was JFK’s lone assassin, because he disregarded the facts surrounding the assassination. Posner disregarded that (1) the 6.5 bullet, that was matched to Oswald’s rifle, was a pristine bullet, which could not have been fired from any weapon (2) the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was never tested to see if it had been fired (3) no Oswald prints were found on the rifle by the Dallas police or the FBI until after Jack Ruby shot Oswald in the Dallas police station (4) the Mannlicher-Carcano was only one of three rifles found on the 6th floor of the Texas schoolbook depository (5) only one witness, Howard Brennan, identified Lee Harvey Oswald for the Warren Commission but had been unable to do so on November 22, 1963. Also, other witnesses saw two gunmen on the 6th floor of the T.S.B.D., neither of them Oswald (6) a nitrate test Oswald was given on the evening of the assassination indicated that he had not fired a rifle (7) the Parkland Hospital doctors’ reports, written on November 22nd, 1963, which can be found as exhibits in the Warren Commission report, describe two frontal entry wounds (8) forty-two witnesses reported hearing or seeing evidence of gunfire from the grassy knoll to the right and front of President Kennedy. These are just a few of the things that serious researchers have found wrong with the investigations that led to the Warren Commission finding, a mere ten months after the assassination, that Oswald acted alone and killed President Kennedy.

Post Modified: 07/04/05 10:23:13

R67116
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

John Martin of ABC News says “Gerald Posner is one of the most resourceful investigators I have encountered in thirty years of journalism.” Garry Wills calls Posner “a superb investigative reporter,” while the Los Angeles Times dubs him “a classic-style investigative journalist.” “His work is painstakingly honest journalism” concluded The Washington Post. The New York Times lauded his “exhaustive research techniques” and The Boston Globe determined Posner is “an investigative journalist whose work is marked by his thorough and meticulous research.” “A resourceful investigator and skillful writer,” says The Dallas Morning News.

Posner was one of the youngest attorneys (23) ever hired by the Wall Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. A Phi Beta Kappa and Summa Cum Laude graduate of the University of California at Berkeley (1975), he was an Honors Graduate of Hastings Law School (1978), where he served as the Associate Executive Editor for the Law Review. Of counsel to the law firm he founded, Posner and Ferrara, he is now a full time journalist and author.

He is a freelance writer on investigative issues for several news magazines, and a regular contributor to NBC’s TODAY Show as well as other national shows on the History Channel, CNN, FOX News, and CBS. A member of the National Advisory Board of the National Writers Union, Posner is also a member of the Authors Guild, PEN, The Committee to Protect Journalists, and Phi Beta Kappa. He lives in Miami and Manhattan with his wife, author, Trisha Posner, who works on all his projects and writes with him the monthly OceanDrive “Cultural Chatter” column. Read a profile about Gerald’s work in Publisher’s Weekly.

Post Modified: 07/04/05 11:52:48

R67119
5 years ago
Shogo

“we have witnessed it on film over and over again.”

From one angle. From the side where there was no visible damage to the building’s structure.

Why are you such a dumbass?


R67126
5 years ago
LeoStrauss

***

Post Modified: 07/04/05 14:47:11

R67130
5 years ago
sisyphus

this picture should help clear some of this up:

Post Modified: 07/04/05 14:28:49

R67132
5 years ago
LeoStrauss

zzz

Post Modified: 07/04/05 14:45:44

R67133
5 years ago
fennec

sis, in reply to that

Post Modified: 07/04/05 14:38:23

R67139
5 years ago
Continuity

From this WTC7 page :

From the photos of WTC7:

1. As the day progressed, fires were observed on the east face of the 11th, 12th, and 28th floors. The Securities and Exchange Commission occupied floors 11 through 13. The fires were not raging.

2. The north side, frequently photographed, was unblemished. No cracked windows or escaping smoke, only until prior to collapse. Photographs and videos show that the fires were located on approximately the 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, and 13th floors. American Express Bank International occupied the 7th and 8th floors. Again, SEC, on floors 11 to 13.

3. Photographs of the west face show fire and smoke on the 29th and 30th floors.

4. Official story: According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor [of the WTC7] facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters’ eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree.

  • A decision was made prohibiting firefighters from entering the building. The small fires were left to burn unimpeded.
  • The official story goes that not enough water was available to fight the fires.
  • Con Ed reported that “the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m.” The official story goes that even though the main power system for the towers was switched off and WTC 7 had been evacuated, a design flaw allowed generators (designed to supply backup power for the WTC complex) to start up and resume an unnecessary and unwanted power supply.
  • Official story: Though most of the falling debris was cold, it manages to start numerous fires in WTC 7.
  • Official: even with the outbreak of numerous fires in the building, no decision was made to turn off the generators now supplying electricity to WTC 7.
  • Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires.
  • The most important part : It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks [of diesel fuel]. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

Thus the burning diesel most likely did not help in any way to warp steel and bring down WTC7. Besides, diesel burns max at 800c, given the appropriate amount of oxygen.


R67141
5 years ago
Shogo

Continuity, have you ever considered purchasing some ass-less chaps?


R67167
5 years ago
Strangegloved

Looks like Sean Hannity getting ready to take that big government dick up his ass.


R67176
5 years ago
Continuity

Hi boys and girls, I’m Shogo the Clown. I live in a toilet. I am using whatever cheap tricks I can think of to derail this thread.

*


First I scoop the poop from outside my parking lot, and then I smear it on others, because I am logical and know things about computer science.

I, Shogo the Clown, a man with many aliases, will do whatever it takes to interfere in this thread. I’ve been working GNN so long — it’s like I monitor the place 24/7.

Young people think Shogo the Clown is cool. They see him talk about gay men all the time. It’s like he’s obsessed. I wonder how Shogo the Clown comes up with all the poop. God damn, he’s a logical poop clown.

Post Modified: 07/04/05 18:28:11

R67179
5 years ago
sisyphus

Damn, I can’t even look at this thread anymore. Why did you have to post that pic Shogo?


R67183
5 years ago
whateveryousay

i called bullshit because i haven’t seen anything to back up the claim that the top of wtc7 sank 30 seconds before the total collapse.

no video, news reports, or even text other than that little snippet above


R67197
5 years ago
Memnoch01


Fig 5.12(b) Photo taken seconds before impact of WTC 1


R67203
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

Ladies and Gentleman Gerald Posner’s Why America Slept The Failure to Prevent 9/11

After an eighteen-month investigation that uncovered explosive new evidence through interviews and in classified documents, Gerald Posner reveals much previously undisclosed information.

1. The identity of two countries that might have had foreknowledge that a terrorist attack was scheduled for September 11 on U.S. soil.

2. Details about a secret deal between Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden

3. the devastating consequences of the crippling rivalry between the CIA and FBI as the United States moved unwittingly toward 9/11.

And much much more!

Post Modified: 07/04/05 21:49:17

R67207
5 years ago
Shogo

“I, Shogo the Clown, a man with many aliases”

Actually, I only have one user on here. Believe it or not, I’m not the only person who thinks you’re an idiot.


R67223
5 years ago
Continuity

I was referring to the half-dozen other accounts you had on GNN v1, your various anonymous posts not included.

So anyway, are you here to debate all grown up now or no?


R67234
5 years ago
Shogo

Already tried that one. A bit useless in the face of religious whackos like yourself who have preconceived notions and are unwilling to entertain the possibility that your half-baked conspiracy nonsense is a bunch of shit.


R67246
5 years ago
whateveryousay

ah ha. i called bullshit.
and.

it would seem that i was right. posner refers to the 30 seconds between events being on video but it would seem that it actually isn’t.

the “30 seconds” comes from the FEMA report. the report implies that the collapse took around 30 seconds and that this can be seen on the video, but it doesn’t actually say it really, sort of.

now, from what i could see on the video*s* (i’ve seen at least 3 different video angles of the collapse shogo), it looks like the mechanical penthouses are still there and intact right up until the moment when the whole building comes down in one complete movement.

here’s what the report says:

table{border:1px solid black}. | section 5.5.4, Sequence of WTC 7 Collapse.

~5:20:33 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.

~5:21:03 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to “disappear” completely.

~5:21:08 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.

~5:21:09 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south “kink” or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).

~5:21:10 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25). The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall. |

so, “begins to collapse” at 5:20:33, check figure 5-20, okay,

this is figure 5-20:


the FEMA report’s photo caption reads:
Figure 5-20 View from the north of WTC 7 with both mechanical penthouses intact.

okay, so “begins to collapse”, yeah, you can see how it begins to collapse by the way nothing happens for 30 seconds. according to their own report, nothing actually can be seen to be happening until 5:21:03. from there, it’s 7 seconds until 5:21:10 and “collapses completely” which should probably read “completely collapsed” to go with their accompanying figure 5-25:


no building left.

they have some cute language:

It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to “disappear” completely… Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears…or sinks into WTC 7

according to video this is true, but they fail to mention that this particular WTC 7 that the penthouse disappears into about 5 seconds later happens to be in free fall at that particular moment.

the report where this readily quoted “30 seconds” comes from just tries to make the collapse seem like a longer, drawn-out, step by step process than what can be seen on the videos: a very smooth, quick, continuous, total process. the report is misleadingly ambiguous.

and it only really commits to saying that the mechanical penthouses started falling 7 seconds before the building collapsed, or had collapsed depending on how you want to read that.


R67247
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on sensitive projects, domestically and internationally. Through the support of our international network of offices and agent relationships, Controlled Demolition Incorporated can respond promptly for defense-related consulting and performance requests on short notice.

The ties of Controlled Demolition, Inc. with the DoD are very old. In November 1978 through January 1979 CDI used both conventional and implosion methods to destroy former Soviet military’s Large Phased Array Radar Facility in Skrunda,Latvia, under the direction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Transatlantic Programs Center. link

Post Modified: 07/05/05 09:40:11

R67248
5 years ago
ussmak

I have read several pages of this thread but it really starts to get dull (were talking C-SPAN dull). If Osama’s planes really didn’t bring down the towers then why is he taking credit for it? Sure at first it may make Al-Queda (and thus all jihad against Westerners) look strong and powerful but now wouldn’t he be better off admitting that he had nothing to do with it (or that the US goverment told him to). He should know that a war that degrades the hearts and minds of America (a la the Tet Offensive) can do alot more than simple killing (a la Battle of Britain). So, if he really is trying to bring down our society and get us out of the Mid-East, then shouldn’t he just release a video saying “Hey, I lied. You think I could do this, no way! They told me what to do” Then sit back and watch as a greater turmoil erupts in out country.

But maybe he really did fly his planes in and all. If that’s the case then there are a couple of things I’d like to throw out. A) Maybe their were plans in place to bring the building down in case something like this happened (The earlier attempts on the building could have prompted this) After all, if ‘they’ were unsure as to wether-or-not the buildings would stay up, wouldn’t it be better to have a controlled downfall rather then one that could take out eight other buildings in its path? or B) Maybe the goverment knew about it and placed the charges to bring down the buildings and create a cause to go to war. But why would they bring them down straight? Why wouldn’t they let the buildings spiral down out of control and cause even more damage (since damage/kill/shock factor was what they would have been going for). Why bring them down neatly and all?

Or maybe Osama’s planes worked quite nicely and brought down the WTC’s. But building seven had to be brought down because of whatever reason. Who knows? I guess all I’m saying is, I do not believe the offical story of what happened. I know there’s alot more to it than what is ‘offical’. However, I don’t believe that the goverment planned the entire thing because if they did, why didn’t they go even further? I mean, in causing the buildings to come straight down they have created more controversy. If they had come down all willy-nilly alot of you wouldn’t be complaining as much (about the two main WTC’s at least). And if Osama really didn’t do it, then why is he still saying he did? These are just my thoughts and I have no evidence to back anything up.


R67258
5 years ago
Shogo

Or maybe the laws of physics are as reliable as history has proven them to be, and the damage caused by the planes led to the buildings’ collapse.

Jeez, what a shocking notion THAT is.


R67259
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

If Osama’s planes really didn’t bring down the towers then why is he taking credit for it?

When exactly did he take credit for 9/11?

Post Modified: 07/05/05 10:27:35

R67268
5 years ago
Shogo

Shortly after sexing your mom in the pooper.


R67282
5 years ago
ussmak

I’m not saying he (Osama) took credit for them but he didn’t exactly deny it either, so I guess I’m taking his silence as guilt. No other group has stepped up to the plate, so we have to assume (for the sake of argument or for at least putting a ‘face’ on the crime, at least one opposite of the US Goverments) that if it was a terrorist, then it was Osama. And Shogo, I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything. If you read my post, you’ll see I actually support your cause (that of no-internal consipiracy, if I understand you) in several, but not all, of my thoughts.


R67294
5 years ago
whateveryousay

R67295
5 years ago
whateveryousay

though osama seems pretty much at about the same level as jerry fallwell no?


R67299
5 years ago
Strangegloved

“If Osama’s planes really didn’t bring down the towers then why is he taking credit for it?”

“Shouldn’t he just release a video saying “Hey, I lied. You think I could do this, no way! They told me what to do” Then sit back and watch as a greater turmoil erupts in out country.”

“But maybe he really did fly his planes in and all.”

“Maybe Osama’s planes worked quite nicely and brought down the WTC’s. But building seven had to be brought down because of whatever reason. Who knows?”

“If Osama really didn’t do it, then why is he still saying he did?”

I don’t think I’ve seen this kind of naivete before? Who is this guy? Is he related to Shogo?

Post Modified: 07/05/05 13:25:25

R67307
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I guess it might be worth bringing this article about OBL back from some time ago.


R67309
5 years ago
Shogo

“I don’t think I’ve seen this kind of naivete before? Who is this guy? Is he related to Shogo?”

I don’t talk about OBL. As far as the collapse of the buildings goes, that’s totally irrelevant.


R67312
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Usama bin Laden Says Israeli Regime is Behind the 9-11 Attacks

KABUL, Afghanistan (Ummat): Prominent Arab mojahed (freedom fighter) Usama bin Laden or the Al-Qaida group has nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the Bush Administration, according to an Usama bin Laden interview with Ummat, the Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper. In his interview, Usama bin Laden pointed out that the Israeli regime is behind the 9-11 attacks. He expressed gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging the Pakistani people to continue their jehad against dictators, tyrants, traitors, crooks, criminals, dictatorships and tyrannies. Following is the text of Usama Bin Laden’s interview conducted by a “special correspondent” and published in the daily Ummat on Friday, 28 September 2001. [The place and date of the interview was not given by Ummat.]

Story.

Post Modified: 07/05/05 14:04:56

R67313
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

It is certainly well-documented, for example, that Israel has quite regularly perpetrated terrorist attacks against its U.S. and British benefactors. This is nothing new, as documented by U.S. political commentator John Leonard in the Afterword to my 9/11 study, The War on Freedom. Leonard shows that there is in fact a rich history here, analysis of which discloses a consistent pattern of provocation. Menachim Begin [33] led the 1946 Zionist truck bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel, timed to spur British troop withdrawals and give Zionist militias a free hand against the poorly armed Palestinians, taking the lives of just under 100 British guests. [34] Such covert Israeli intelligence operations have evolved into a sophisticated pillar of state strategy, from amateur beginnings in the 1950’s, when the exploits of some provocateurs became public. In the Lavon affair, Israeli “private citizens” blew up American and British property in Egypt, blaming it on the Muslim Brotherhood, but were caught by the police. [35] The bombing of synagogues in Iraq by Zionists inciting their brethren to flee to Palestine also became public knowledge. [36] The New Zealand Herald cites the testimony of an ex-Mossad agent on the Achille Lauro hijacking, who exposed the atrocity as an Israeli “black propaganda operation.” [37]

Does this, in itself, prove that the Israeli military intelligence infrastructure was in some way involved in 9/11? Of course not. But it proves propensity, since this infrastructure has a long record of conducting terrorist attacks – not only against U.S. and British targets but also against Jews (not to mention Palestinians). What brings this propensity into the limelight of a proper contemporary analysis of 9/11 are a number of facts, documented by Leonard in The War on Freedom, proving beyond doubt the reality of some sort of dubious Israeli involvement. Among the pertinent facts he plucks from the public record, are the following.

In the first of a four-part investigative documentary TV series on the Israeli connection to 9/11, FOX News correspondent Carl Cameron reported on how U.S. authorities had detained active members of an Israeli spy ring operating in the U.S., believed by authorities to be linked to the 9/11 attacks:

“A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States [emphasis added]... investigators suspect that they [sic] Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are – quote – ‘tie-ins’. But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, – quote – ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’ Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism.” [38]

The Weekly Planet reports that “addresses of many” of the “Arabs under scrutiny by the U.S. government” systematically “correspond to the specific areas where the Israelis set up operations.” One extremely pertinent example is “an address for the Sept. 11 hijacking leader, Mohammad Atta,” which is “3389 Sheridan St. in Hollywood, Fla., only a few blocks and a few hundred feet from the address of some of the Israelis, at 4220 Sheridan.” The strange coordination between Atta and Israeli intelligence operatives is not an isolated case. About a “dozen Israelis, including the alleged surveillance leader, had been based in Hollywood, Fla., between January and June [2001] – quite possibly watching Arabs living nearby who are suspected of providing logistical support to Osama bin Laden’s network.” Indeed, ten of the 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers lived in Florida, bolstering conclusions reported by a FOX News reporter that “the students-cum-spies might have gained advance knowledge of aspects of the Sept. 11 terrorists” – or even worse, may have been directly involved in some way. [39] The respected French journal Le Monde further reports that there were “more than one-hundred Israeli agents, some presenting themselves as fine arts students, others tied to Israeli high-tech companies. All were challenged by the authorities, were questioned, and a dozen of them are still imprisoned. One of their tasks was to track the Al-Qaida terrorists on American territory – without informing the federal authorities.” [40]

The detained Israelis, in other words, had been part of an intelligence operation that had very possibly been tracking the hijackers, and had both the means and the opportunity to discover the terrorist plot. Indeed, somewhat ominously, the U.S. government has refused to disclose already existing “evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11,” ensuring instead that it remains “classified” (unlike direct evidence of an Al-Qaeda involvement). Most crucially, if U.S. authorities recognise the existence of an Israeli connection to 9/11, including the distinct possibility of foreknowledge (not to mention as yet undisclosed “tie-ins”), why are Shalom and Albert arbitrarily dismissing the same? There is no need to comment on this further – it is clear that the facts speak for themselves in warranting a further inquiry into an Israeli linkage to the September 11 attacks. Such an inquiry is clearly legitimate based on the facts. We do not need to delve into specific “conspiracy theories”, or a discussion of them, to understand the legitimacy – and necessity – of such an inquiry, which obviously has broad implications for the nature of the relationship between the United States and Israel, as well as the current direction of Israeli intelligence policy.

Ironically then, the “incompetence theory” of the 9/11 intelligence failure and other issues related to September 11 adopted by Shalom and Albert, fits nicely into their own description of an irrational and unscientific hypothesis: “If the hypothesis flouts prior knowledge as well as current evidence, and is accepted nonetheless, then the behavior is often no longer scientific, nor even rational.” It is noteworthy that their hypothesis not only flouts “prior knowledge” on the historic pattern of provocation for wars noted by McMurtry, Leonard, and others, but also completely ignores “current evidence” available on the 9/11 attacks. As such, their hypothesis is not only unscientific, it is irrational.

Taken from here.

Post Modified: 07/05/05 17:34:53

R67315
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

I’m not saying he (Osama) took credit for them but he didn’t exactly deny it either, so I guess I’m taking his silence as guilt.

Fake Osama


R67325
5 years ago
Shogo

Tool.


R67337
5 years ago
Continuity

The Jalalabad video supposedly showing Osama confess to the 9/11 attacks has been widely discredited, and that’s why we never hear the authorities bring it up anymore. To do so would cause additional liability.

It’s really no different than all the other ‘newsflash’ hyped lies we’ve heard, like the fake ricin plot, the fake meeting between Atta and an Iraqi spy in Prague, the fake poison labs in Afghanistan, the doctored Berg tape, the faked video still of the hijackers at the airport, the whole Al-Zarqawi farce, and a million others.

So far, my tentative theory (open to change, with new evidence) is that video footage of a preaching Osama bin Laden — outside of the fake Jalalabad imposter tape — was footage made before 9/11. It could have been easily copied, months, years, beforehand.

Back to the 3 collapsing buildings. Whateveryousay , any more on the sinking penthouses atop WTC7? They remind me of the sinking antenna atop WTC1.

Post Modified: 07/05/05 16:38:09

R67364
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

the doctored Berg tape, the whole Al-Zarqawi farce,

two of my favorites


R67381
5 years ago
zark

??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. A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Eagar went on to write an influential paper in the journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society entitled “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation” (JOM, December 2001). In this interview, Eagar explains the structural failure, what can be done within existing skyscrapers to improve safety, and what he believes the most likely terrorist targets of the future may be??

heh science in action eh?

Using the WTC7 collapse to explain the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 he wrote it in;

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation


R67415
5 years ago
Joe

It’s fun to change the bold lettering sometimes:

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation


R67418
5 years ago
Joe

Dr. Thomas Eager:

NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It’s really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don’t realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, “How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?” They said, “Oh, it’s really how you time and place the explosives.” I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that’s not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there’s no other way for them to go but down. They’re too big. With anything that massive — each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons — there’s nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.


R67426
5 years ago
Shogo

I dunno Joe. All that science is too confusing for my poor, addled brain.

I think I’ll do like zark does, and swallow whole the baseless conjectures put forward by foil-hatted conspiracy nutters.


R67430
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

When buildings collapse. Courtesy of Prop Matrix

Others here

Post Modified: 07/06/05 09:32:23

R67438
5 years ago
Snark

Those are from earthquakes- lateral shift of the surface of the planet- not from mechanical collapses.



R67440
5 years ago
Shogo

Likely story!


R67447
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

The claim was

This is what happens when a building collapses from a cause other than controlled demolition.


R67448
5 years ago
Joe

lol.. those pics are great. But they have nothing to do with the debate, sorry.


R67449
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

The Prop Matrix claim was

This is what happens when a building collapses from a cause other than controlled demolition.


R67452
5 years ago
Joe

“This is what happens when a building collapses from a cause other than controlled demolition.”

Right, so how did all those buildings collapse?


R67454
5 years ago
Joe

R67456
5 years ago
Shogo

Nutcaseman, aren’t you tired of having your balls handed to you?


R67461
5 years ago
Chickenma1

“with no one really agreeing on anything resembling details, the evidence was quickly disposed of.”

Ahhh, that’s putting it succinctly…


R67465
5 years ago
Continuity

In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the now widely ignored Thomas Eager is not even a structural engineer. And Silverstein hired an engineering company which rationalized a totally different, controversial theory for the collapses.

So you better start riding the right pony. Ho, Silver(stein), away!


R67470
5 years ago
Continuity

Anyway, what keeps bugging me is that some people here are saying stuff about WTC7 that simply has no evidence to back it up.

Claims made on previous page
1. The building was heavily damaged from falling debris.
2. The building had big fires.
3. Huge quantities of diesel blew up
4. Now supposedly the electrical transformers are to blame, c/o Mr Posner, king of cover-up.

Evidence so far
1. No photos from all the different angles suggest any physical damage. A fireman made testimony that he saw some damage only on the south facade, floors 8-18.
2. No big fires.
3. So far, we know that most of the diesel was in fact removed afterward from the basement, intact within tanks, inside their concrete basins.
4. Unestablished. We have yet to explore this issue properly.


R67476
5 years ago
whateveryousay

no. but the “molten steel” comment has been described as “dubious” due to the objectivity (or lack there of) of the tully / cdi top-brass… the only source i’ve seen is AFP text

also the seismic spikes have been described as interpreted in a dumb way and don’t really show basement bombs one way or another..

so those things can’t really been seen as evidence of anything really.

the observed 10 second near free-fall spontaneously explosive total collapses of the towers is of course evidence of something strange going on for sure.

if y’all want to believe that this all just sort of happened by some coincidental force of nature, here’s what to do:

just point one of them futuristic cathode ray guns at your face, set to about 59.94Hz, stare into the centre for a few hours, repeat.


R67477
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

lol.. those pics are great. But they have nothing to do with the debate, sorry.

I am sorry Joe, but they have a lot to do with the debate. I did not post them to be the evidence that says, WTC 1,2 & 7 were brought down by controlled demolition. Rather I thought it appropriate to add those pictures to the table for perspective. What is interesting is the way the building keep shape. We should see some staircases, office furniture, elevator shafts. But there were none. The complex was blown to dust. It is obvious WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Can we move beyond that now? Keep laughing.


R67478
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity opines: the now widely ignored Thomas Eager is not even a structural engineer.

This gets the “milk out both nostrils award” for page 9. An MIT department head with a PHD in Materials Engineering is dismissed by a member of the internut community because he isn’t a “structural” engineer.

That’s like saying a chief resident is unqualified to comment on anatomy because he isn’t a butcher.

Great stuff. Keep it coming.

-VO


R67483
5 years ago
whateveryousay

the top of the wtc 2 tower started to tip over. it started tipping over, then it stopped rotating and started going straight down… or perhaps just turned to dust.
the law of conservation of angular momentum says that it should have kept rotating, eager says the only way the towers could move is down.

that’s why when you chop a tree on one side it goes straight down, but only if it’s really really big… oh wait, sorry, trees are mostly wood, so they fall over. buildings, on the other hand, are made of air, so they can only go down…but only if they are really really big, so there’s enough air, not like those pesky glasses of water.

now. who’s interested in my new crayfish recipe


R67484
5 years ago
whateveryousay

oh sorry, “lobster”.

i like lobster!

now make sure you have enough gravitational budget to cook it.


R67487
5 years ago
whateveryousay


R67488
5 years ago
Shogo

Cuntinuttery: “Claims made on previous page
1. The building was heavily damaged from falling debris.”

You can see some of the damage (only the topmost portion of one corner) here

I don’t know how anyone would have had a clear angle to photograph the side facing the towers, considering the fires, smoke, and heaps of debris.

“2. The building had big fires.”

Again, judging from the duration of the fires, and the smoke coming from the bulding, it seems to be pretty obvious that the building had fires burning inside for much of the day. Too, many of the photos of WTC7 are of the back side of the building, not the heavily damaged front facing the twin towers.

“3. Huge quantities of diesel blew up”

This has been speculated, but nobody is saying for certain that this is what happened.

“4. Now supposedly the electrical transformers are to blame, c/o Mr Posner, king of cover-up.”

Possible explanations do not equal definitive statements of fact. Unless of course, you’re a batshit conspiracy kook who doesn’t understand how material engineering might relate to understanding a fuck of a lot about physics and how building materials work.

Keep it up Cuntinuttery. You’re batting 1000 in terms of sheer, unfettered buffoonery.

Post Modified: 07/06/05 13:16:21

R67489
5 years ago
Shogo

whateveryousay, why do you keep posting pictures of buildings that fell over from earthquakes? Is it to prove what a dumbass you are? You already managed that several pages ago.

on edit: it seems that your problem has to do with understanding what density is. My advice is to study your head to understand this concept. For your next assignment, play with Lincoln Logs, a Jenga set, and some Lego. I think you’ll come around.

Post Modified: 07/06/05 13:18:24

R67491
5 years ago
viaossa

Shogo writes: play with Lincoln Logs, a Jenga set, and some Lego.

Caution: Choking Hazard. Small parts may be swallowed by those prone to swallowing things. In the event of choking, watch with interest from a distance…

-VO


R67494
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Man, talk about having to go over the same ground several times.
You gotta check these things out when people post them.

World Trade Center Collapse Forensics.

When you get there make sure you clik onto The dust clouds
and after that clik onto The disappearance of the core.

That is part of Confronting the Evidence, get the video, they want you to check it out, so they are offering it free. All you got to do is give them your address.

Last but not least you need to see this
and WTC7’s Rubble Pile, so you can read this: Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile.

Post Modified: 07/06/05 13:54:40

R67496
5 years ago
Shogo

Fuck the dustclouds. That doesn’t prove shit.

Nor does the rest of your inane ranting.


R67497
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

And you can also read here at WTC 7’s Rubble Pile the very important and pertinent words: The only examples of total collapses of steel frame highrises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.

Post Modified: 07/06/05 13:54:59

R67498
5 years ago
Shogo

There’s a first time for everything, Nutcaseman.

But more specifically, invoking this mantra of “steel frame highrises” ignores the specifics of the WTC. The WTC was far larger, and more massive. Due to it’s height, it had a great deal of mass being supported. How many other high rises of the same size and mass of the WTC had the same kind of damage done to it?

Not just a plane crashing into it, but a fully fueled jumbo jet, slamming into it at high speed.

Your use of bold-face type doesn’t change the fact that this was a unique set of circumstances.


R67503
5 years ago
Joe

“You can see some of the damage (only the topmost portion of one corner) here”

Nice find. I haven’t seen that picture before. It looks like some heavy damage…


R67507
5 years ago
Shogo

It took some searching to find it, since most pix are the ones from street level on the backside of the building, and far away at that. That’s the only close up, pre-collapse pic I’ve seen. I’m sure there must be more out there.


R67513
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Nice find. I haven’t seen that picture before. It looks like some heavy damage… —joe

wha?

It took some searching to find it, —shogo

um, yeah, you just had to go all the way to here
i found and posted that picture on the 3rd.
but you would have had to click it to see the whole thing… along with other pictures.

it’s supposed to be about 10 floors worth of damage.

on a completely unrelated note, here’s a picture of the empire state building after a b-25 bomber slammed into it in 1945. an engine fell down the elevator shaft and started a fire in the basement.


R67515
5 years ago
whateveryousay

oh, and shogo.

unlike jenga, buildings like the twin towers used lighter “blocks” on the top than the bottom.

not like this:


R67516
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo,

I listed 4 assumptions made by other posters from Page8. Thank you for pointing out that each assumption was not proven fact. I also specifically wrote that a fireman said WTC7 received damage on its south face, from floors 8-18. This is the only documented damage so far revealed. Thank you for pointing that out again.

Viaossa, you better phone up Thomas Eager and console him. Even Silverstein has abandoned his theory. And Eager’s specialty is not in structural engineering. You may discuss metallurgy with him, however, if you don’t squirt milk out of your nose on his nice MIT cardigan.

Hi ho, Silver(stein)! Away! Viaossa, the second pic is for you, since you’re Shogo’s sidekick and all.


R67517
5 years ago
whateveryousay

the point being, there wouldn’t have been enough mass of building above the crash zones to drive a gravity collapse all the way down to the bottom.

if the floors had started “pancaking” like they said, the core columns should have remained intact. also, the resistance of all the undamaged floors below would have slowed down the collapse


R67518
5 years ago
2pacalypse

Shogo is some kind of retard.


R67519
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes: And Eager’s specialty is not in structural engineering.

Is yours? Hardly. Yet you feel qualified to weigh in on a subject you have zero professional experience with, dismissing someone whose education and professional background indicates that they are iminently more qualified than you are… because his PhD in Engineering isn’t good enough?

God, you’re such a funny little schmuck.

-VO


R67520
5 years ago
Shogo

“here’s a picture of the empire state building after a b-25 bomber slammed into it in 1945.”

You really should learn to use Google before making yourself look like a total putz.

Stats on the B-25 bomber

Depending on model, it could have gotten up to 36,000 pounds. A far cry from the 400,000 pounds of a 767. Its top speed (on the lightest model) was 315 mph, which is half that of the 767. The heaviest model only reached 275 mph. It also has a dramatically smaller fuel capacity, designed as it was for shorter range missions.

Further, the Empire State Building is dramatically shorter than the WTC, and built via a different type of construction.

In other words, your commentary is irrelevant….as per usual.


R67521
5 years ago
Shogo

“if the floors had started “pancaking” like they said, the core columns should have remained intact.”

According to whom?

To you?

Who the fuck are you?

You’re just some loser conspiracy nutter posting his retarded theories on the internet.

It’s funny though, I will say that.


R67522
5 years ago
Shogo

“Shogo is some kind of retard.”

Don’t you have some dimwitted Jew-controlling-the-world theories to post?


R67524
5 years ago
whateveryousay

you see, no one ever thought, “hey, maybe a plane will hit our nice big new building”

except maybe a 707 which flys faster than a 767.

or perhaps wonder woman’s jet.


R67526
5 years ago
Shogo

“except maybe a 707 which flys faster than a 767.”

It’s much less massive than a 767.

In any case, that idle boast by one of the building designers has since been found to be unsubstantiated by any tests. Basically, the guy was exaggerating.

PS – You’re an idiot.


R67528
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

OK. We have had enough of the expert witness testimony.

NOW IT IS TIME AGAIN FOR THE WITNESSES.

I know it presents a small problem for Shogo Hannity, but lets shine this light on him anyway.


R67529
5 years ago
whateveryousay

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. ... Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

well. that was conventional wisdom. now we know that for really tall towers, you just burn a bit of petroleum products on a few upper floors and hey-presto!

these specialized demo companies and their mumbo-jumbo, “oh it’s really difficult, really”, garbage need no longer be consulted because we now know that once a building is 47 floors or taller, they can’t fall over and damage neighbouring property… the only way they can go is down… you know, like, uh, candles, yeah, candles, or uh, um, telescopes, and uh… things which are built mostly from air, like, uh, sandwiches.
i like sandwiches! and gum drops too!


R67530
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Oh let me anticipate, firemen are too stupid to recognize explosions, despite the fact that they walk around in burning buildings all the time, in which explosions of all types are happening.

Post Modified: 07/06/05 19:42:06

R67531
5 years ago
whateveryousay

loizeaux’s newyorker comments…

he predicted the whole collapse thing, including the second tower hit falling first.

huh.


R67532
5 years ago
viaossa

As far as I am aware, nobody in this thread has questioned the ability of “firemen” to recognize the sound of something exploding. I, and others, have my doubts regarding the ability of fire personnel to identify those explosions as having originated from explosive charges… as opposed to the “explosions of all types” which were no doubt happening.

Curious… have any fire personnel reported seeing explosive charges on site? Just, you know, it would be interesting if they had…

-VO


R67533
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

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….something has happened at the base of the building …..then another explosion. Another building in the World Trade Center complex ……

keep reading ….....

Post Modified: 07/06/05 20:10:39

R67534
5 years ago
viaossa

Right, large white cloud of unknown origin… check. But I guess what I’m asking is, did anyone report seeing any explosives? Because I’d be really interested in reading those accounts.

-VO


R67535
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

No. No smoking gun like that yet that I know of.
But we have this from Tarpley’s piece.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR TAMPERING

There are numerous pieces of unconfirmed anecdotal evidence suggesting strange and unusual activities in the World Trade Towers in the days and weeks before their destruction. One New York businessman told me in an interview three years after the fact that he had visited a client in one of the towers numerous times during the months preceding the attack, and had always found that certain elevators were out of service. Another report came from Scott Forbes, and employee of Fiduciary Trust, a firm which was located on floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower. Eighty-seven employees of Fiduciary Trust were killed on 9/11. In an email account, Forbes reported that over the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, floors 50 and above of the South Tower experienced a “power down,” meaning that all electrical current was cut off for about 36 hours. The reason officially cited was that the electrical cables in the building were being upgraded. Forbes was an information technology officer in charge of Fiduciary Trust’s computer network; his attention was engaged by the power down because it fell to him to shut down all the company’s computers and related systems before the power went out. After the power down, he had to turn the computers back on again, and restore service on the network. Because there was no electric power above the fiftieth floor, there were also no security cameras and no security locks. There were however many outside engineering personnel coming in and out of the tower at all hours during the weekend. Forbes lived in Jersey City and could see the WTC towers from his home; when he saw the conflagration on the morning of 9/11, he immediately related it to the events of the previous weekend.

Post Modified: 07/06/05 21:42:43

R67537
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Curious… have any fire personnel reported seeing explosive charges on site? Just, you know, it would be interesting if they had

Good question. Maybe some of the 300+ dead firemen saw something.

Post Modified: 07/06/05 21:24:46

R67538
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System’s Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System’s customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities.

Maybe these guys had something to do with it?. Sounds a little like the Daniel Hopsicker story.

NOTE: Please clik onto the numbers 1,2,3, etc., to see the mainstream sources for the stories.

Post Modified: 07/06/05 21:47:31

R67539
5 years ago
cicero

SHOGO: You’re just some loser conspiracy nutter posting his retarded theories on the internet.

In what way are you not!? What evidence have you contributed with!? Why is it that every time you are questioned you stupe to calling people conspiracy nutter.

What makes you stay here surrounded by people interested in the truth when obviously you are not!?


R67541
5 years ago
Shogo

Yo Cicero. Awesome post, G.

Please do keep making with the funny.


R67542
5 years ago
Shogo

Nutcaseman, that’s a pretty cogent analysis you got there.

So, let me get this straight.

Five Israelis managed to, unobserved and undetected, plant sufficient demolitions charges in two of the largest buildings in the world to bring them down rapidly, without any employees in the buildings noticing explosives or detonators?

Just wanted to make sure I had your genius-level analysis accurate.


R67543
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

What I said is Maybe these guys had something to do with it?.
I can’t think for anybody. It is just out there that’s all.


R67545
5 years ago
Rasputin

What I said is Maybe these guys had something to do with it?.

Eagerly awaits McBeal’s analysis of the dancing Israelis. How bout it McBeal, what say you of the “art student” scandal and the jubilant Israelis dancing on the graves of the 9/11 victims? You’ve been strangely silent on the matter of Zionist complicity in these events. Could this be a case of primitive tribalism at work?

Post Modified: 07/06/05 21:58:52

R67546
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Whateveryousay, your framed quote is great, matches my common sense notions of how things work in the macro, real world. Great links, Suitcaseman. I finally think we have a clear winner on this, but we haven’t heard from Schneib in awhile.


R67549
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

First-hand Accounts of Underground Explosions In The North Tower

By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled, “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”, referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

Watch the Video

Post Modified: 07/06/05 22:22:51

R67550
5 years ago
viaossa

/me thinks this thread is just plumb full of real winners.

-VO


R67551
5 years ago
Shogo

“what say you of the “art student” scandal and the jubilant Israelis dancing on the graves of the 9/11 victims”

I say that you should have been there in your white jumpsuit, giving them advanced disco lessons.


R67552
5 years ago
Shogo

“I finally think we have a clear winner on this”

You have got to be shitting me.

A bunch of fucking wankers post a parade of links from the same tired conspiracy theorists, and you proclaim that the truth has finally been arrived at?

Shouldn’t you be off making dreamcatchers or some other stupid hippie bullshit?


R67554
5 years ago
Shogo

Nutcaseman, do you even read the source material before you post it?

Quote: “he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion.”

A) the guy says he “did not know what happened”.

B) the whole building shook. Of course, a plane just slammed into it at high speed.

C) there was *a* (singular) explosion. Of course, as we all know, the planes exploded on impact, as witnessed by the giant fireballs.

Later on, one of the people quoted says: “It takes a lot of heat to set off a sprinkler head. It never dawned on me that there was a giant fireball that came through the air of the lobby. I never knew that until later on. The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby.”

Another good quote: “Collateral damage to buildings adjacent to the World Trade Center was extensive, resulting in the necessary demolition of several of them.”

And yet, we’re to believe that WTC7 was completely undamaged.

You’re such a colossal fucking tool dude. You try and support your batshit nuttiness with an article that actually reinforces what every fucking engineer has had to say on this topic.


R67555
5 years ago
Rasputin

McBeal:

I say that you should have been there in your white jumpsuit, giving them advanced disco lessons

Which is another way of saying you’d rather not talk about it. Gotcha.

Viasso:

me thinks this thread is just plumb full of real winners

Indeed. Your failed attempt to paint yourself as “agnostic” while simultaneously pushing every half-baked pancake and zipper theory to besmirch the pages of popular mechanics is highly amusing.


R67556
5 years ago
Shogo

I think your frantic sucking of any and every dick pimping a half-baked demolitions conspiracy delusion is far more amusing.

“Which is another way of saying you’d rather not talk about it. Gotcha.”

It’s actually a sekrit coded message to my Zionist masters. It translates as “Rasputin is a poopy head”.


R67557
5 years ago
viaossa

Rasputin writes: Your failed attempt to paint yourself as “agnostic” while simultaneously pushing every half-baked pancake and zipper theory …

Heh. Yeah, even though I haven’t actually pushed a particular theory, It is a shame that all the “half-baked” engineering and failure analysis theories, and not your theories, are the ones more or less accepted by the general population, the med…

Hey… I’m starting to see a theme here, Ras. A pattern if you will…

-VO

Post Modified: 07/06/05 22:45:35

R67560
5 years ago
Rasputin

accepted by the general population

I highly doubt it, chappie. Let’s see a poll on the matter of WTC7 (pity they don’t show the footage on the news more often [ie more than once]; misfits like yourself aside, I think most people would and do accept the very obvious.


R67561
5 years ago
2pacalypse

““If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”“ The_Craven Joseph Goebbels


R67562
5 years ago
Shogo

“pity they don’t show the footage “

The footage is misleading, as it’s isolated to only one limited view of the building.

The only thing obvious here is that you’re a moron, and you’ve gotten a rabble of other morons to pull pud along with you.


R67563
5 years ago
Shogo

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Hm, sounds a lot like conspiracy nutters and their precious fantasy beliefs.


R67564
5 years ago
2pacalypse

Type “controlled demolition” into google image search and all you get is WTC pics.


R67565
5 years ago
Rasputin

rabble

Heh. Good stuff McBeal, keep it comin’.


R67569
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Just when you think that positions are hardened to the point of hopelessness, new polls come out showing that the majority view can change. Evidence is not wasted on everyone :>).


R67570
5 years ago
Shogo

“Type “controlled demolition” into google image search and all you get is WTC pics.”

You’re obviously not familiar with how Google works.

All that means is a bunch of idiots like yourself think it was a controlled demolition, despite any and all evidence to the contrary, and the utter lack of evidence supporting such a belief.

“Heh. Good stuff McBeal, keep it comin’.”

Funny, Ass-pootin’. That’s what your mom told me the other day. You and her, carbon copies!


R67571
5 years ago
viaossa

Rasputin writes: I highly doubt it, chappie.

Yes, but you’re a moron. It’s sort of a “behavior by design” problem.

-VO


R67572
5 years ago
Shogo

“Evidence is not wasted on everyone”

Uh, yes it is.

Meanwhile, conjecture seems to be doing really well with the semi-educated.


R67574
5 years ago
Shogo

Seriously, what’s up with this “chappie” business?

Have you now adopted the mannerisms of a flamingly queer Englishman?


R67575
5 years ago
2pacalypse

Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...


R67576
5 years ago
Rasputin

Yes, but you’re a moron. It’s sort of a “behavior by design” problem.

Way to address the points, chappie.


R67577
5 years ago
Shogo

Is there any particular reason you’re citing the writings of an insane man? Are you trying to tell us something about your diminshed mental capacity?


R67578
5 years ago
Shogo

Asspootin, this “chappie” business makes you sound even faggier than usual.


R67579
5 years ago
Rasputin

You still haven’t dealt with the matter of Zionist complicity, McBeal. You’re lashing out.


R67580
5 years ago
Shogo

Sorry, Asspootin, Zionism ceased to exist when Israel became a state. If you’re arguing that 9/11 was an Israeli operation, you’re even dumber than I thought. And that’s pretty fucking dumb.


R67581
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

I guess a nerve was touched somewhere. That was quite an outburst from the Hannity side. That is the tactic Sean uses when he does not like the direction the argument is going in.

We know there is a lot of fishy stuff going on with the buildings coming down, all three of them. We left the expert testimony for a while to explore some other areas, like were there opportunities for tampering, yes we found out, there were, during the power downs. Then we found the dancing israelis, and speculated that they might be involved in the 911 plot. Then all hell broke loose and a stream of insults was hurled.


R67582
5 years ago
Shogo

In any case, that’s totally irrelevant to the discussion.

You maintain that it’s obvious the WTC was brought down via controlled demolition.

In the opposite corner, anyone with a brain capable of cognition thinks that’s totally laughable.

On your side, you have the intellectual giants of Zark, 2pacalypse, Nutcaseman, and Cuntinuttery. Kinda speaks for itself.


R67583
5 years ago
viaossa

Rasputin writes: Way to address the points, chappie.

Way to prove mine…

(Moron)

-VO


R67584
5 years ago
Shogo

That’s a good summary Nutcaseman, but you forgot the part where you fucked your mom in the ass then self-sucked off the poopy.


R67585
5 years ago
2pacalypse

I take it you trust George Bush.


R67586
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Don’t forget Whateveryousay, Chickenma, Briefcaseman, Cicero, Continuity, and who am I leaving out?


R67587
5 years ago
Shogo

I think George Bush is kind of a dumbass.

Do you have any more unfounded assumptions I can disabuse you of?


R67588
5 years ago
Shogo

“who am I leaving out?”

I dunno, you conspiracy nutters all look the same to me.

Suitcaseman/Briefcaseman – I simply refer to the two of you jointly as Nutcaseman. Continuity has been renamed Cuntinuttery (in the interests of accuracy).


R67589
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

OriginalG, Cortez, Strangegloved, who else?


R67590
5 years ago
Shogo

Your mom?


R67591
5 years ago
2pacalypse

...

Post Modified: 07/06/05 23:42:26

R67592
5 years ago
2pacalypse

What do you think of George Bush’s membership in Skull & Bones? You think laying in coffins with Geronimo’s bones is peachy keen?

I think you’re just frightened of the truth. The truth would change your myopic little world.


R67593
5 years ago
2pacalypse

....


R67595
5 years ago
Shogo

giggle


R67596
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Oh jesus 2pac, it’s not going to help to get into Geronimo’s bones (way things are going, it probably won’t hurt either – sigh).


R67597
5 years ago
2pacalypse

I’m shogo, TV would never lie to me! Never ever! Hiyo Silverstein, away!


R67616
5 years ago
Continuity

Another gem from Viassa

Yet you feel qualified to weigh in on a subject you have zero professional experience with, dismissing someone whose education and professional background indicates that they are iminently more qualified than you are… because his PhD in Engineering isn’t good enough ?

I’ll have to spell this out in very basic terms to you. Eager is no longer teh shit. I won’t even try to explain academic specialization to you, because you apparently have a boner for anyone with PHd. But what I will do is explain one irony: that is, the man you are unconditionally defending — Silverstein — has hired a company of real structural engineers. They have debunked Eager and settled for another controversial theory.

Understand? Few people quote Eager anymore save for people like you, who will hug any theory of convenience that seeks to quickly & tidily explain away complex events – most of which Eager explains via conjecture. Hence many theories exist, inside and outside of the expert field.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 03:51:32

R67617
5 years ago
Continuity

P.S.

I know that Shogo and you, the faithful sidekick, have come up with the neato rhetoric to try and smear normal inquiry—rhetoric such as, people who test the official story are all narrowly religious in their intensity, because no controversies exist.

Aside from controversies & unanswered questions clearly existing, the truth of the matter is that Shogo is the most zealous one here for taking a stance so full of unnecessary hostility, so automatic with denial, so hypocritical after accusing others of conjecture, so automatic with denial, so deficient of curiosity, and so over-the-top desperate in his obvious attempt to pollute this thread.

On the hand, Viaossa appears to be just a random poster, with no more curiosity than can fit into a thimble. But he’s not at the same level of zealousness as his cyber-pal. For Shogo, this thread is the end of the freakin world and I wonder why.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 03:49:41

R67618
5 years ago
whateveryousay

re: google

clear your cookies, or use a different browser, etc. and you’ll get different results. google bumps the type of thing you’re into to the top, so don’t assume everybody sees the same thing.

All that means is a bunch of idiots like yourself think it was a controlled demolition -shogo

no, it means google remembers the type of stuff you’re looking for.


R67644
5 years ago
Shogo

Cuntinuttery, you really should stick to speculating on topics you know something about. I can’t think of what that might be, but I’m pretty certain that physics and my motivations aren’t on that list.

Again, for the slowpokes among you, there is a middle ground between extremist positions. On one extreme are people who believe that 9/11 was strictly the work of some crazy terrorists, with our government and country caught completely unawares. On the other extreme are people like you, who believe that every aspect of the event was orchestrated in some kind of grand conspiracy theater presentation.

What is personally disheartening to me is that one cannot point out flaws in either side without being accused of being the opposing extremist. This is a logical fallacy known as a “false dichotomy”.

This is not only disheartening to me, but to people like Schneib, Snark, and Joe. People who have some degree of science background and have been trained in critical thinking.

The extremists have essentially ruined this debate, because now anybody who questions any aspect of the “official story” is automatically lumped in with the batshit crowd that you represent.

As I said earlier, there is a middle ground here. I believe that there was some government complicity in allowing the attack to happen. But that’s where my agreement with you and your ilk ends.

I do not think there is any evidence (and by evidence I mean nothing that cannot be explained by the damage occuring from the plane impacts) to support controlled demolitions.

The buildings scattered huge chunks of debris in a wide radius. Nobody in the buildings saw anyone planting explosives. The physics more than adequately explain how two planes could have brought down the towers.

Your insistence on sticking your fingers in your ears and shrieking, and accusing me of being some kind of Sean Hannity for daring to question the groupthink you’ve bought into, only makes you look like an ignorant fool.

What is it that your side of the discussion has? Rate of expansion of dust clouds? People saying they heard explosions? (hm – you mean like the planes exploding on impact?)

The whole sum of your argument is that, for reasons that have been debunked to death, it’s simply unpossible for 767s flying into the towers to cause their collapse. Meanwhile, people with a lot more education in the subject than you have can demonstrate exactly why that scenario is plausible, and reasonable.

Personally, I am entertained by the crazy things people believe. This page, with 9 pages of craziness, is comedy gold. Thank you for the entertainment.


R67650
5 years ago
zark

dont look at the flash!!!

dont break out of the official lie.

dont look at the flash.

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

but that doesnt explain Rodriguezs’ statements to the Commission

Post Modified: 07/07/05 07:53:15

R67663
5 years ago
not_famous

R67678
5 years ago
Shogo

“dont look at the flash.”

zark, every time you type, something new and wonderful happens.

Congratulations, you just discovered that airplanes have lights mounted in front. Maybe now you can discover what those wings are that everyone is talking about.


R67680
5 years ago
zark

shogo… stop your gibbering please.

dont look at teh flash


R67684
5 years ago
Shogo

heh

you’re such a berk


R67686
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Back to the witnesses
for those who claim the planes
caused all the noises and explosions

Rodriguez’s story presents a problem.

“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?”

Posted for those who might not have seen it before.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 09:07:08

R67688
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

About Rodriguez’s story

“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”.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 09:08:59

R67690
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R67691
5 years ago
Shogo

“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?”

What makes you think this is an impossibility? Do you have any factual data that suggests this is an impossible event?


R67692
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

That response is just too stupid for words.


R67694
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

You keep believing in those Majic Planes.


R67699
5 years ago
cicero

Shogo: What makes you think this is an impossibility? Do you have any factual data that suggests this is an impossible event?

Erlier in this thread it is shown how the entire building was built with separate firezones separated from eachother to prevent fires from spreading rapidly.

Here are some original articles about how six floors of WTC stood in flames for three hours without causing a collapse or spreading ‘downwards’.


R67702
5 years ago
whateveryousay

so. that was nice.

shogo believes in the medium sized lie. easier to swallow.

but in the end, this is all about what you believe.

to accept the idea that there were bombs in the buildings is not an automatic acceptance of some vast conspiracy.

in the end, it could have been 19 or 20 people who planned and carried out the whole thing. they would have had to have been extremely well informed, have access to some major resources, and not be too inhibited as far as mass murder goes.

i have all sorts of theories about what could have happened. theories range from bizaar to entertaining to whatever.

one theory is that the people who carried out the attacks are insane. the reason i think that they are insane is because they seem to think that mass murder is an appropriate way to send a message.


R67704
5 years ago
Shogo

“That response is just too stupid for words.”

I noticed that you were unable to answer the question.

Good job, dickhead.


R67709
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I don’t remember seeing the flames reach down 90 floors to the basement do you?

Post Modified: 07/07/05 09:59:34

R67711
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

magic flames
magic planes


R67712
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

But right now we are dealing with the latest attack on 7/7
in London
has anybody seen these guys?


R67713
5 years ago
Shogo

“I don’t remember seeing the flames reach down 90 floors to the basement do you?”

How would you see that from the TV set? I don’t remember seeing any footage of the inside of the towers at the moment the planes struck, do you?

Sounds to me like you’ve got precisely dick. What a shock.

Please, continue to make with the insinuations and conjecture. It’s good to know you’re totally incapable of even formulating an argument.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 10:09:44

R67714
5 years ago
Shogo

I have it on good authority that the attacks in London were carried out by space aliens.

I heard about it on Art Bell.


R67717
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

forumlating an argument
a play on words


R67718
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

7-7, Illuminati strikes again.

Rudolph is already there. Been on TV.
Talkin about the resolve of the British people
Harkened back to the London bombings WW2
Talked about 911, NYC

Post Modified: 07/07/05 10:14:35

R67724
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Admit it take heed
You are on their side
We are not


R67727
5 years ago
Shogo

“7-7, Illuminati strikes again.”

Yeah, you’re really well-grounded in reality.


R67729
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

The enemy is subtle
How be it we are deceived
When the truth is in our hearts
And we still don’t believe


R67732
5 years ago
Shogo

If intelligence were water
You’d be a shallow pool
Every post you enter
Confirms that you’re a tool


R67739
5 years ago
COS

if bullshit was see thru
you would be a glass
everything you post
is meaningless and crass

Post Modified: 07/07/05 13:50:08

R67753
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity writes: Eager is no longer teh shit.

I never said he was. And yet he is still far more respected as an authority than you. Because you are not now, nor have you ever been, “teh shit”. What I find ridiculous, milk out the nostrils material so to speak, is that someone such as yourself feels they are in a position to discount even the speculation of an MIT Professor.

Let me see if I can explain this in “potato head”, since big words tend to be dismissed by you as rhetoric.

You- Unqualified never-will-be.
Eager- MIT Professor
You: “Eager isn’t qualified.”
Me: “That’s a stitch.”

Viaossa appears to be just a random poster, with no more curiosity than can fit into a thimble.

Actually, I have a significant amount of curiosity regarding the events of 9-11. Which is why prior to this thread, I had read the same articles you’ve posted here from the same dubious sources jumping to the same unlikely conclusions. Because I was curious.

Unlike you, I rejected the controlled demolitions theory based on that “evidence”... because I’m not an irrational twit. You, on the other hand, start from the thoroughly dishonest statement of “I just want to explore all options” and then cram your head squarely up your own bottom with the whole “It must have been an inside job with explosives and if you disagree with that you’re one of them“ bit.

Your shining example notwithstanding, curiosity does not necessarily beget gullibility.

(Tool)

-VO


R67766
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Oh those troublesome witnesses, not good for the myth.

“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.


R67768
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo, the argument for the middle ground is welcome and has kept this thread going. I have learned a lot from this thread, and was not wed to demolitions before reading it as I found the argument irrelevant and unnecessary, given that government complicity was already well-founded just in their actions and contradictions in the stories. But I have found from this thread that there is a compelling case for some demolitions – still not a necessary piece of the overall puzzle.

What has poisoned the thread is your name-calling, baiting into a pissing contest which necessarily leaves me out, and which others, thankfully, have not been entirely lured into. I hope you have not chased Schneib away, he would address some of the salient points that had not been raised before, and his mind felt open, unlike yours.


R67774
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

You must watch the video that Briefcaseman put up last night about explosions.

Very short, very effective, with some music too.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 12:27:53

R67775
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Ah but maybe these people, who make these videos, are trying to take us over, they might be the ones we need to worry about.


R67776
5 years ago
Shogo

“But I have found from this thread that there is a compelling case for some demolitions”

Just curious, how would you personally recognize whether or not a case were compelling? Do you have a background of any kind in physics or some other hard science? Do you know anything about the scientific method at all?

Because from that perspective, there is not only NOT a compelling case. There isn’t even a malformed and unconvincing case. There’s literally nothing to the claims of the demolition pushers other than conjecture.

Nutcaseman can’t even identify why he thinks that burning fuel going down elevator shafts is bogus. He just “knows” it is.

Based on what? His Illuminati books?


R67782
5 years ago
cortez

...

Post Modified: 07/07/05 13:12:35

R67785
5 years ago
cortez

Just to note, this is what Rodriguez had to say on 12Sep01

Link

...William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

“We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture,” Rodriguez said. “And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.”

Rodriguez, who had keys to the elevators, began climbing the upper levels of the tower with a police officer to help trapped people. He saw firefighters weighted with rescue equipment catching their breath on the 39th floor…

Post Modified: 07/07/05 13:19:28

R67793
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Ok. Back to the explosions video.

Best part right near the end when the narrator says
In all the videos of the collapses
Explosions can be seen bursting from the building
20 to 30 stories below the demolition wave
then he shows you seven.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 13:39:34

R67799
5 years ago
Shogo

“Explosions can be seen bursting from the building “

Again, this is conjecture. Where is the evidence that those are explosions? Forcible ejection of pulverized matter from windows is hardly evidence, especially considering that really heavy shit is collapsing downwards. Obviously particulate matter will be forced out of openings in such an instance.


R67807
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Notice the white smoke, which corresponds to this white smoke at the base of WTC 1.

There is nothing wrong with a little conjecture my man, especially since the evidence was carted away.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 14:03:25

R67823
5 years ago
Snark

but in the end, this is all about what you believe

Nice to see someone else realizes this too. Though, “but in the end, this is all about what you believe, if you choose to believe anything.” might have been better. I sort of regard taking anything on belief as intellectually lame.

Being on the fence is so underrated.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 15:41:48

R67852
5 years ago
Shogo

“There is nothing wrong with a little conjecture my man”

There is when it’s treated like fact.


R67855
5 years ago
fennec

Being on the fence is so underrated.

Wyrd.


R67864
5 years ago
Continuity

Chickenma , since Shogo is a computer science guy he clearly looms far above you in all academic matters.

Snark , being agnostic and open-minded is a good place to be. So much is unresolved that one has to be curious. Then again, I am no student of postmodernism, where all truth is merely subjective relativism. Concrete things really took place. The interpretations so far are incomplete, due to an incomplete record (maybe no different than an incomplete fossil record, when it comes to evolution). The incomplete data is understandable because the violent collapses, and then government afterward, destroyed so much. Or simply told witnesses to stfu.

Interesting debate. Shogo utters blanket statements on a frenetic schedule, hoping to be linguistically charged yet deficient in counter-argument. His point is to say all evidence, no matter what it is, is false. You know he’ll try to counter any fresh evidence too, by saying such-and-such witness is not a demo expert, or doesn’t have a PHd in metallurgy. He’ll even make up melting file cabinet theories, or say that people scorched in the WTC basement seconds after the plane struck… is perfectly acceptable.

By now it’s abundantly clear it’s circular, because his position is not going to change. He’s not here to change, mind you. He’s here to interfere with normal inquiry.

I’m waiting for another heartfelt speech, followed by an accusation that firemen or any other witness who was actually there (no matter who they are) know shit, and then a switch back to potty talk. Heavens to Betsy, then maybe Viassa can ride the old pony some more, before finally switching to Silver.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 15:51:37

R67872
5 years ago
whateveryousay

like, shogo believes the plane crashes and fire were the sole cause of the building collapses.

he believes this because the authority of the establishment at large accepts this explanation.

but it seems to me that pancake and zipper theories also are just speculation.
there is no evidence for these claims.
there’s not much evidence for anything. the evidence was scrubbed and there was no real investigation that i know about.

all we’re left with is the video footage… (but, as far as i know… the networks will not release their tapes for scrutiny) and the eyewitness reports.

and some really really small dust particles.


R67882
5 years ago
viaossa

Continuity blathers: Heavens to Betsy, then maybe Viassa can ride the old pony some more, before finally switching to Silver.

I’m sorry that looking like a whining idiot is not something you enjoy, because you’re quite good at it. Much better than you are at insulting people, really. The whining comes through… the insults are simply inarticulate and cryptic.

You accuse others of rigidity, but you are obviously not here to change your mind or anything else. You made your mind up at the outset of this thread, and have consistently derided anyone for pointing out that your evidence does not provide sufficient grounds for rejecting the official story. Which, for some of us, actually sucks because rejecting the official story would be preferable. Still, you’ve gone ahead and drawn a number of conclusions, all of which are premature… unstudied… inexpertly arrived at… amateurish… thoroughly insignificant… only tentatively associated with reality… illogical… dumb.

10 pages. No evidence. All speculation. And your occasional bitchiness. What an absolutely appropriate expenditure of effort.

-VO


R67886
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Some of the things I find compelling which you “PhD types” have not debunked or explained: The extreme temperatures in the pit well after the collapse, in all three buildings; the unburnt diesel fuel in Bldg 7; the many eye-witness accounts of explosions from below; the seismograph readings; the reports of a power-down in the week preceeding. And still, despite all the jenga lessons, I can’t wrap my brain around the core disintegrating, at least not at the same rate as the floors falling away. Besides that, many of the opinions expressed on the demolitions side seemed to have PhD’s, or at least as much expertise as the no demolitions side.

And, as I said, the complicity of the government is apparent even without explosives, and since you (Shogo & VO) seem to agree with that, I don’t know why the hostility in being so wedded to your position. You remind me of my daughter who screams at me that she’s right (doesn’t matter the subject) even when I’m not vociferously claiming she isn’t, and guess what – usually she isn’t. She’s just a little know-it-all kid with attitude, which is why I assumed you were young.


R67891
5 years ago
Schneibster

Fear not, Chickenma, not chased away, just busy.

Y’all been busy too- ten pages now! Lemme get thru this and we’ll see…

BTW, what exactly is it about the idea of an aircraft loaded with ten thousand gallons of jet fuel, slamming into a building and exploding, and the explosion seeking any outlet, such as elevator shafts, that people find so surprising? Overpressure seeks all outlets.

I also have to point out that if the explosion made it into the elevator shafts, they were breached- and that points to relatively serious damage to the core, since all the elevator doors open inward toward the center of the building, and are shielded by the core. Go look for yourself. Yes, the witnesses are telling the truth- some people just don’t want to hear it, or rather what it implies. Conspiracy theories are more fun.


R67894
5 years ago
viaossa

Chickenma1 writes: Some of the things I find compelling which you “PhD types” have not debunked or explained:

Some things do not yet have enough data/evidence to be fully explained. I can speculate just as well as anyone, but that’s pretty much where it ends with me without more evidence.

I would prefer an honest position of “I don’t know” to a deluded position of “I have the answer”.

-VO


R67905
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out.

——

Tom Elliott was at work at his desk in the offices of Aon Corp. on the 103rdfloor of theSouth Tower just before 9 AM.
Although its spectacularly televisedimpact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had comefrom below. An incredible sound – he calls it an ‘exploding sound’ – shook the buildingand a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up thestairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,” Elliott recounted.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 18:04:05

R67907
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Welcome back, Schneib. I await your updated reaction, and I’m not arguing about the fuel in the elevator shaft or the jenga blocks, just said I still can’t visualize it.

VO: “Some things do not yet have enough data/evidence to be fully explained. I can speculate just as well as anyone, but that’s pretty much where it ends with me without more evidence. I would prefer an honest position of “I don’t know” to a deluded position of “I have the answer”. “

Or how about an honest, “These things don’t add up, i.e. jibe with the official story.”


R67908
5 years ago
fennec
...

R67915
5 years ago
Shogo

Cuntinuttery: “maybe no different than an incomplete fossil record, when it comes to evolution”

LOLERDERBY

Wonderful. Now you’re a creationist.

“He’ll even make up melting file cabinet theories, or say that people scorched in the WTC basement seconds after the plane struck… is perfectly acceptable.”

And yet, you have yet to say WHY either explanation is unacceptable. You just insist that it is, without providing a reason. Could it be that you don’t HAVE a reason? Or are you afraid that if you state your reasoning it will be met with hearty guffaws and ridicule?

Keep shredding your cred, goofball.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 18:55:47

R67916
5 years ago
Shogo

“but it seems to me that pancake and zipper theories also are just speculation.
there is no evidence for these claims. “

You mean, apart from the fuel-laden jumbo jets slamming into the towers, the long-burning fires, and subsequent collapse? Are you claiming those events did not take place?

I think the planes hitting the towers is pretty well accepted. But that’s just me. YMMV.


R67918
5 years ago
viaossa

Chickenma1 writes: Or how about an honest, “These things don’t add up, i.e. jibe with the official story.”

As long as it was stated as an opinion, I wouldn’t find fault with it. After all, I don’t think the official story is necessarily accurate or complete.

-VO


R67920
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Are you claiming those events did not take place?

don’t be silly.

say, if a murder victim turns up with 5 stab wounds and a bloody knife sticking out of them, a shogo would say, “heh, look at the evidence, they were stabbed to death”. you’d get the prints from the knife, find suspect, sweat’m, get confession etc.
a good investigator might bother find out the cause of death. what if it turns out the victim died from poison or strangulation? maybe the stabs were added as a distraction after the fact to frame someone up.
it does happen that murderers attempt to not get caught from time to time.
the planes and fires are related to the building collapses but it’s foolish to automatically assume that they were the sole cause of the collapses.

the falling of the towers did happen. did someone intend for the towers to fall? was that part of their plan? the fire-fighters and authorities didn’t expect the tower to fall. if they had, they would have totally evacuated the area, no?. did the plane crashers intend for the towers to fall? did they know it would happen through planes alone? if so, how did they know it would happen? are they smarter than newyorker finest?

what are we to see the collapses as? an accident?


R67924
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Ok. Back to the explosions video.

Best part right near the end when the narrator says
In all the videos of the collapses
Explosions can be seen bursting from the building
20 to 30 stories below the demolition wave
then he shows you seven.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 20:07:05

R67926
5 years ago
Chickenma1

“As long as it was stated as an opinion, I wouldn’t find fault with it. After all, I don’t think the official story is necessarily accurate or complete.” How the hell am I supposed to know what you think is accurate or complete – what are you arguing about?

“the falling of the towers did happen. did someone intend for the towers to fall? was that part of their plan? the fire-fighters and authorities didn’t expect the tower to fall. if they had, they would have totally evacuated the area, no?. did the plane crashers intend for the towers to fall? did they know it would happen through planes alone? if so, how did they know it would happen? are they smarter than newyorker finest?
what are we to see the collapses as? an accident?”

Legitimate questions. Now it’s up to the responder to answer or say “I don’t know”, not for the questioner to get accused of making wild speculations. You guys may have PhD’s, but I’ll bet you never learned any rules of debate (or even logical discourse).


R67935
5 years ago
MDI

Love the video.


R67942
5 years ago
2pacalypse

Building 7 was the third skyscraper to collapse into rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, small fires leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

http://www.wtc7.net/

The team who investigated the collapse were not allowed access to the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?


R67943
5 years ago
Briefcaseman

At this moment for the first time since the initial explosion, a sense of
panic began to grip me. Only floor 7, then 6. A few more to go, and I would be free. I couldn’t wait. It didn’t matter that the water was ankle deep. I was a few floors from the ground. Floor,,,,4,,,,then all of a sudden, a loud boom, and the building began to shake unbearably again. People started falling down the stairwell as smoke started to rise from the bottom. The emergency lights flickered and then went out. The building was still shaking, and I could hear the steel buckling.

Article


R67944
5 years ago
Strangegloved

The explosion video is great. I have not seen that before. I noticed that people don’t talk about the explosion at the bottom of Trade Center One, and not much talking about the seismic evidence?


R67945
5 years ago
Shogo

“The extreme temperatures in the pit well after the collapse, in all three buildings;”

The WTC buildings shared a large sub-basement (with subway station). When all the burning material fell in the collapse, it was buried under massive amounts of concrete. Earthen materials are very effective at retaining heat, and radiating it for a long time afterwards. This is why tandoors, clay pots, and brick ovens are so effective for cooking. They are capable of retaining very high temperatures for long periods of time. The same principle would be seen at work here.

“the many eye-witness accounts of explosions from below”

These are predominantly aural accounts, not visual. In any event, the exploding jet fuel traveling down the elevator shafts could easily account for this.

“the seismograph readings”

When seen in context, as detailed in Popular Mechanics, the seismograph readings are consistent with the planes hitting the buildings, followed by the buildings collapsing.

“the reports of a power-down in the week preceeding”

That’s not evidence of anything. Buildings the dimensions of the WTC towers would require considerably more than 36 hours to completely rig with explosives. Which completely avoids the other issues such as where the det cords were, how nobody managed to see these magical explosives, and how they could be detonated after jumbo jet crashes took out several floors of building.

“I can’t wrap my brain around the core disintegrating”

The core doesn’t need to disintegrate. That is where your poor understanding of engineering and physics is tripping you up. Buildings like the WTC don’t solely rely on the core to hold them upright. There is counterbalancing on every floor, and an exoskeleton that plays a part in stabilizing the building. All the components are engineered to work in concert to keep the building upright. When all three of the components are compromised (the core, the lateral structur, and the outer walls), what results is a building that has lost all three of it’s stabilizing components.


R67947
5 years ago
Shogo

“ the fire-fighters and authorities didn’t expect the tower to fall.”

Why would they? Are they architects? Are they engineers?

The buildings were standing upright, they likely assumed that the building was OK enough to get in there.

But ask yourself this: if they were so certain that the towers wouldn’t fall, why bother evacuating the building? Why not let people just stay put?

I submit to you that higher-ups definitely knew that there was a substantial risk of the buildings collapsing. Else there wouldn’t have been such a concerted effort to get people out of there.

Further, people with experience in engineering and building design have been widely reported as saying they knew the towers would fall as soon as the planes crashed into them.

Who are you more likely to believe? A guy trained to rescue people and put out fires? Or a guy who went to years of college to learn how to design stable structures?


R67948
5 years ago
Shogo

“Instead the lobby is coated with fine dust, which is the signature of high explosives”

According to whom?

Some conspiracy nutter narrating a video?

He wasn’t in the lobby, so how does he know there’s no soot? Based on what he’s able to glean from a video tape?

Your precious Mr. Rodriguez said on that other website that he saw lots of soot.

Sounds like you conspiracy nutters better get your story straight.


R67959
5 years ago
viaossa

Chickenma1 writes: How the hell am I supposed to know what you think is accurate or complete

Why does it matter? Regardless, it’s pretty simple to pick this trick up… If I say “I think the story isn’t accurate”, it’s a pretty good indication that I’m saying what I think. In fact, if I say “I think” followed by anything? You can be relatively confident that I am conveying what it is that I think.

You presented “These things don’t add up, jibe with the official story” as another honest perspective. Well, yeah… I’d buy that. As long it was clear that what was expressed was opinion rather than fact. You can do that by saying “I think”. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened with a lot of the opinion in this thread. Throughout, people like Continuity have consistently represented conjecture as fact while people such as yourself who apparently pride themselves on their debating and logic skills have not pointed out this peristent use of a common logical fallacy. If it was done intentionally, it would be dishonest. If it was done out of ignorance of the difference between fact and conjecture, then I’d be hard pressed to call it “dishonest”, really. I’m sure people can be honestly ignorant.

You guys may have PhD’s, but I’ll bet you never learned any rules of debate (or even logical discourse).

Speaking for myself, you’re incorrect on all counts.

-VO


R67962
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

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. “It’s very hard to document where the fuel went,” [not so. We are quite able to calculate the fuel consumed in the fire ball, which was 65% to 80% of the fuel. Furthermore, the remaining contents were mostly steel, concrete, fireproofed carpet and fabrics, and some paper] 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.” [Duh! The jet fuel did this in the initial fireball! There was no mechanism to atomize the office contents. If the contents were, then, like the jet fuel, it would have burnt in a few seconds, not an hour. Here they are twisting Williams words to make it sound feasible – the very thing of which they accuse us. Who is the “cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate [with] ...poisonous claims …..?” Propaganda Mechanics!]

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that “some elevators slammed right down”[now their eyewitnesses are reliable but ours are not?] to the ground floor. “The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died [an outright lie! The film from the Naudet brothers clearly show this is a lie! There is no fire damage to the lobby at all. Go rent it! Watch our video],” says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary “9/11,” by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film. [He did film his initial entrance to the WTC. The elevator doors are intact. There is no fire damage. There are no victims to be seen anywhere.]

Debunking Popular Mechanics.


R67966
5 years ago
Shogo

Chickenma, Nutcaseman has just provided an excellent example of conjecture masquerading as fact. The conjecture is the stuff between the [square brackets].

#1: “not so. We are quite able to calculate the fuel consumed in the fire ball, which was 65% to 80% of the fuel. Furthermore, the remaining contents were mostly steel, concrete, fireproofed carpet and fabrics, and some paper”

Sounds pretty official! And definitive. Unfortunately, there is no evidence cited to substantiate this claim at all. All there is is the word of Mr. Jimmy Walters – a man who makes money by selling conspiracy products. Since Mr. Walters does not show how he arrived at his conclusion (which is a basic tenet of the scientific method), we are forced to conclude that it is horse pucky. Further, his assertion that the flammable items in the WTC were insignificant flies in the face of all logic considering that as an office building (with a shitload of offices in it) the building would be chock full of plastic items, wood (furniture), and wall coverings. There is a difference between flame-retardent and fireproof, and Mr. Walters is playing fast and loose with the facts by confusing the two. Flame retardent material still will burn, it’s simply designed to not catch fire easily. Even materials considered fireproof have a temperature that will compromise their fireproofing. But flame retardent material can still catch fire – especially in an instance where it’s doused with highly flammable jet fuel.

#2: “Duh! The jet fuel did this in the initial fireball! “

Again, the same conjecture as above.

#3: “now their eyewitnesses are reliable but ours are not?”

I’m not sure why Nutcaseman refers to people who hear things as “eyewitnesses”. Last time I checked, eyes were for seeing and not hearing. In any event, sounds are abstract, particularly in an environment where you might not be right next to the source of the sound. A man in a basement hears an explosion and feels a vibration. This makes sense considering the plane exploded on impact, and the building was slammed into by a fast-moving, heavy object.

Where Nutcaseman and others get confused is in thinking that if someone says “I heard an explosion” that would necessarily mean a) that a bomb caused the explosion, as opposed to fuel, and b) that the person would be able to differentiate between an explosion and some key support in the building collapsing or falling a great distance.

#4: “There is no fire damage to the lobby at all. Go rent it!”

Nutcaseman seems unaware that the WTC was a giant building. It’s entirely possible that the fire damage in the lobby was limited to a small area. It’s also unclear which lobby had fire damage, vs. which lobby is depicted in the video. This can hardly be considered definitive evidence. It’s also unclear at which point after the impacts the video was taken.

Now, apart from the cherry picked statements Nutcaseman has provided here, the website from Jimmy Walters is full of some real howlers.

How about this one?

“However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. [If the steel gave way, then there was not enough resistance to crush the concrete]”

Talk about ignorance! Steel weakened by heat doesn’t magically lose its mass, nor its hardness and density. It may lose some of its rigidity, but it will still be harder and denser than concrete. This statement is so obviously wrong that it’s clear this guy doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.

These guys may sound convincing to a layperson. But if you know anything about physics or basic science you can spot the logical fallacies very easily.


R67977
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

All there is is the word of Mr. Jimmy Walters – a man who makes money by selling conspiracy products.

Oh yeah, like I am going to let you get away with that one.
I know you have to spend money to make money
but somehow, I don’t think Walter is going to make his money back
He spent 4 million dollars on, among other things, commercials, which were shown in NYC on local cable channels about his two favorite subjects WTC 7 and the Pentagon.

Read for yourself.

Post Modified: 07/07/05 23:22:15

R67980
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

BTW, even mainstream accounts tell us about the elevator system and its design, and we’d better take it into account, when talking about fuel going down elevator shafts.

“The World Trade Center elevator system had a revolutionary design that made it possible to build 110-story towers. The elevators were big and fast and used far less floor space than earlier designs. The elevator system was the first to require people to take two elevators to reach most upper floors.”

“Passengers took non-stop express elevators from the ground floor to elevator lobbies on the 44th and 78th floors. There, they walked across a hall to smaller local elevators that went to higher floors. It could take five minutes to get from the ground floor lobby to the 105th floor.”

“Each tower had only two passenger elevators that went non-stop from bottom to top — to the Windows on the World restaurant in the north tower and the observation deck in the south tower.”


R67984
5 years ago
Shogo

Great. Jimmy Walters spent a bunch of money.

His arguments are still preposterous.

I notice you still haven’t explained why you think that burning fuel down the elevator shaft is so absurd. Got that coming anytime soon?


R67985
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I’m not sure why Nutcaseman refers to people who hear things as “eyewitnesses”. Last time I checked, eyes were for seeing and not hearing. In any event, sounds are abstract, particularly in an environment where you might not be right next to the source of the sound. A man in a basement hears an explosion and feels a vibration. This makes sense considering the plane exploded on impact, and the building was slammed into by a fast-moving, heavy object.

I think you are making this up. Don’t know about the witness thing, don’t think I said anything like that. And this argument that you make all the time about all the sounds (explosions) being the result of the impact of the plane does not hold up, when you read about explosions that people heard before the impact of the plane, like Rodriguez, and the explosions that people heard after the impacts.


R67986
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

I’ll leave the fuel thing for you to figure out.


R67990
5 years ago
2pacalypse

What’s your explanation for WTC 7 shogo?


R68012
5 years ago
Continuity

Wow, I’m a creationist now? Shogo, I know your, uhh role here at GNN means you have to skim through a lot of material, but I think you totally retarded out on interpreting my analogy. My belief in evolution is very strong. Creationism is false. But I know enough about Evolution to say the fossil record is indeed so far incomplete because what hasn’t been found is either destroyed or yet to be found.

Okay, now back to your bullshit about how NIST (Department of Commerce) made up a satisfactory deduction, as opposed to it being plain conjecture, a label you’re so quick to throw about.


R68039
5 years ago
Shogo

“I know your, uhh role here at GNN means you have to skim through a lot of material”

You’re one of the dumbest motherfuckers on earth, G.


R68050
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

OK. Now I see what happened. You are injecting me into the article by Walter. That was a pure quote. I am not talking at all. You have to go here to see the complete article.

Then scroll down to Widespread Damage.

Post Modified: 07/08/05 08:48:20

R68057
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Further down there is an article called Debunking the Debunkers by Joel Skousen.

This is an excerpt

3) Explosives brought down the twin towers (puff of dust, etc.)

This is only a partial straw man argument. There is significant evidence that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapse, but PM only discussed the fire and explosive claims that were easily explained away. An early claim making the rounds was that the towers couldn’t have collapsed since fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. PM correctly pointed out, as I have also in my briefs, that steel trusses supporting the floor system only need be heated to the point of sagging-not melting-in order to give way.

Early conspiracists claimed that the puffs of smoke coming out of the windows as each floor pancaked down on another were evidence of demolition charges. Once again, PM correctly pointed out that the crushing of sheet rock interiors can cause this. I was never convinced of controlled demolition myself, since it would have required months of prep work inside the building, unbeknownst to all the tenants.

But conspicuously absent from the PM arguments was the blockbuster evidence that the 42 main pillars in the central core of the building had been taken down by a combination of explosives and thermite charges-which can melt steel like butter. The head of the company removing the debris from the WTC said in an interview that there were large pools of hot molten steel in the lowest basement where the main support pillars had stood. No expert has claimed that either fuel or burning debris falling into an oxygen starved basement would have been capable of creating the huge quantity of concentrated heat needed to melt 42 huge pillars with two-foot-thick steel walls. Numerous witnesses and fire fighters heard large explosions in the lower section of the building just prior to the collapse. One video shot of the south WTC (whose central core was not even damaged by Flight 175) gives clear evidence of the central core being collapsed prior to the general
collapse: the center mounted TV towers started descending downward well prior to the outer section of the building. PM was silent on these major anomalies, and so was the 9/11 Commission, which indicates they were avoiding the tough issues.

PM did attempt some sleight of hand, with some remarks by a paid “expert”
trying to explain away the symmetrical and absolutely vertical collapse of WTC building #7 that was only slightly damaged on one side. A video of the collapse does show the telltale signs of explosive demolition on each floor-which would have been impossible if the building was heeling over toward the damaged side.

Post Modified: 07/08/05 09:10:54

R68062
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Chickenma keeps asking that question about the core
This is one of her recent statements
I can’t wrap my brain around the core disintegrating,
at least not at the same rate as the floors falling away.
Don’t try any cheap tricks Shogo; Chickenma reads everything.


R68068
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R68088
5 years ago
Shogo

“There is significant evidence that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapse”

Such as…..?

“The head of the company removing the debris from the WTC said in an interview that there were large pools of hot molten steel in the lowest basement where the main support pillars had stood. No expert has claimed that either fuel or burning debris falling into an oxygen starved basement

An excellent example of where the conspiracy nutter veers off from reality.

Why would he claim the basement to be oxygen starved? Obviously, with the smoke issuing forth from the debris piles, there were sufficient gaps in the rubble to allow smoke to escape.

But what this man is leaving out is the fact that the sub-basement of the World Trade complex was a subway station. I don’t know if you’ve ever been on the subway in New York, but you’re talking about a vast network of tun nels, which would act as conduits, drawing oxygen from all over the place.

Consider a backyard smoker. A fire is burning, and there is a chimney on the opposite end, drawing the smoke across the food. There are holes in the bottom, which draw in oxygen. In fires burning beneath the rubble, ample oxygen would be drawn in via the subway tunnels, with the smoke venting up top through the rubble.

This is junior high level science, dude.


R68122
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R68133
5 years ago
Continuity

Don’t you see, people? An ungodly pile of compacted rubble has a splendid amount of oxygen for a ripping barbecue underneath. Temperature be damned, it was the abundant, unimpeded oxygen supply. Shogo knows precisely that, below, the fires had clear organ-pipes just sucking in oxygen. This is surely not conjecture either. This comes from the man who designed the steel filing cabinet ‘working model.’

Like Shogo says, dude, it’s junior high level science.


R68135
5 years ago
Shogo

See what I mean, Cuntinuttery?

You have no actual reasons for criticizing these facts. You have no counter-argument, you have no scientific reason explaining why you think I’m wrong.

Please, Cuntinuttery, for the class, kindly explain why you think the subway tunnels that joined the sub-basement from multiple directions would not have provided oxygen to the fire. Please explain how smoke was escaping from this pile of rubble that you allege to be “compacted”.

After that, please eat a bowl of shit…fucktard.


R68150
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo, thanks for taking my points one by one – that scores big with me. I also noticed that the first-person story above from briefcaseman mentions only one explosion below which corresponds to the collapse of the other building, which also scores points for your side.

But back to the core. You said, “Steel weakened by heat doesn’t magically lose its mass, nor its hardness and density. It may lose some of its rigidity, but it will still be harder and denser than concrete.” Exactly my point, that the core should not have fallen at the same rate as the rest of the building (clearly an opinion, VO, even if I don’t say so).

Might I say, too, that the jet fuel in the elevator shaft in BOTH buildings is also conjecture, that the smell of jet fuel in the elevators suggests it was not on fire, and we DID see a huge amount of jet fuel burn outside the second building. It seems we have it on video that the elevators were not on fire even though there were burned people in the lobby. None of this proves there were explosives, but does undermine the official version and begs a better explanation for, what seems to this pitiful uneducated witness, to be incomprehensible collapses.

I am trying to locate the post about the temperatures in the pit, I can’t seem to find them – help, anyone?

Wow, something big in going on outside here, helicoptors and sirens – in these parts means a forest fire or grass fire – scary. Signing off for now.


R68151
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R68152
5 years ago
viaossa

Chickenma1 writes: the core should not have fallen at the same rate as the rest of the building

Actually, I think Galileo might disagree with that assumption. Something about falling bodies pretty much all falling at the same rate… dunno.

-VO


R68154
5 years ago
Shogo

Galileo, what the hell did that greasy wop know?

Now, if he had a pizzeria I might try a large w/ extra cheese and sausage.


R68157
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Who are you more likely to believe? A guy trained to rescue people and put out fires? Or a guy who went to years of college to learn how to design stable structures?

hmm. let’s see,

a guy who’s seen buildings burn, been inside, has first hand knowledge of building collapses and contact with others who have experience. who’s life, and lives they can be responsible for often depends on this knowledge and experience. the ones who were actually there and made decisions and risked their lives.

or a collage grad who can theorize about what a building should look like but has no real world practical experience with emergencies. who can claim (after the fact) that they totally knew what would happen. the ones who design buildings which have the unfortunate habit of instantly self destructing totally when one section is damaged. . . and keep the fact secret until it’s too late…

i’m going to go with the fireman on this one.

but i wouldn’t mind checking out some of the statements of these college grads with the 20/20 hindsight. are you sure they’re not fictional characters?

I submit to you that higher-ups definitely knew that there was a substantial risk of the buildings collapsing. Else there wouldn’t have been such a concerted effort to get people out of there.

how high up are you talking here? too high to communicate with the underlings i should think. if what you say is true then these higher-ups would be guilty of blatant criminal negligence. you don’t willingly put your men in that type of danger, no fucking way. it’s the sort of thing resignations, official apologies, criminal prosecutions, and suicides are made of.
the reason there was such a “concerted effort to get people out of there”, as you say, is because the buildings were on fire. you see, when buildings are on fire, the buildings are evacuated. that’s usually policy. the reason for this is that fire tends to burn things.
maybe they thought the fire might spread to other floors, you know, like what happens when there’s a fire in a tower sometimes?

apparently where you come from, fire-drills are for drilling a flaming hole in your head.

Suitcaseman

please note: the towers each had 47 core support columns, not 42.


R68158
5 years ago
Chickenma1

VO, let me correct myself – yes bodies fall at the same rate, they don’t disintegrate at the same rate (IMHO), hence would not have fallen at the same time.


R68159
5 years ago
Schneibster

The extreme temperatures in the pit well after the collapse, in all three buildings
Well, I had a look at The North Tower’s Dust Cloud and found several gaffes. For starters, the estimate of the energy generated by the collapse is seriously deficient, and is based upon a source that the writer did not correctly reference; the FEMA estimate covers only the materials that the towers were built from, not their contents. The conversion from joules to kWH is a bad idea, giving all sorts of opportunities for error. In addition, the writer forgot that energy used to powder the concrete does not then just disappear; it is rendered as heat, since this is a dissipative process. Conservation of energy being one of the more basic principles of How Things Work, not to mention a basic principle of physics, I’m not particularly impressed.

Let’s calculate the potential energy from basic principles. Here’s a nice little piece of calculus (page 2, search on “World Trade Center”) that shows that the total potential energy was an order of magnitude greater than the FEMA estimate; FEMA estimates 4e11J, but this estimate is 2.2E12J. And it’s far more accurate; FEMA obviously doesn’t include the additional 110,000 tonnes of floor loading at an average of 50lb/sqft that brings the total mass of the building to 550,000 tonnes from the 450,000 tonne mass of the building itself. (Run the calculation with 450,000 tonnes yourself and notice how you get 4E11J, the FEMA figure.)

Now, let’s talk about the figures for powdering concrete. The reference given for the figure of 1.5kWh/t is from a paper that specifies the amount of energy used by an impact crusher; this is not a particularly efficient method, probably less than 20% efficiency overall, since electromechanical devices in general are not any more efficient than this. So that means that only 1/5 of that 1.5kWh went into crushing the concrete, and this is a conservative maximum estimate; the real energy is more like 0.3kWh/t, if you don’t have to do conversion of electrical energy into mechanical energy.

In addition, not all, and probably not more than about 1%, of the concrete was rendered into powder; the long-range photos taken of the collapses are deceptive, because it is impossible to differentiate between the 60um estimates in the paper and the 1-2mm size range unless one is very close.

So our better figure at realistic efficiency is perhaps 0.3kWh/t, or about 1 million joules per tonne, or a thousand joules per kilogram. 425,000 cubic yards of concrete were used; if we assume that half was used in each building, that’s 162,000m^3^ at a density of 2.4t/m^3^, or 390 million kg, 390,000t. 1% of that is 3,900t, which would then require about 3.9 billion joules of energy. Note that this is a very minor fraction of the total of 2.2 trillion joules of potential energy contained in each tower. Note that increasing this by an order of magnitude, to crush 10% of the concrete, only increases the energy one order of magnitude, which still leaves us at 39 billion joules required vs. our 2.2 trillion joules available.

Now, where did that energy go? Here’s the thing: just because it was used to powder concrete doesn’t mean it’s gone or anything. When you perform a mechanical task, the work you do doesn’t just do the task and it’s gone; it either gets turned into potential energy, like if you push a rock up a hill, or it gets turned into heat, like the rock gets hot from the friction against the hill. So we still have that energy available to, for instance, expand the cloud- and guess what? The powdered concrete is hot because that’s where the heat gets generated!

Finally, note carefully that the paper assumes that the powdered concrete did not mix with the surrounding air; but if that were the case, then the clouds of concrete dust would have displaced the air, and when they stopped expanding, the air would have rushed back in, pushing the concrete dust back where it came from. This is the reason that a nuclear weapon produces a mushroom cloud; the initial expansion is a globe, but when the globe stops expanding, the returning air pushes it back together. This only happens where the air is thick, at the bottom of the globe; thus, you have a “stalk” where the air was thick enough to push the globe back together, and a “head,” where it was not. No such effect was apparent in either building’s collapse.

So I’ve now identified five basic errors in the first two paragraphs of that paper. I don’t see any point in continuing the analysis; and I have to point out that simply based on energy conservation, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the paper had to be wrong! It’s as plain as the nose on your face. If enough explosives were used to generate the amount of energy this guy incorrectly estimates was needed, there would have been a crater a mile wide! You have got to be kidding!

Finally, I’ll point out that the energy involved, 2.2 trillion joules, is the equivalent of the detonation of about 500t of TNT; so about half a kiloton, the energy of a small nuclear weapon, as I previously stated, and that’s for each tower’s fall. And we haven’t even included the energy from all that jet fuel, nor from the burning of the contents once they were in “The Pile.”

And the topper is, temperature is heat per unit volume. So more heat, same volume, higher temperature; we’ve already done this one. So sure, there was no problem having enough heat to make puddles of molten metal; after all, come right down to it, if you concentrate enough heat, just from charcoal, you can smelt iron, and that requires that you melt it; go figure. The heat’s not gonna just go away; you’ve got a hell of a lot of it, and only a little bit got used up making the clouds of dust. Energy conservation again; pesky stuff, energy, it doesn’t just “go away.”

And if you’re curious why no one has debunked that dust-cloud thing before, it’s because anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of physic knows on sight that it has to be wrong. Just like I did. C’mon- the energy of a small nuclear weapon wasn’t enough to make the cloud? What the hell are you proposing, that it was a LARGE nuclear weapon??? Hello?

the unburnt diesel fuel in Bldg 7
I’m not following this one. What exactly are you talking about here?

the many eye-witness accounts of explosions from below
I think it’s fairly obvious that if a plane full of kerosene collides with the place in a building where all the elevators are, then when the kerosene explodes, the overpressure and the heat are going to go down the elevator shafts. I don’t buy this as an objection.

the seismograph readings
Two problems here:
1. The seismograms are consistent with a building collapse, and inconsistent with an explosion; they are S-waves, which are shear waves, not P-waves, which are the compression waves one would expect from an explosion, and which are actually visible on seismograms from the same seismometers from different times when blasting was being done at a nearby quarry.
2. If the buildings were imploded, then any explosions that happened, happened high up in the building- you can look at the tapes and see that there aren’t any happening below. And if they were happening in the building, then they weren’t in contact with the ground. So any claim that there are explosion traces in the seismograms just don’t jibe with the photographic evidence, nor with the known methodologies for imploding buildings.

the reports of a power-down in the week preceeding
I work for a company that has had some damage done to their substation equipment recently, and they had to close two different buildings down for varying periods of time to make repairs. It was a major deal, because these are 10-15 story buildings, necessitating having a few thousand people work from home while the work was going on. Believe me, if they had had any choice, they’d have avoided it. As it was, they did as much of it on the weekend as they could, and it was still a major hit. The expense will affect the bottom line at the end of the year. When shit happens to your electrical equipment, you don’t have a lot of choices; and the time period involved is nowhere near enough to allow for what would have had to be done. I just, again, don’t buy it.


R68160
5 years ago
Shogo

“a guy who’s seen buildings burn, been inside, has first hand knowledge of building collapses and contact with others who have experience.”

“or a collage grad who can theorize about what a building should look like but has no real
world practical experience with emergencies.”

You’re a total fucking tool, dude.

That might be the stupidest comment yet made on this thread, which is saying something.

Does that mean that NASA engineers who design launch vehicles for rockets don’t actually know anything about aerospace engineering, since they aren’t in outer space?

Does that mean that architects don’t know how to design houses, because they don’t actually build the homes with their own hands?

Your comment is so ignorant, it’s hard to quantify. Suffice it to say, you’re a really stupid person. Stay away from sharp objects.


R68161
5 years ago
Continuity

Shogo, you have no proof. Secondly, the rubble was incredibly compacted. Tends to happen when 110 floors implodes on itself. Third, I have yet to read any evidence suggesting the subways were intact after the huge collapse. And, fourth, no evidence as whether the subways had any access to the core columns in the first place. And, fifth, since one article of evidence has emerged that the columns were melted where the steel was fastened to bedrock, I’d like you to reckon that with your subways theory.

In other words, you just pulled all this out of your ass, like the melting file cabinet theory.

Lots of subways under WTC7 as well, helping to make it burn for weeks?

Schnieb, the diesel in the basement of WTC7 was recovered, intact, in its 2 tanks. I believe it was 20,000 gallons recovered.


R68162
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Hi Schneib! Thanks, maybe we’re finally getting to the bottom of this (and maybe not).

I wasn’t referring to the heat from the cloud – I couldn’t follow his cloud math, but it sounded a bit too tortured and manipulable (that a word?) to be compelling. I’m referring to a post or link regarding high temperatures in the pit even after most of the debris was removed. Whoever posted it could maybe help?

Also, the unburnt diesel was referring to a link about most of the diesel fuel being removed intact in its tanks before Bldg 7 collapsed. Sorry I’m running or I’d find it for you. (You’ve missed some interesting new tidbits.) I’ll accept your verdict on my other points – Thanks.


R68165
5 years ago
whateveryousay

i fucking posted something, where is it?

page 11?

hello?

pimple faced college grad? y
eah, hi. this is the fire chief, engine 1, nyc. yeah hi. so we’re just gonna put out a fire and rescue some people but we were wondering if this particular permanent steel structure will stay standing or not… you know. is it built up to code? what? no? it will collapse? are you sure, how do you know? what? oh you designed the whole thing to fail in case of fire, okay, thanks then. bye.


R68166
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

whateveryousay,

Yes. 47 columns. Skousen said 42, it might have been a misprint. If you watch Confronting the Evidence,
the information on the core is in Part 2, in the Jeff King presentation, around the 10:00 minute mark he talks about the core columns and how the core was designed to prevent a chimney effect.

Post Modified: 07/08/05 17:34:44

R68167
5 years ago
whateveryousay

here’s a witness account

http://www.e-pix.com/wtc/wtcacct.html

table{border:2px solid brown}. |
8:55AM I think a `small` light-plane accidentally crashed onto Tower I. It
might be another one of those `terrorist` threats (jokingly said). –

This jokingly said as just 2 weeks before this incident I learned from a
friend and co-engineer that something had happened at WTC’s parking lot
and that they cordoned this area due to a terrorist threat, again all
happening unkowingly under our noses with no inkling whatsoever that such
a situation happened, but a false alarm at that – I don’t
really know what’s going on. I’ll call you back.”

...
9:03AM BOOM!!!!... A very, very loud ‘explosion’ is heard…. and
FELT! I think the plane hit the 38th flr… ours was the 25th… such
a small distance. Imagine the impact.
Our building was now “shaking” violently…. Precariously
swaying left to right… several times…

...
9:06AM as the building was still swaying
violently… I hear and see more “smaller” explosions....
electricity was cut off…
more debris… broken glasses… air gushing in… ceiling was
slowly caving in… I decide to duck and take cover under a table in
our room… |

Post Modified: 07/08/05 17:38:00

R68170
5 years ago
Schneibster

Chickenma, heat is heat. Doesn’t matter where it comes from. Once it’s there, it stays there, unless it’s radiated, conducted, or convected away. And concrete is not a great conductor of heat; and radiation and convection are limited in a debris pile. Not only that, but if there’s plenty of fuel (and there was), then more heat is being added all the time, and it has noplace to go. So it’s going to build up; and that means that things are going to get hot. Melting-steel hot? Sure, no problem. That, and a review of that flawed analysis, were my points.

I’m interested in the unburned diesel fuel; my suspicions about 7 continue. Link, anybody?


R68171
5 years ago
fennec

8 more posts to go until 1000/the implosion of teh Deuce©!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

on edit 6

Post Modified: 07/08/05 18:11:40

R68174
5 years ago
fennec

double post

Post Modified: 07/08/05 18:12:31

R68181
5 years ago
2pacalypse

What’s your explanation for WTC 7 shogo?


R68182
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R68183
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R68184
5 years ago
nomadrock

998

Post Modified: 07/08/05 19:14:10

R68185
5 years ago
nomadrock

999


R68186
5 years ago
nomadrock


R68187
5 years ago
whitey


R68188
5 years ago
whateveryousay


R68191
5 years ago
whateveryousay

uh


R68193
5 years ago
whateveryousay


R68194
5 years ago
fennec

Post Modified: 07/08/05 19:47:00

R68196
5 years ago
Memnoch01

Fennec, have you ever posted a picture that wasnt an animal?


R68197
5 years ago
whateveryousay


R68198
5 years ago
fennec

Fennec, have you ever posted a picture that wasnt an animal?~memnoch

I would say “yes. I have memnoch: your mom”, but whether she truly could be labeled as “not an animal” is still questionable.

memnoch’s mom:

Post Modified: 07/08/05 19:57:03

R68199
5 years ago
fennec

Oh, and one other thing, mem, I have voted for your unworthy shit enough times to realize that you owe me one.

“VOTE”:http://www.gnn.tv/links/950/Google

Post Modified: 07/08/05 20:04:39

R68225
5 years ago
viaossa


R68227
5 years ago
Memnoch01

My mom’s hot!!!!


R68228
5 years ago
Memnoch01

PS thanks for censoring out her eyes.. that was kind fennec.


R68231
5 years ago
fennec


R68232
5 years ago
viaossa


R68235
5 years ago
fennec


R68237
5 years ago
2pacalypse

What’s your explanation for WTC 7 shogo?


R68247
5 years ago
Rasputin

What’s your explanation for WTC 7 shogo?

Helllooo!? Haven’t you heard of telekenesis!!?

Obviously Bin Laden was able to confound the authorities and demolish WTC7 with his now-WELL-KNOWN techniques of nefarious telekenetic chutzpah.

It is widely reported that both Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta trained with a Zen master in the hills of Fucktupistan before engaging in their coke-addled booze fest-slash-attack on Amerika, and anyone who done say otherwise is a krazy nutter with links to Al-Qaeda. Got it? Gooood.


R68254
5 years ago
cortez


R68255
5 years ago
Continuity


R68260
5 years ago
Continuity

Schnieb. Regarding the removal of intact diesel. 20,000 gallons from two tanks situated between elevator shafts on the ground floor of WTC7.

Taken from the FEMA report, accompanied by third-party analysis and criticism

Mirror Link

FEMA says no data exists as to what happened to the contents of the other, smaller diesel tanks. The contents of the small ‘day tanks’ is unknown. WTC7 officially stopped pumping when the twin towers were hit, but mysteriously cycled on again, really no different how the sprinkler system mysteriously malfunctioned. There is no data as to whether diesel was sent to any of the tiny ‘day tanks’.

The only other diesel tanks of note — two tanks holding 6,000 gallon max — were also on the ground floor, under the loading dock.

So the vast majority of diesel was not on fire while WTC7 burned. The majority of diesel was recovered post-collapse.


R68264
5 years ago
fennec

contingency obviously HATES kittens


Listen, everyone just %{border:0px solid black;color:darkgreen}let this thread die% or else…

It has been ailing for a 2-350 posts now anyway. I was thinking “Pete” for the name of the dog, but if the thread keeps going I am leaning towards “Carpet Stain”.


R68273
5 years ago
Continuity

Schnieb, you said less than 1% of the WTC towers was turned into concrete dust. I don’t understand how you arrived at this at all. In fact, given the very scarce amount of non-pulverized concrete viewed post-collapse, I’d say the precentage is definitely higher.

That said, I don’t subscribe to any math equations which support demolition, nor criticize it. These equations are completely reliant on guestimated and arbitrary parameters.

I won’t tag a percentage on how much kerosene was blown up after the WTC2 strike, but I would go so far as to say a lot. 10,000 gallons fits in a tank roughly 11 × 11 × 11 in cubic feet, or very roughly the loading volume of a large delivery truck or cube-van. We saw a fireball that had to be measured in thousands of gallons.

You said the heat and inertia stayed in WTC2, as if it were an abstract mathematical structure receiving a new sum of energy. I replied earlier that much heat and inertia went right through, as seen by photos. Not much on the outer floors to stop it, or hold the energy. The only violent object that could have hit the core of WTC2 was the left wing of Flight 175. It would have been frayed to bits, if not before striking the core, then during a strike to the corner of the core. As you know, the wings of a 767 are not titanium swords, but flimsy and light — the first things to go.

Post Modified: 07/09/05 01:40:56

R68307
5 years ago
whateveryousay

shogo keeps peeping about detonator cords.
they could have used radio control or even exhisting ethernet cables or phone lines or added new ones next to exhisting cables or whatever.

then usAma could detonate remotely from his secret lair in the tora bora.


(illustration from the times of london)


R68314
5 years ago
Shogo

“And, fourth, no evidence as whether the subways had any access to the core columns in the first place.”

Cuntinuttery, the whole of your “points” are total bullshit.

Subway tunnels that led to the sub-basement of the WTC complex run for quite a long distance. The towers collapsing would not cause miles of subway tunnels to collapse.

In any event, as densely packed as the rubble was, it was comprised of oddly shaped chunks of concrete. This means that no matter how densley packed, it’s not going to be airtight. So long as there are open spaces, there is room for oxygen to flow through.

Going back to the barbecue analogy, when cooking with a barbecue, if you want to maximize your cooking time (in other words, retain heat inside the barbecue for a longer period of time), you cook with the lid closed. All that you need to provide to that fire inside is a few small holes in the bottom and top to permit airflow.

You seem to believe that the rubble compacted itself into a hermetically sealed, airtight mound. That’s just not reality, doofus.

If it was, there wouldn’t have been smoke escaping from the piles.


R68316
5 years ago
Shogo

“Taken from the FEMA report, accompanied by third-party analysis and criticism”

Just curious, Cunty. At times, you disparage the information coming from government sources because it doesn’t fit the demolitions theory you’ve inserted anally. But then, when the government information seems to support some aspect of your religious beliefs, you view them as supporting your position.

Tool?


R68320
5 years ago
whateveryousay

so there was, like, other buildings which totally got hit with tower debris, being right under the towers, not across the street like wtc 7. these buildings even burned but they did not collapse. they had to be demolished later.

Post Modified: 07/09/05 07:22:42

R68321
5 years ago
whateveryousay

the fuck schneibster. tactical nukes now?


R68327
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs

on edit: site down, alternate image

=————-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

this building
still standing.

Post Modified: 07/10/05 05:01:18

R68331
5 years ago
nomadrock


R68356
5 years ago
whateveryousay


THE INVISIBLE MACHINE

yo

Post Modified: 07/09/05 11:11:11

R68364
5 years ago
Shogo

I think it was probably HAARP, in tandem with the Grays.


R68375
5 years ago
revolutionary


R68377
5 years ago
revolutionary


R68422
5 years ago
whateveryousay

I think it was probably HAARP, in tandem with the Grays. -shogo

if by “it” you mean the bell island incident

that was april 2, 1978.

haarp didn’t show up until the 90’s. and it’s not supposed to be a weapon i’n‘it?

maybe you’re thinking of the Solar Powered Satellite Project

these “greys”, that’s just fairy-tale fantasy i thought.

you’re just being silly


R68424
5 years ago
2pacalypse

What’s your explanation for WTC 7 shogo?


R68449
5 years ago
whateveryousay

R68458
5 years ago
Shogo

“What’s your explanation for WTC 7 shogo?”

It involves your mom, a tub of Crisco, and two burly Serbian trapeze artists.


R68464
5 years ago
2pacalypse

What’s your explanation for WTC 7 shogo?


R68469
5 years ago
HowardWCampbell

jesus christ


R68484
5 years ago
Continuity

At times, you disparage the information coming from government sources because it doesn’t fit the demolitions theory you’ve inserted anally. But then, when the government information seems to support some aspect of your religious beliefs, you view them as supporting your position.

Yes, that’s very clever.

If the government & and their clean-up contractors say some major shit like they recovered 20,000 gallons of diesel, and no one disputes this event, I’m likely to believe that. One could call that an item of physical evidence, with witness testimony to back it up. Hard to counter, too, if no counter-testimony exists.

If there’s any controversy regarding the extraction of diesel from WTC7, then I’m open to read about it.

But if the government talks about some physical evidence, welds it all to a reaching hypothesis, and then says: I think we figured it out, even though the evidence is slim and we’re mostly conjecturing , then I’m suspicious. Even more so, if big names speak out, or contrary evidence emerges, or if there’s controversy when it comes to different witness testimonies.

It’s clear by now that you and Tonto are the only ones here with a religious and zealous view when it comes to the WTC collapses. Automatic and hostile denial is a sign of fundamentalism. The rest of the people are asking questions, examining and testing the controversies, arguing over models, and are only getting worked up when you try your best to stop it all with your bag of tricks.

Post Modified: 07/10/05 03:51:05

R68485
5 years ago
Schneibster

Whatever, no, as much energy as a tactical nuke. Get it? And don’t whine, that was a pretty fuckin dumb thing to say, but I edited out “numb nuts” just because it’s you. You know, I’m nice until someone misrepresents what I say; then I get pissed. You know that about me; you’ve seen it. Don’t do it. You don’t want to hear it.

Continuity, you’re steppin a little close to the line yourself; what I said was, it was probably about 1% that got powdered that fine, but even if it was ten percent it still isn’t a significant amount of energy compared to the total potential energy of the building’s fall; I could have added that even if it was ALL OF IT, EVERY SINGLE FRIGGIN CRUMB, it STILL would only be 390 billion joules, and we got 2.2 trillion joules to dissipate; that’s only 20% or so. You’re not reading what I’m writing. If we’re going to have a conversation, you have to, you know, participate and all.


R68498
5 years ago
Shogo

“It’s clear by now that you and Tonto are the only ones here with a religious and zealous view when it comes to the WTC collapses. “

There’s this river in Egypt…


R68508
5 years ago
whateveryousay

schneib. just taking your words for a spin,

just a little segway into :

“Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs”

site is down at the moment but it’s in google land

here?

does this link?

it was probably about 1% that got powdered that fine… schneib

and what is this “probably” based on?
and even if it were 10%, what is that figure based on?

In addition, the writer forgot that energy used to powder the concrete does not then just disappear; it is rendered as heat,

i thought that was the point of the paper, that the vaporized water content of the conrete and or heated air from the towers cause the cloud to expand.

The reference given for the figure of 1.5kWh/t is from a paper that specifies the amount of energy used by an impact crusher; this is not a particularly efficient method, probably less than 20% efficiency overall, since electromechanical devices in general are not any more efficient than this.

explain this more for the lay-people, your 0.3kWh/t is based on 100% efficiency or something? i heard that concrete really needs a lot of energy to break it apart, especially into a fine powder.

A study by Paul J. Lioy et al. examined three samples of dust deposited by the WTC disaster, and found that the samples consisted of a homogeneous mixture, primarily made of cement and soot (37 to 50%), glass fiber (40%) and cellulose (9 to 20%). The proportion of particle sizes from 75 to 300 microns in diameter ranged from 42% to 46%, while particles less than 75 microns in diameter made up 30 to 39 percent of the samples. This dust was deposited around Manhattan in tremendous quantities (up to 10 cm thick at distances of 700 meters from the collapse site), consistent with the idea that most of the concrete, drywall and fireproofing in the buildings ended up as dust. Creation of such a finely ground and homogeneously mixed debris is difficult to explain as the result of a mechanical pounding process, but could be explained by highly turbulent combustion effects at high temperatures — at least hot enough to cause spalling of the concrete due to explosive evaporation of entrapped water.

Finally, note carefully that the paper assumes that the powdered concrete did not mix with the surrounding air;

if by “assumes” you mean “reduced the calculated expansion volume by 33%, to account for turbulent mixing with surrounding air”, then yes.
or, wait, no.

http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm


R68545
5 years ago
Continuity

There’s this river in Egypt…

How’s the water there? Hope you brought malaria pills and bug spray.

I said I was open to — available, curious, exploring — the idea of controlled demolition precisely because of the now 11 pages of controversy brought up. Given the inadequacy of the official stories, along with the compelling evidence & analysis that proposes a controlled demolition scenario, I see the latter scenario as a viable one worth talking about.

I’m willing to exclude that scenario and change my line of inquiry if compelling evidence and analysis surface. Once the intensity of the controversies cease, I can change.

That’s the difference between you and me.

Post Modified: 07/10/05 14:46:05

R68681
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Very interesting thread. Thanks, Continuity, for keeping it going – seems like you’re living up to your name. Any new thoughts on WTC7, Schneib, now that the diesel’s gone? My original suspicions were based on the simple reasoning: If “they” had time and means to sabotage WTC7, then why not the twins as well? I makes more sense to suppose that the same tactics were employed across the board.


R68771
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Schneib, it seems that the elevator shafts were purposely designed not to be a chimney. Each elevator went part way down, then you have to change to another one.


R68799
5 years ago
zark

..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.

Post Modified: 07/12/05 03:03:18

R68914
5 years ago
Geronimo_Skull

Jose Sanchez, 45, of New Jersey in a never-released tape recorded statement made in early 2002 to William Rodriguez, the first WTC maintenance man to claim a bomb exploded in the north tower basement, said he heard what sounded like a “huge bomb,” causing lights to flicker on and off, while he worked in a small sub-level 4 workshop.

Sanchez, who worked for American Building Maintenance Co. at the WTC for 14 years, was unavailable for comment, but made the taped 2002 statement to Rodriguez, recounting his 9/11 personal experience.

Sanchez, who fell on hard times after 9/11, revealed the details of a basement bomb-like explosion while Rodriguez and two CNN interns, Carolina Inojosa and Evita Zerebrinsky, interviewed victims and documented information for the many unfortunate people having trouble getting needed government assistance after 9/11.

Besides questioning the credibility of the official story that burning jet fuel was the only factor in bringing down the towers, Rodriguez formed an assistance organization called the Hispanic Victims Group instrumental in helping hundreds of people get help after 9/11 left many victims unemployed and homeless.

“I knew Jose very well since we worked for the same company,” said Rodriguez in a telephone conversation from his New Jersey apartment. “At the time, I taped his statements, I was more concerned about getting people needed assistance and, anyway, back then I really thought the government was seriously investigating the WTC attacks.

“But since then I have learned otherwise. I realize now they are covering-up the real truth and that’s why I want to release Jose’s statement. What really upsets me and, you can take this message to the White House, is that people like Jose and many others like him who experienced what happened in the basement of the north tower were simply ignored and never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission.

“If they really wanted to get at the truth, these are the very people who should have been interviewed, not public officials who knew very little about what occurred inside the buildings that tragic morning.

“However, instead we all have been ignored in order to cover up the truth. The victims, those who died and the families who lost loved ones deserve nothing less than the truth and I intend to keep talking until the truth is finally told.”

...In the 2002 taped statement, Sanchez recalls, at the same time Rodriguez and the others heard the explosion, being in a small sub-level 4 workshop with another man who he only knew by the name of Chino when, out of nowhere, the blast sounded as the two men were cutting a piece of metal.

“It sounded like a bomb and the lights went on and off,” said Sanchez in the tape recording. “We started to walk to the exit and a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator. The hot air from the ball of fire dropped Chino to the floor and my hair got burned,” said Sanchez in the tape recording. “The room then got full of smoke and I remember saying out loud ‘I believe it was a bomb that blew up inside the building.’

“I said ‘Chino, let’s go we gotta get out of here.’ But Chino was wounded and told me he needed help. I remember him saying that the hot air came with such force that it broke his leg. We finally went out through another exit and his leg and knee were both broken.”

Sanchez, all the time helping Chino, then recalls exiting into a parking lot on sub-level 4 where he encountered a group of other people also trying to flee. In the parking lot, a person assisted the pair, wrapping Chino’s leg with a bandage from a first aid kit.

Chino was then driven to safety while Sanchez decided to walk up four flights of stairs through the stairwell, trying to exit at the plaza level but being turned back by debris and falling glass.

“I went back down the stairwell to B-4 and encountered several people coming up. I told them to turn back around and then went across the parking lot up another stairwell, making a left and then finally getting outside,” said Sanchez. “It took about 15 or 20 minutes to get outside and for me it was like a bomb with huge smoke all around. Then when I got outside, the other plane hit the south tower. It looked and felt like a war as I hid behind a wall to get out of the way of falling debris.”

Saying that he felt disoriented and “didn’t know what was happening,” Sanchez eventually made his way to safety, arriving at his New Jersey home at about 3:30pm after fleeing down 34th St. and making his way to the ferry boat.

Asked how he felt in the aftermath of the attacks, he said:

“I felt a sense of loss and despair. I worked there 14 years and I worked through the whole complex, installing signs. I worked on all floors and that day I just happened to be in the basement.

“I think I was lucky to get out of the basement because I was near the stairwell.”

Link


R68915
5 years ago
Shogo

A little known fact is that Sanchez’s co-workers nicknamed him “Dirty”.


R68917
5 years ago
shoogoo

Cuz your mom begged him to wipe shit on her face.


R69038
5 years ago
deeperpolitics

I watched the video provided in Verysimiliar’s post re: “explosive demolition” ...and the entire building top did lean as a result of a controlled demolition.

The reason I chose not to participate in this very informative thread which contains much useful and contradictory evidence and hypothesis to the “official version of events”....is the disrespect, name-calling and put-downs used by participants who attempt to sway and coerce others when their research is contradicted or found to be lame in some ways. Dialogue requires respect….otherwise it comes across like a FOX propaganda show where Bill O’Reilly yells at his interviewee to “shut up” when he can not handle the difference of opinion of his invited guest.

Muzzling criticism by calling someone a “fuckface”, a leftist, a Jew-hater, a conspiracy whacko, retarded, or wrong…..simply takes the serious debate and dialogue into the realm of disrespectful name-calling…

I do recognize a few participants who generally start the name-calling scenario…unfortunately other serious participants seem to fall for this obvious attempt to quash the discussion by joining in…

I say either ignore said comments, or ask up front for some anger management and real dialogue.

I am also amazed that GNN management allows for these posts to be chewed up with these verbal insults. How can one recommend this site for reference material when most individuals would simply shy away from the verbal, childish antics of certain respondents.

After being a participant in these discussion forums I would suggest that certain members are “purposefully trashing” these forum discussions.

Even at the www.Democratic Underground site, the management disallows verbal put-downs and coercion in the threads.


R69039
5 years ago
deeperpolitics

I watched the video provided in Verysimiliar’s post re: “explosive demolition” ...and the entire building top did lean as a result of a controlled demolition.

The reason I chose not to participate in this very informative thread which contains much useful and contradictory evidence and hypothesis to the “official version of events”....is the disrespect, name-calling and put-downs used by participants who attempt to sway and coerce others when their research is contradicted or found to be lame in some ways. Dialogue requires respect….otherwise it comes across like a FOX propaganda show where Bill O’Reilly yells at his interviewee to “shut up” when he can not handle the difference of opinion of his invited guest.

Muzzling criticism by calling someone a “fuckface”, a leftist, a Jew-hater, a conspiracy whacko, retarded, or wrong…..simply takes the serious debate and dialogue into the realm of disrespectful name-calling…

I do recognize a few participants who generally start the name-calling scenario…unfortunately other serious participants seem to fall for this obvious attempt to quash the discussion by joining in…

I say either ignore said comments, or ask up front for some anger management and real dialogue.

I am also amazed that GNN management allows for these posts to be chewed up with these verbal insults. How can one recommend this site for reference material when most individuals would simply shy away from the verbal, childish antics of certain respondents.

After being a participant in these discussion forums I would suggest that certain members are “purposefully trashing” these forum discussions.

Even at the www.Democratic Underground site, the management disallows verbal put-downs and coercion in the threads.


R69042
5 years ago
Shogo

This isn’t a serious discussion, DP.

This is a bunch of jerkoffs spouting off on topics they know less than nothing about.

Junk science should be shat upon whenever it rears it’s ugly head.


R69054
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo, he was talking to you.


R69061
5 years ago
Chickenma1

I apologize that my lack of education has exasperated a few more knowledgible types and ask for their continued patience and indulgence. I keep this thread going because I have asked some perhaps naive questions to which I would sincerely like answers, such as about the elevator configuration – I consider these questions important – even trial juries don’t consist of scientists, yet it’s important as citizens to try to understand scientific explanations. Scientific type guerrillas should make it their contribution to their country to explain things simply and clearly to us uneducated (yet very intelligent and concerned) types. I felt this thread was actually getting somewhere, with a lot of information I hadn’t seen before, yet as soon as a new angle is revealed, the insults about education levels start.

P.S. Schneib, if you’re still reading this, your answers are welcome, respectful, patient, but too hard to follow with too much unnecessary information. Your teaching skills could be honed.


R69063
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Sorry, just getting some stuff off my chest. I also feel I’ve been paying attention to the new facts much more closely than many scientific types whose minds have been made up – for them, new facts seem to be irrelevant.


R69067
5 years ago
Shogo

“Shogo, he was talking to you.”

Geez, ya think?

Where you and others see a wealth of new information, I see the exact same shit that’s been yammered about since day one. And it’s just as nonsensical now as it was then.


R69262
5 years ago
cortez

“Science” at the Service of an Empire

Link

“Thorough, open, independent.” This is how the National Institute of Standards and Technology characterizes [1] its 10 000-page, 750-Mb WTC draft study [2]. The tactics is clear: to drown the weak points of the official 9/11 story in an enormous amount of redundant information. However, those who know what they are looking for can soon find their way to the critical omissions in the reports.

The first of the specific objectives of the NIST study was to “[d]etermine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” [3] These questions are not answered for simple reasons:

Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: “The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure.” [4] Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called “global” models of the towers.

Correspondingly, the temporal dimension was cut short as well: “The probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse.” [5]

Why were the models truncated? The following are two examples of the reasons given by NIST:

* “The observation of photographic and video evidence of the behavior of both structures, following the time of aircraft impact and until collapse initiation, strongly suggested that nonlinear behavior and structural collapse initiation occurred within the upper portions of the structures, generally above the zone of aircraft impact. Therefore, to reduce the model size and improve solution time, the model of WTC 1 was truncated at Floor 89, five floors below the zone of impact, and a series of equivalent vertical linear springs were introduced at the base of this truncated model to represent the stiffness of the interior columns and exterior walls beneath the level of truncation. Similarly, the model of WTC 2 was truncated at Floor 73. This truncation is believed to have negligible effect on the predicted behavior of the structure.” [6] * The parts of structures below the impact zones (Floor 89 to Floor 91 in WTC 1 and Floor 73 to Floor 77 in WTC 2) contributed little to the overall behavior of the buildings. Previous analyses of subsystem models and preliminary global models showed that the elements below the impact zone did not experience plastic deformations or buckling. Therefore, they were eliminated to further reduce the size of the models. With this modification, the global model for WTC 2 was truncated at Floor 77 just above the mechanical floors and at Floor 91 for WTC 1.” [7]

In other words, “Even without the modeling of the progressive collapse we had to postpone the publication of the reports four times so we just didn’t have time to do that. And besides, the lower parts of the buildings simply did not slow down the collapse, as everyone could see on TV, so why bother?”

In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how — and if! — the the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetricality of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.

One appendix of project 6 includes an interesting analysis of a dropping floor. [8] According to the results, however, temperatures of 400 to 700 °C are needed in order for the collapse to be initiated. Unfortunately, the destruction of evidence at Ground Zero was so complete that NIST can now only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was “limited exposure if any above 250 °C.” [9]

NIST’s collapse creed, repeated eleven times with identical wording (and once with a slightly different one) in the report of project 6 dealing with the collapse sequences is this:

“The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.” [10]

In other words: “Once the top started coming down, it was so heavy that the damaged columns could not stop it. Neither could the undamaged columns of dozens of floors do that, it seems. But we didn’t need to model that for we’ve all seen that down it came.”

“Thorough, open, independent?”

References:

[1] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/semerjian_remarks_62305.htm | [Back]
[2] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm | [Back]
[3] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf (75 kB), p.3 | [Back]
[4] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf (1.4 MB), p. lxii | [Back]
[5] Ibid., p. lxiv | [Back]
[6] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6DDraft.pdf (19.4 MB), p. 5 | [Back]
[7] Ibid., p. 169 | [Back]
[8] Ibid., p. 371 | [Back]
[9] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (52 kB), p. xli | [Back]
[10] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf (17.5 MB) | [Back]

Post Modified: 07/14/05 12:01:27

R69265
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Thanks Cortez. Shogo, that was new information to me, and if it wasn’t to you, then why didn’t you post it for the rest of us to see and evaluate? Or is your participation here limited to name calling?

The more information received, the more convinced I am that there were explosives. The rebuttals so far seem to leave out certain aspects of the equation, such as was done by NIST.


R69720
5 years ago
Continuity

Very interesting article, Cortez. It brings me back to my central concern about the collapse of the twin towers.

What really happened to the main supports, above and below the impact areas? An external view suggests that many floors of core support lose their cohesion more or less simultaneously. I don’t see gravity alone working here, at least in the beginning of the virtual free-fall.

I’ve read some of the NIST stuff earlier, and I agree with the above link, in that some key NIST analyses are rhetorical, vague, and presumptive.

The way in which the core supports piledrive and telescope so easily (until they reach about half way down) is still worth studying.

If NIST can only produce steel samples that experienced limited exposure if any above 250 C , in order to prove of any of their hypotheses, then their explanation is still not overly persuasive. This baby is still unsolved.

Post Modified: 07/17/05 03:11:29

R69746
5 years ago
Shogo

“The reports by NIST say nothing about how—and if!—the the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped.”

Well Cortez, the reason for this is obvious to anybody who understands anything about physics and engineering (there’s a hint in there somewhere, read the sentence again carefully). The structure of the building was not designed to withstand the vertical impact of tons of collapsing material falling on top of it.

To wit: they know why the floors below the impact zone collapsed. The question to be solved is why the floors where the planes impacted collapsed under the weight of the floors above the impact zone.

Isn’t it amazing how to someone like me, with an education in science and logic, this is incredibly obvious and not at all suspicious? And yet to someone like you, who lives in a world darkened by ignorance and superstition, it seems like proof of some vast conspiracy?

There’s a lesson there. The lesson is: read a fucking book.


R69863
5 years ago
aaron

Wow, Contingency! Good to see you’re alive and well!
Shogo! Can you stop being alive and well?


R69864
5 years ago
EGisJUICE

If as the government claims the buildings collapse was caused in part by “fireproofing being blown off key structural steel members” you’d think that at some point after 9/11 there would’ve issued some sort of federal government or state government order to inspect high-rise structural member fireproofing and high-rise saftey/durability in case of airplane impact, and/or high intensity fire of the type supposedly caused by jet fuel in the towers on 9/11.

To my knowledge this has not happened.

That was what happened in CA after the Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes toppled freeway overpasses and buildings, leading to a massive retro-fitting program.

It seems one of the most logical reactions to buildings/structures collapsing when the cause of the collapse(s) is known so “certainly” would be to assess the vulnerability of other buildings/structures to the same risk and do what can be done to reduce the risk level.


R69867
5 years ago
EGisJUICE

And Eager’s specialty is not in structural engineering.

Is yours? Hardly. Yet you feel qualified to weigh in on a subject you have zero professional experience with, dismissing someone whose education and professional background indicates that they are iminently more qualified than you are… because his PhD in Engineering isn’t good enough?

Dismissing something from someone because they “are not qualified” or “don’t have a PhD” or because they have “zero professional experience” is essentially saying ‘shut up, you aren’t qualified, and couldn’t possibly have insight that someone with a PhD/expirence does”.

A PhD is not a degree in knowing everything there is to know about a given subject. I wonder how many of the builders of the Pyramids, or the Great Wall of China had degrees in structural engineering. Bowing to the PhD’s of the world as the absolute experts on everything, especially considering how many times PhD’s have said “it can’t be done” only to have some layman prove them wrong is stupid.

Numerous cases show that people outside the ‘academic/scientific establishment’ are just as capable, if not more capable of producing relevant/insightful work. Often this is done with the establishment types saying it is impossible.

Pasteur was not an MD, the Wright brothers had no education in aeronautics/flight, Van Gogh didn’t graduate art school, Mendel had no PhD in genetics, yet these unqualified, non-PhD types all stand apart from their “more qualified” contemporaries, I wonder why that is? Perhaps this is because the outsiders are not ingrained with a regimented way of thinking that many so called experts are.

When the non-PhD in aeronautics/aircraft & glider design Wright brothers 1901 glider did not produce enough/the predicted amount of lift, the Wrights suspected that the numbers/figures of other scientists that they were using were wrong.

The Wrights thought that maybe those scientists had made a mistake, and they built a wind tunnel in their basement to test this theory. Turns out the non-PhD’s were right in theorizing that the earlier aviation scientists numbers were wrong, and that they had indeed figured incorrectly. Two years later, they made the 1st powered flight while the “experts” were predicting it couldn’t be done.


R69868
5 years ago
EGisJUICE

This is a bunch of jerkoffs spouting off on topics they know less than nothing about.

Quick, what were the occupations of the “jerkoffs” who thought of/developed the 1st frequency hopping device?

Hint: both were in fields where they had no reason to know about frequency hopping, let alone how to practically use it in the real world.


R69878
5 years ago
Shogo

“Dismissing something from someone because they “are not qualified” or “don’t have a PhD” or because they have “zero professional experience” is essentially saying ‘shut up, you aren’t qualified, and couldn’t possibly have insight that someone with a PhD/expirence does”.”

Would you accept a medical diagnosis from someone who didn’t go to medical school over a physician with many years of experience in their field?

“Pasteur was not an MD”

And…? The guy who first understood the concept of germs making people sick, and the importance of a sterile operating environment was an MD. Further, countless inventions to help sick people are thought up by MDs.

“the Wright brothers had no education in aeronautics/flight”

Meanwhile, their primitive plane flew for 11 minutes. It took a great deal of refinement and engineering to build the modern planes we have today.

“Perhaps this is because the outsiders are not ingrained with a regimented way of thinking that many so called experts are.”

That’s such a crock of shit. You’re the equivalent here of a race theorist, concluding that a few examples of x behavior prove some larger claim. While it may be true that ocassionally people without formal training in a given area come up with new and useful ideas, the vast majority of inventions and advancements are devised by people with lots of education and experience in those fields.

Further, the point that you are totally missing here is that the non-experts in this case are the ones making the claim that “it can’t be done.” They are the ones concluding that it’s impossible for this to have happened, based on a shaky understanding of physics and engineering. They are more akin to the people telling the Wright bros. that flight is impossible based on bad science.

“Quick, what were the occupations of the “jerkoffs” who thought of/developed the 1st frequency hopping device?”

I don’t know. But let me ask you a counter-question: what was the occupation of the person who developed alternating current? I can provide counter examples of people who devise inventions in their own field. And there are, in fact, many many more of them.

Your bias against people with education is comical, ill-informed, and totally predictable.

Post Modified: 07/18/05 06:24:00

R69888
5 years ago
emissary71

“Your bias against people with education is comical, ill-informed, and totally predictable.”

Your bias for magazines that have connections to Halliburton is equally predictable and probably ten times as funny.

Popular mechanics is owned by Hearst communications

And at Hearst communications is a Lady by the name of Cathleen Black, now Cathleen is actually the President of Hearst magazines and she also sits on two another boards, those boards are Intl Business machines and coca-cola. At Intl Business machines she shares a seat with a guy named Charles Vest, Charles also sits on the board at Dupont, at Dupont Charles shares a chair with a guy named Alan Belda, Mr. Belda also sits the board over at Citigroup, at Citigroup is a guy known as William Howell, now Howell, well he sits the board at Halliburton…

Ok so to complete the circle of jerks; at Halliburton Howell shares a seat with Kenneth T Derr, Mr. Derr also is on the board at AT&T where he shares a seat with Donald McHenry, of course being the “connected” world that it is McHenry ain’t the type to have fingers in the one pie, he is also on the board at coca-cola, which of course is also the same coca-cola that our lady Cathleen Black sits on.

Now lets talk about Howell some more, I like this guy, busy he is, and we all know that idle hands are the something something… anyway, Howell, like I said, he’s busy, not only because he has his appointment at Halliburton, but because he must divide his time between six different boards, Halliburton, Citigroup, as previously mentioned, and also Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, American Electric power, and of course Williams companies Intl. Like I said busy busy. Ok so let’s concentrate on the last two and follow the dotted line to Exxon Mobil and Pfizer.

At both of these two boards he shares a chair with a guy named Henry McKinnell Jnr, now take a guess where Jnr also sits… MIT, wow, amazing. But wait lets see if MIT has any other connections to Halliburton, ok there’s this guy, Phillip Condit, he also sits on the BOD at Boeing, and Hewlett Packard, on the Boeing board is a guy named John Bryson, Bryson has a chair at Walt Disney, where he shares a place with Allen Lewis and Mr. Lewis also sits at Halliburton. I guess it is a small world after all.

You can checkout a graphic representation complete with cool little board room tables and fat little cats here


R69903
5 years ago
Shogo

“Your bias for magazines that have connections to Halliburton is equally predictable and probably ten times as funny.”

You’re an idiot.


R69906
5 years ago
zark

n1, emissary71


R69930
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Education is very important to being an imformed citizen. If I could, I would have a PhD is everything that I might be called upon as a citizen to judge. However, I have to rely on experts to explain things to me – that is the job of the educated person, to explain things clearly to lay citizens so we can run our country and vote for our representatives – and thus far the educated experts have had huge holes in their explanations to where I can only make the decision that I’m being lied to. Calling me, a voting citizen, names does not further the cause of democracy, imho.

On balance, this thread has convinced me that there was more to bringing down the towers and WTC7 than just the planes, and that we’re being lied to. If this were to go to trial now, that would be my verdict. If you don’t want to, yet again, repeat your incomplete and unconvincing science, I can sympathize, Shogo – it won’t get you anywhere.


R69941
5 years ago
Shogo

“it won’t get you anywhere.”

How wonderful. A chicken farmer has made up her mind based on the prattling of retards. How will I ever sleep at night?


R69960
5 years ago
Chickenma1

“it won’t get you anywhere.”

I was sympathizing with you for not wanting to give your “scientific” analysis yet again (you prattling retard).


R70057
5 years ago
Continuity

Anyway, Sho-boat, thanks for yet another impressive & sidetracking load of utterances which amount to nothing more than a hostile filibuster (i.e. an obstructing, distracting tactic). Gee, what a surprise coming from you!

What this really amounts to is, Eager (the man who Silverstein doesn’t even believe anymore) really does not specialize in structural engineering. Academics specialize in all sorts of stuff. Usually they’re brilliant in their specialty, sometimes they’re full of shit, and it’s common that one specialist will know little about another specialty in a related field (but shoot his mouth off anyway and hope no one will challenge him, like how one of history profs did and got caught). And some people know what they’re doing and how to gauge things even though their daddy didn’t drop $200k to put them through Harvard.

Anyway, let’s get over the Ad Hominem and aimless philosophical sub-debate.


R70058
5 years ago
Continuity

Hi Aaron :)


R70062
5 years ago
cortez

Another log on the fire

———-

NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Upset That 9/11 Commission ‘Tried To Twist My Words;’ A True Hero, He Vows To Stick To The Truth, Something Lacking In The 9/11 Investigation

Former veteran fireman recalls hearing three distinct ‘huge explosions’ while rescuing people in north tower between 23rd and 24th floors, testimony ignored in the 9/11 Commission’s final report. Brave fireman recalls how he almost called it quits after losing his buddies, his job and his health. Now, four years later, he’s finally on the rebound, making an emotional and physical recovery, adding he keeps active with the fire department and enjoys his life as a new grandfather.

July 19, 2005

By Greg Szymanski

....CACCHIOLI AND CREW ENTER NORTH TOWER AND GO UP TO 24TH FLOOR

Although the Marriot was a bad scene, the north tower looked like a war zone. When he entered the lobby, Cacchioli recalls elevator doors completely blown out and another scene of mass chaos with people running, screaming and being hit with debris.

“I remember thinking to myself, My God, how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above. It didn’t make sense,” said Cacchioli.

At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor, the first twist of fate that probably saved his life.

“Looking back if it was one of the elevators that went higher, I wouldn’t be here talking today,” added Cacchioli.

As he made his way up along with men from Engine Co. 21, 22 and Ladder Co. 13, the doors opened on the 24th floor, a scene again that hardly made sense to the seasoned fireman, claiming the heavy dust and haze of smoke he encountered was unusual considering the location of the strike.

“Tommy Hedsal was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor,” said Cacchioli, “There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.

“Luckily, we weren’t caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me.

“I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there, who I began to try and direct down, when another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it’s hard to tell, but I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!’

“But still it never crossed my mind the building was going to collapse. I really only had two things on my mind and that was getting people out and saving lives. That’s what I was trained for and that’s what I was going to do.

“I remember at that point in the stairwell between the 23rd and 24th floor, I threw myself down on the steps because of the smoke. It was pitch black, I had my mask on and I was crawling down the steps until I found the door on the 23rd floor.”

When Cacchioli entered the 23rd floor, he found a “little man” short of breadth, holding a handkerchief in front of his face and hiding under the standpipes on the wall, used for pumping water on the floor in case of fire.

Leading the man by the arm, he then ran into a group down the hall of about 35 to 40 people, finding his way down the 23rd floor stairwell and beginning their trek down to safety.

“Then as soon as we get in the stairwell, I hear another huge explosion like the other two. Then I heard bang, bang, bang – huge bangs – and surmised later it was the floors pan caking on top of one another.

“I knew we had to get out of their fast and on the 12th floor a man even jumped on my back because he thought he couldn’t make it any farther. Everybody was shocked and dazed and it was a miracle all of us got this far.”

When the group led by Cacchioli finally made it to the lobby level, he was unable to open the door at first, the concussion of the explosions or perhaps the south tower falling, jamming the lobby door.

Finally jarring it loose, the group entered the lobby finding total devastation with windows blown out and marble peeling form the walls, but strangely no people. At that point, it was either left or right to an exit, Cacchioli, the man he originally found by the standpipes and another lady going right while the others went left, a move which by the grace of God saved his life.

“It seemed like every move I made that morning was the right move,” said Cacchioli. “I should have been killed at least five times. The people that went left didn’t make it out, but we came out alive on West Street.”...


R70099
5 years ago
whateveryousay

The parts of structures below the impact zones contributed little to the overall behavior of the buildings.

further more:

  1. your legs contribute little to your ability to stay standing.
  2. thinking too much gives you wrinkles
  3. don’t ask me, i’m just a girl

R70111
5 years ago
nolies

DON’T BELIVE THE LIE
Don’t start beliven the lies
I’m a reveal the truth don’t care if I die
Sinister plots created by evil men
Who think they can fool us all over again
In 1941 December America was attacked
The truth we knew about it but turned our back
Then a few years latter we wiped Hiroshima off the map
Now its almost 60 years latter and we forget how it played
Almost 6000 died on that tragic day
9-11 WE WAS attacked
Now where supposedly liberating Iraq
There’s power in oil in oil there’s war
Just what the hell are we fighting for.
Sinister plots unfolding a nation’s is split
I’d like to know who’s behind all this shit
Unseen forces schemes devised by sinister men
The war machine keeps turning
My emotions keep burning
Were fat with technology and they couldn’t see
These bitches think they can fool us
With their high powered scheme
Soon we’ll all be subjected to the all watch full eye
Under the guise of safety
But something else is behind that disguise
I think they knew about it even planed it from the start
How in the hell could they have missed such a mark.
Well I say stand up and fuck this bullshit war
And if one bomb blows up on our American shores
I say rise up and take arms to these twisted men
Cause the truth is the enemy is wolf in sheep’s clothing disguised as our friend.
Its time to rise up and be counted and free
And fight for our freedom and our liberty
Like Emenim said in that great video
Come-on rise up ya’ll———- its time to roll
By nolies 2005


R70113
5 years ago
nolies

DON’T BELIVE THE LIE

Don’t start beliven the lies
I’m a reveal the truth don’t care if I die
Sinister plots created by evil men
Who think they can fool us all over again
In 1941 December America was attacked
The truth we knew about it but turned our back
Then a few years latter we wiped Hiroshima off the map
Now its almost 60 years latter and we forget how it played
Almost 6000 died on that tragic day
9-11 WE WAS attacked
Now where supposedly liberating Iraq
There’s power in oil in oil there’s war
Just what the hell are we fighting for.
Sinister plots unfolding a nation’s is split
I’d like to know who’s behind all this shit
Unseen forces schemes devised by sinister men
The war machine keeps turning
My emotions keep burning
Were fat with technology and they couldn’t see
These bitches think they can fool us
With their high powered scheme
Soon we’ll all be subjected to the all watch full eye
Under the guise of safety
But something else is behind that disguise
I think they knew about it even planed it from the start
How in the hell could they have missed such a mark.
Well I say stand up and fuck this bullshit war
And if one bomb blows up on our American shores
I say rise up and take arms to these twisted men
Cause the truth is the enemy is wolf in sheep’s clothing disguised as our friend.
Its time to rise up and be counted and free
And fight for our freedom and our liberty
Like Emenim said in that great video
Come-on rise up ya’ll———- its time to roll

By nolies 2005


R70133
5 years ago
Shogo

“Shogo! Can you stop being alive and well?”

I don’t consider my day complete without being wished death by Moronymous, the white New Zealander hypocritcally squatting on Maori land.


R70182
5 years ago
whateveryousay

here’s some new pics for y’all

what building is that on fire?
is it #7 from shogo’s mysterious angle?

doh!


R70187
5 years ago
COS

I put nothing past them.

Question: What do the name callers and naysayers here have in common?


R70189
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Good find, Whatever. Can you give the link – half of it is textiled off.


R70218
5 years ago
Shogo

“What do the name callers and naysayers here have in common?”

We think you’re an idiot?


R70240
5 years ago
whateveryousay

Can you give the link – half of it is textiled off. -chicken

click the picks.


R70260
5 years ago
Continuity

I’ve seen that site before. Seems like a mixed bag, with some good and bad analysis. Needs updating too because some of the data is plain wrong, such as the pic of dust rising from WTC6 — a pic later discovered as a disinfo hoax.

Another thing is that the guy from that site calculates the amount of kerosene blowing out of WTC2 as twice the amount a 767-200ER can carry. I very much doubt his calculations are correct. As I said before, I doubt any abstract calculations can be of any decisive use.

Post Modified: 07/19/05 18:18:20

R70278
5 years ago
whateveryousay

yo.

i just was there for the pics.

all this talk of the “video plane” sort of put me off a bit… wasn’t quite sure what the fuck…


R70516
5 years ago
Shogo

From Maddox

“Warblog: A blog that primarily deals with war. Filled with whiny blow hards who are fixated on their stubborn ideas and conspiracy theories. For example, there are countless hours pissed away by conspiracy theorists who think the WTC towers were demolished by bombs planted by the government. These armchair engineers write endlessly about how the physics of the collapse was impossible, how the temperature wasn’t hot enough to melt steel, and how the planes were carrying missiles. Of course, the one thing they don’t postulate is a REASON.

My personal favorite warblog was one that had a flash animation with people who were quoted as saying “it didn’t sound like a plane to me… it sounded like a missile.” Thank you Joe Nobody for giving me your expert opinion on what missile sounds like, because gas station superintendents are usually the best people to ask about the sonic signature of ballistic missile thrust.”


R70664
5 years ago
cortez

Former Auxiliary NY Fireman Is ‘A One-Man Investigative Team’ When It Comes To Finding The Truth About 9/11

...“There are a couple of interesting facts, along with numerous other inconsistencies, which have led me to seriously question how the government claims the tower’s fell by jet fuel alone.

“First, many people may not recall that on February 15, 1975, there was a blaze at the World trade Center that took out six floors. In fact, the fire was much hotter than the one on 9/11 but it still didn’t take down the entire building.”

And like a true investigator who likes to answer critics with questions, Isaac added:

“Why did the same demolition company, Controlled Demolition Inc., the company that helped clean up at Oklahoma City and the WTC, also on July 15, 2001, bring down and demolish two 400 foot tanks not far from the twin towers? Was it a dry run?”

Trying to put the 9/11 puzzle together on a daily basis, Isaac also has spent countless hours trying to track down data and original building schematics in an effort to show, once and for all, the WTC was built to withstand much more impact than a jetliner crash at the top floors.

He said to his astonishment a complete set of structural floor plans was never released by the government supporting its conclusions. Instead, what he found were conclusions based without “the slightest bit of documented evidence.”

“So I went on a personal search all over the city, a search to every government and private office imaginable to get accurate data about the WTC building plans,” said Isaac. “Finally, in the old archives of the New York Fire Department, I hit the jack pot and now I think hold the trump card.

“I want to bring these documents to the public and I want to bring the culprits who caused this mass murder to justice. These blueprints have never been made public and it shows without question that the WTC is a whole lot stronger than the government would like us to believe. These blueprints show a very strong truss system and not a cardboard box like the government claims.”

The data, floor plans and schematics found by Isaac not only reveal the WTC structural design but give an inside look at every nook and cranny of the building, including designs of the 99 elevators in the two buildings as well as giving an impression of the building’s strengths and weaknesses from a fire department’s point of view.

When he worked as an auxiliary fireman specializing in emergency and disaster communications response, Isaac said d after 9/11 he began monitoring all emergency units to see if any patterns or information about the perpetrators could be learned.

“I heard some crazy things over my radio in those days, things I can’t repeat on the phone,” said Isaac.

Isaac said over the last four years he’s compiled information and names of civilians and firefighters, whose identities he keeps anonymous for their safety, who all claim to have either witnessed explosions in the towers or have information that a controlled demolition took place.

“It’s just amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11….


R70667
5 years ago
Rasputin


R70695
5 years ago
whateveryousay

shogo’s avitar

lookslike rosanne barr

no?


R70698
5 years ago
Shogo

“which have led me to seriously question how the government claims the tower’s fell by jet fuel alone.”

BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT’S BEING CLAIMED, FUCKFACE


R70699
5 years ago
whateveryousay

well, something like 300 of the “special” version of these fuckers were made.

Atomic Demoliton Munitions

http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm


R70951
5 years ago
cortez

Some links

from here

The video clip below was shot by a hand-held camera of the South Tower’s collapse. Watch closely as the collapse travels downward you’ll see an explosion squib eject vertically from the tower approx 10 floors below the point of collapse. This squib is located near what looks like a ‘Stripe’ on the tower:

Video

People magazine – United in Courage September 12, 2001

Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman’s Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower.

“How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we’d been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on.”

This is the original link, but it’s been scrubbed:
http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html

Here’s an archived link:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/people.html

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted September 12, 2001

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

link

Post Modified: 07/22/05 00:17:24

R70955
5 years ago
sisyphus

You guys all have it wrong, you need to check out OriginalG’s homepage – dude is onto something –

“in acts of war, making people die/
like the 911 “surprise”/
these fuckin’ faggot’s were behind”

You gotta start looking at the fag-first paradigm of the powered elite or you will miss something.

Post Modified: 07/22/05 00:34:38

R70958
5 years ago
fennec

You guys all have it wrong, you need to check out OriginalG’s homepage – dude is onto something

Oh, way ahead of you, baby. It’s my homepage. And that picture…my desktop. ;-)



R70959
5 years ago
cortez


R70960
5 years ago
Geronimo_Skull


R70961
5 years ago
fennec


R70962
5 years ago
cortez


R70965
5 years ago
cortez

No comments:

Post a Comment

Archived GNN Threads